The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013/10/01 Item 11 Presentation - StaffCITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. City Council Meeting South Bay Substation October 1, 2013 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Presentation Outline • Overview • Process, History and Status • Issues that have been raised • Staff recommendation 4 1 Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan Illustrative Ell Locally-Approved Land Use Plan by City of Chula Vista and Port of San Diego ■ CITY OF CHULA VISTA Development S Department awM1 .................. .............t..... Overview • Critical to implementation of Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan • Important next step after decommissioning and demolition of power plant • Transmission and distribution facilities needed to meet local /regional demands CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department .................. .............t..... CITY OF CHULA VISTA Services Deve pmerit Department . ............. ..... CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. hand Swap • Land swap approved by Port in January 2010 •Approved by State Lands Commission in April 2010 CITY OF CHULA VISTA �,,jc7154 �'ti + 1'i kiln A."i t•dl '' I �i1f1�4.4` �i144�'L'b l IrJrf,�l��ll��rd 1:'cl�IznL; 4�,tz�hk:vti its ?I�aulfl7u Services _Deve pmerit Dpl)artment �. ......... ............................... SO -Lath B -ay LII)S LAtiuil Reloca on F'aojrjct Existing - . -..I & 2 KkV Facilities �w��IrrtrAt�r Ri��t Bay Blvd 1 -5 J_l 'lf+l l t1ft "N1 ;Merl Poir �;ter.1 i.'aridr KA V Wcwd Cable Pair Rridg:r.7rri -lim r UiiiiiLee Sleet "1 bwer O'rfrbMd 131kv l.inr Overhead 2 kV Lime $1i'llUlatiOn Ate View LirtecD(ili N�f s: 1 Frji' jlrSli IA" t:nh ,.;PWS !r °ihy 2. Orilk rvGlt,-CdJ IM273DW fixilAwn over Cd ard moggIC� tar �L� 6.L ago *;hc -n l6 9W nix Shown vlg 111t% Acichi 3 Thi+ %kML b nrld a� rdW Jw„ulA it*ft Leo nol f+t4eti 4. Nero lo c-aIU MOM J_l 'lf+l l t1ft "N1 ;Merl Poir �;ter.1 i.'aridr KA V Wcwd Cable Pair Rridg:r.7rri -lim r UiiiiiLee Sleet "1 bwer O'rfrbMd 131kv l.inr Overhead 2 kV Lime $1i'llUlatiOn Ate View LirtecD(ili N�f s: 1 Frji' jlrSli IA" t:nh ,.;PWS !r °ihy 2. Orilk rvGlt,-CdJ IM273DW fixilAwn over Cd ard moggIC� tar �L� 6.L ago *;hc -n l6 9W nix Shown vlg 111t% Acichi 3 Thi+ %kML b nrld a� rdW Jw„ulA it*ft Leo nol f+t4eti 4. Nero lo c-aIU �Iwl - - -ry v, ME ii; 1 � dr- m go" { i OW OF CHULA VISTA w. _Develop merit Services Department ............................... Proposed Project • CPUC Proposed Decision: • "5.1 Proposed Project • The Proposed Project includes the following five components: • 1. Construction of the Bay Boulevard Substation, a new, approximately 9.7 -acre 230/69/12 W substation and related fixtures, facilities and equipment, on a 12.42 -acre parcel; • 2. Construction of a 230 W transmission line, of which approximately 1,000 feet would be underground and approximately 300 feet would be overhead, to interconnect the existing 230 W transmission line and associated communication cables to the Bay Boulevard Substation; • 1 Relocation of six 69 W overhead transmission lines and associated communication cables to the new Bay Boulevard Substation, requiring the relocation of approximately 7,500 feet of overhead line and the construction of approximately 4,100 feet of underground line; • 4. Connection of three existing 138 W lines via an approximately 3,800- foot -long underground duct bank and an approximately 200 - foot -long overhead span from one new steel cable riser pole to an existing steel lattice structure, forming the Grant Hill- Telegraph Canyon 138 W line; and • 5. Demolition of the existing 7.22 -acre, 138/69 W South Bay Substation and related fixtures, facilities and equipment." CITY OF CHULA VISTA South Bay Substation Relocation Project P ropase.a Frrc.ie --1 Ai° I ns LI Iated Substation a, Ba y & v0 Proposed Rel oc a-tion S Ite) Vii: I F'4 911141rHliyl puiplSi!'} un PO Z Orly 313=t Nkb r*r�arlrrY by GD;AE nre xhowfr tiEgk'V nrr ,town isi'r.. lh�* Skerrh; j 711n !AeMl �"J anw&kLd wlulat on do ntJ rnCrd lh-p I „IhioWg r:a Kfni” X11 1T)Q twill U011011 Wd I ,rak fxl3urtg Simh.bty Subww'1 0 McrmowCM LA SWMtWRWF Inver :Neu tom' RIA SahSlnrlill'. �G T„ 11 *446 -_... Bey Blvd VAN! "I I MW 1111 f1 ropose d '-kaL'-� J ,I', ' Ike , , 2 L,. 