Environmental Review

Because the Commission must issue a discretionary decision without which PG&E's power line relocation cannot proceed, CEQA requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences before acting upon or approving the project.³ The Commission must act as either a Lead or Responsible Agency under CEQA. The Lead Agency is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.⁴ Here, PG&E's power line relocation is part of the much larger Montanera Project for which environmental review has been completed.⁵ The City of Orinda is the lead agency under CEQA for Montanera Project; the Commission is a Responsible Agency.

As a Responsible Agency, the Commission must consider the Lead Agency's environmental documents and findings before acting upon or approving the project.⁶ The specific activities that must be conducted by a Responsible Agency are contained in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15096. As further described below, the City of Orinda has completed its environmental review under CEQA, prepared the required Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and approved the Montanera Project.

The scope and details of the Montanera Project have changed several times over the years since it was first proposed, and with them the power line relocation component. The original Montanera Project was the subject of a 1992 Final EIR, a 1994 Final EIR Addendum, and a 1998 Supplemental EIR. For the current version of the Montanera Project, the City of Orinda prepared a Second Supplemental EIR (SSEIR) in 2004, incorporating the earlier documents by reference. The Draft SSEIR was distributed October 25, 2004 to the State Clearinghouse,⁷ various local, state, regional and federal districts and agencies, property owners, interested groups and the public at large for a 45-day public comment period that closed on December 9, 2004. The City released the Final SSEIR in January 2005.

On February 15, 2005, the Orinda City Council certified the SSEIR and adopted a statement of findings and facts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Second Supplemental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for Montanera Project.⁸ The City gave the Montanera Project its final approval on March 15, 2005 and filed its Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse the following day.⁹ The City's Notice of Determination made the following determinations: (1) The project will have a significant effect on the environment; (2) an EIR was prepared for the project pursuant to CEQA; (3) mitigation measures were made a condition of project approval; (4) a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the project; and (5) findings were made pursuant to CEQA.

We have reviewed the City's environmental documents, including the SSEIR, and find them adequate for our decision-making purposes. We limit our consideration here to the 115 kV power line relocation component of the project over which we exercise discretionary approval.

The SSEIR evaluated eight alternative power line routes, including the existing corridor, with emphasis on identifying the environmental impacts and construction feasibility. It describes the environmental setting and potential impacts, and offers a set of mitigation measures intended to reduce those impacts to below the level of significance where possible. The power line study identified impacts related to aquatic habitats, oak/bay forest and coyote scrub habitats, birds, and visual aspects. We summarize each below.

Potential aquatic habitat impacts relate to construction activities within, and substantial modification to, the bed, channel and banks of natural stream channels. The re-routed transmission line will cross a number of east-west running perennial and intermittent streams and has the potential of disturbing sensitive creek habitats. Construction activities may therefore fall within the stream bed regulatory jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game. To mitigate the potential impacts to less-than-significant levels, the City will implement mitigation measures including consulting with Fish and Game and, if necessary, acquiring a Fish and Game Code Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement, and application of the measures described in the Stormwater Management Plan. These latter measures are the result of consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Potential impacts to non-riparian oak/bay forest and coyote scrub habitat include selective tree and scrub removal during construction and as part of ongoing project maintenance. The previous Supplemental EIR contains mitigation to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. No additional mitigations were deemed necessary in the later SSEIR.

Potential bird impacts include bird collision and electrocution conditions that exist with all electrical transmission tower lines. The SSEIR found that the relocation of the power line would cause no significant new impact or substantial increase in severity of the existing impact. No new supplemental mitigation measures beyond those already incorporated into the current PG&E power line structure design standards is required. The potential impact will be less than significant.

The City's Findings, Facts in Support of Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations¹⁰ contains statements pertaining to these impacts and mitigation measures, and findings for each impact, and categorizes each impact as being less than significant after mitigation. In contrast, the City found that visual mitigation measures would not fully reduce the relocated power lines' visual impacts to less-than-significant levels for those individuals viewing the hillside locations where the towers are to be located. While the visual impacts could be reduced by mitigation measures, they could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and thus would remain significant and unavoidable.

In the end, the City approved the Montanera Project after determining that its benefits will outweigh its unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts, including the visual effects of PG&E's relocated power lines. In arriving at that conclusion, the City cited as benefits constituting an overriding consideration: (1) balanced development of the Gateway Valley as a residential development while preserving significant amounts of open space in perpetuity; (2) substantial, increased recreational opportunities (parks, an expanded trails system, and community playfields) for residents of Orinda and the surrounding region; (3) an Art and Garden Center that will offer educational, social and recreational opportunities; (4) aesthetically sensitive grading that conforms to the natural contours, ensures safety and preserves trees and other vegetation to the greatest practical extent; and (5) preservation of the City's historic structures and sites, unique trees, and landforms.

After reviewing the SSEIR and mitigation plan, we find that with respect to those issues within the scope of our permitting process, the City of Orinda adopted mitigation measures intended to reduce the project's significant environmental impacts to less-than-significant levels where it was feasible to do so. We will adopt the City's findings and mitigations for our purposes here.

We find the City in its Statement of Overriding Considerations enumerated several significant benefits associated with the proposed project that appear to reasonably justify approval despite certain significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, we accept and adopt the findings of the City's Statement of Overriding Considerations.

We conclude that granting PG&E a permit to construct for its proposed Gateway Valley 115 kV Power Line Relocation Project is in the public interest and the application should be approved.