1" • UrWergioand TU 3615 E%len n • LJmfergoouiwl TL 23147 E4wrti,ar1 • Rolro6.7dliA of fiwAYChy ii' ' • lreumll 1 - 1 aky RIpel a i Pnln ! 1 - 2W] V 510q] Pnki 151le1 lrrall� Itr ulg,f ��ri•I 1 u+*�~r I..arLMr Sled Iuwer 0% rrhe.0 1 3A•I, N L.inr - L 15 rI hr'0 :,}ILI. k I Ills' Area I>— vpoyd 01fachorl xt .1 MAW i a- ~ � WA '-__--______--_____-_--_-________' _--'_ .'' _w CITY OF �ervices Development CHULA VISTA Department ... ................ CPUC /CCC Permit Process CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Jurisdiction on Coastal and Construction Permits CM OF CHULA VISTA r Develop merit Services ....... Department .................................... i Post LCP Certification ''- Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction CRY of C Pia Vista Appeal Jurrsd,�ct,on TVI -,9 M1ne..oe on300' Ir ��a w,n.� aoo o, w enrg ee.wa e raro or Permit Jurisdiction anu im�a: Nnea me pw� der J -- Appeal Jurisdi ctron(P R 6.30613) this t de 1 -d wl th U Cp pn has d legatetl o iginal permit ]d tl t p to the local goverrenent fnr rs potentially subject to the public e et but ,hin are det.71 o'd by the 'an to be fi lied, developed, and` cprt�mit5ed tp urban uses, l \�► California Coastal Commission CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Scoping Meeting CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ......... .............t,.... Staff review nf prof -pct • City Comment letter to CPUC of 8/15/11 • "Land Use Consistency - The proposed project and any associated impacts should be reviewed for consistency with the City of Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and Local Coastal Program." • "Visual screening /landscaping - The visual impact from the substation infrastructure components, such as lattice towers, power poles, transmission lines, etc are significant, including a proposed tower which has an approximate height of 70 -feet. The proposed communications tower is proposed to be almost twice as high as the permitted height of 44 feet within the industrial district. The project should include a landscape plan, prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect that includes a combination of screening solutions, such as landscaping materials of various types and solid walls." Deveh )p meat Services t �� Department ......, .........................t..... • " Undergrounding of Transmission Lines - An agreement between the City of Chula Vista and SDG &E, and supporting resolutions adopted by the Port District, call for the removal and /or undergrounding of utility poles and transmission lines related to the proposed project. This agreement includes both specific and general commitments regarding undergrounding, including the following from Section 1.7 of the MOU between the City and SDG &E dated October 12, 2004: "SDG &E will work with the City to minimize overhead structures once the location of the new switchyard is determined." The City's continuing interest and emphasis on implementing the substation relocation project in a manner that minimizes negative visual and wildlife impacts is perhaps best reflected in the City Council's May 11, 2010 project support letter to SDG &E. The most pertinent excerpt reads as follows: "The City appreciates SDG &E and the San Diego Unified Port District's cooperation in moving forward another component of the SDG &E /City MOU, the development of a new, smaller and lower profile substation at the southern edge of the existing South Bay Power Plant (SBPP) site. The construction of a new substation with adequate buffer and screening, including solid walls, the removal of the remaining utility poles and enhanced landscaping softening, will allow the proposed facility to co -exist in harmony with the adjacent wildlife habitat and conform with the high expectations established by the Bay Front Master Plan that the community has invested so much in bringing to fruition over this past decade. We strongly encourage SDG &E to work with the City and Port to incorporate the screening and removal of the remaining wooden utility and transmission poles and undergrounding from I Street to the Substation in its application to the CPUC if CITY OF CHULA VISTA ,a Develop merit Services artmen ,,,...,,..., ....t,,....,..,,.... CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Discussions with qDG&E • Removal of tower 701 • Comparison of proposed project and additional undergrounding requested by City i =�` ' � �� 1 � ��! -_ �. ,, -- � r� ,� �/, �. ILI' -,& , 1.16 1 MM ri --------------- A E� �� r OW OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ............................... SDG &E submits Rr'FA Alternative • Bayfront Enhancement Fund Alternative submitted to CPUC • Enhancements include: 1. Visual Enhancements ($2.5 million of the $5 million Enhancement Plan fund) a. Removal of two, approximately 110 -foot tall 138 kV steel lattice towers (one tower is located west of Bay Boulevard and one tower is located within an existing parking lot located east of Bay Boulevard); b. Installation of one 138 kV 165 -foot tall steel cable pole in SDG &E's right -of -way within a parking lot located east of Bay Boulevard to facilitate undergrounding (see c. below); c. Undergrounding of between 700 to 1,000 feet of 138 kV double- circuit duct package from the west side of Bay Boulevard to the proposed new cable pole within the existing 138 kV overhead alignment. 2. Endowment Funding ($2.5 million of the $5 million Enhancement Plan fund) a. $2 million to existing endowment or similar funding mechanism for the Living Coast Discovery Center; b. $500,000 contributed toward the continued management of the Salt Works Property (money paid to Friends of the San Diego Wildlife Refuge endowment or similar mechanism). CITY OF CHULA VISTA Deveh Services ) merit Dpl)artment �. ......... ............................... South) Bity Substation Relocatiopi Project Proposed Prcect Air Insu laded Substation at Ba V 81-vd ( P'ropceed Rel"r ion 'Rite) With Baiyfr€ nt ErLhanmment Fund -- i 38kV Tower Removed $weO walaa Krug nmDU:: � # I �':�r alrl�la�n,�e �u�lnl5r:a LIn 2 Orly i }v5F h�aGi rpriarlrrY by D S.howr ti1!9kV nr Ih-* ,kerCh: 3 TW5 !Arid'- �pqJ srnlmlabon do rrr li-e I'Aflowil kfW I.7e Larrlllquiall0 4 W to scale Ulkcmc*vel New Bey BIA Su tm eay Blvd l 1•i Uoy't 1 E ilh8r) :ef )e.rcl y WkV SS. GOP e • uil*a:lwswlnl TL 13415 Ezierl:2an I�xlUrinrrah • 10mull 1 - 13$kV alee°lcdu1r Pule SIM Pale Soo I ahlr Pa de 3,% WA C Rine ptwlp, IBridgr tiq l ,In %tr 1.allu^r 'SkLrl lvmrr 1hCfllrld 1 SNOk 1 MV 11% um lla'dl1 :: 1!0 1 II`r Simulation Area Yi!'w D9V -AiV-1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA - ;4m Develop meat Services Department . ........................................ Proposed, Prof eit Air I urated Su bstator -.,I Say Rvil (Proposed Reloczatan Sil�) CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop meat Services Department ........................................ Proposed PFoj a ct Ak Insu I ated° .Sub statiD n W P a -y Bi °,! d r Proposed Wti Bayard Enhancement Fur - I' EkV Toter Removed , on CITY OF CHULA VISTA Development S Department ......... .............t,.... CPUC issues DEIR •Identifies No Project or build in place as environmentally superior project • Not bound by local land use policies, regulations or discretionary permits • Removed Project Objective CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. CPUC not subject to local land use authority • DER ES -32: "While the No Project Alternative would not further the redevelopment goals envisioned in the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP), pursuant to General Order No. 131 -D, the CPUC has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and design of the Proposed Project. Consequently, the No Project Alternative would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations of any agency with jurisdiction over the project." 0 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ......... .............t,.... CPUC eliminates project objective DEIR ES -1: "As described in Section A.2.2, Statement of Objectives, in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SDG &E's PEA lists the following basic objectives for the Proposed Project: 1. Replace aging and obsolete substation equipment 2. Design a flexible transmission system that would accommodate regional energy needs subsequent to the retirement of the South Bay Power Plant (SBPP) 3. Facilitate the City's Bayfront redevelopment goals by relocating the South Bay Substation and furthering the goals of the SDG &E —City of Chula Vista Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 4. Provide for future transmission and distribution load growth for the South Bay region. Having taken into consideration the four project objectives set forth by SDG &E above, the CPUC identified the following three basic project objectives used to screen alternatives: 1. Replace aging and obsolete substation equipment 2. Accommodate regional energy needs subsequent to the retirement of the SBPP 3. Provide for future transmission and distribution load growth for the South Bay region. CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Prioritizatio, nf Goals 1. Substation relocation 2. BEFA (Bayfront Enhancement Fund Alternative) CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Comments provided on DEIR Excerpts from City and Inland Industries comments • Comparison of Proposed Project and additional undergrounding requested by Inland Industries OW OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ............................... City's comments to DEIR • Pg 2: "As detailed here, the City opposes the Draft EIR's conclusions given that both the No Project and Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternatives are in direct conflict with the bayfront redevelopment goals shared by the City and the Port. As such, the DER conclusions are also in direct conflict with one of the four original objectives of the Proposed Project. The City's and the Port's bayfront redevelopment objectives are reflected in the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan ( "CVBMP "). Significant elements of the CVBMP are premised upon the relocation of the South Bay Substation. The status of the CVBMP was elevated on August 9, 2012, when the California Coastal Commission ( "CCC "), a state agency, approved it by unanimous vote. As detailed in these comments, the DER fails to adequately address the CVBMP and the approval of such plan by the CCC. In contrast, adoption of either the Proposed Project or the Bayfront Enhancement Fund Alternativel will facilitate the City's plan to improve and revitalize the Chula Vista Bayfront as these projects are consistent with the CVBMP. Although the selection of an environmentally superior alternative is not required here, the City submits that, if done correctly taking into account all of the objectives set forth by SDG &E for the Project, such analysis should find that the Bayfront Enhancement Fund Alternative now detailed by SDG &E is the environmentally superior alternative and should be identified as such in the FEIR. Such alternative meets the objectives of the project, provides additional beneficial impacts, and facilitates the overall improvements for the Chula Vista bayfront." CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ..,,..,,,........I ...................... City's comments to DEIR Pg 3: "The City opposes the DEIR's elimination of the Bayfront Enhancement Fund Alternative from the alternatives considered in the DEIR, notwithstanding that such alternative meets all of the objectives of the Proposed Project, and the inclusion of alternatives, including the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative, which do not meet the basic objectives." Pg 12: "In its comments filed concurrently with these comments, SDG &E has identified more details on the specific enhancements to be included in the Bayfront Enhancement Fund Alternative. With these additional details, the Proposed Project with the Bayfront Enhancement Plan, i.e., the Bayfront Enhancement Fund Alternative, is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because not only does it fully mitigate all environmental impacts, it includes components that provide significant environmental benefits, with no additional significant impacts that cannot readily be mitigated, that no other alternative does. The environmental benefits include: :1 Removal of the five lattice towers that are currently located adjacent to Bay Boulevard. CITY OF CHULA VISTA (Con't) Develop merit Services Department ............................... City's comments on DEIR ":1 Enhanced public access to the bay front through the removal of the old substation and the equipment associated with the substation. :1 Removal of two more lattice towers Z188701 (located adjacent to Bay Boulevard) and Z188700 (located in the parking lot adjacent to 1 -5). Removal of these 110 feet tall towers is proposed in consideration of the location of the project in the Coastal Zone. Removal of the towers will enhance the visual quality of the bay front. In additional, removal of the towers will reduce raptor predation for various species in the adjacent San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge areas and the Salt Ponds. :1 Undergrounding of approximately 3,800 feet of existing overhead 138kV lines. :1 Net reduction of approximately eight 69kV wood poles. :1 Additional undergrounding of an additional 700 to 1000 feet of existing 138 kV overhead transmission lines. :1 Extensive comprehensive restoration and monitoring of low quality wetlands within the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge. :1 Endowment funding towards the continuing operation of the Living Coast Discovery Center. :1 Endowment funding towards the on -going management of the Salt Works property." CITY OF CHULA VISTA r Devel Department ......... ............................... Inland Industries' comments to DEIR Pg 1: 1. THE PROJECT IS NOT NECESSARY Pg 2: Based on a letter from SDG &E Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Davis Smith the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative "is technologically feasible and would achieve most of the other identified objectives of the Project (replacing aging and obsolete infrastructure, designing a flexible transmission system that can accommodate regional energy needs in the absence of the South Bay Power Plant and providing for future growth for the South Bay Region)." See EXHIBIT 2 accompanying this letter, The Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative is a feasible alternative with less environmental impacts as compared to the Proposed Project. When and if a need arises, and given the smaller footprint (4.4 acres), the Gas Insulated Substation Technology ( "GIS ") Alternative should be selected to minimize the impact of a rebuilt 230 IN substation on the other proposed uses contemplated in the Chula Vista Bay Front Master Plan ( "CVBMP ") adjacent to the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative Pg 4: Additionally, given that the DEIR did not consider or examine the fiill range of land use designation for the entire CVBMP, but instead only looked at a particular smaller portion, it slid not take into consideration whether commercial, recreation, or residential land uses such as the RV Park could be accommodated elsewhere, As such, the DE.IR's Inland Industries' comments to DEIR Pg 7: The Scoping Memorandum for the Pre - hearing Conference identifies and references the Proposed Project as consisting of certain major components which include "Construction of a 230 kV loop -in and approximately 1000 - foot -long underground interconnection and approximately 300 foot long overhead interconnection of the existing 230 kV tie -line, located east of proposed Bay Boulevard substation." The maps associated with the Proposed Project would appear to indicate two new 230 kV lines going overhead into the southeastern end of the Proposed Project. These same 230 kV lines are shown as underground at the north end of the Proposed Project with no explanation as to why the Proposed Project does not underground the 230 IN lines both at the southeastern end and at the north end. Table D.10 -3 of the DEIR makes a brief reference, not included elsewhere in the DEIR, to the Chula Vista LCP which requires high voltage electric lines, including 230 kV lines, to be placed iwdcrground. (DEIR, p, D.10 -30). LCP Policy A.FA7 in Section 111 C2 states "High voltage (230 KV) transmission lines shall be placed below ground." Since the Proposed Project is in a coastal zone, the DEIR should address the 300 feet of 230 kV lines shown to be above ground and explain why the Proposed Project shows these lines as above ground, Alternatively, these lines should be undergrounded to be consistent with the LCP and to mitigate the potentially significant visual impacts of the Proposed Project, Pg 8: If the Commission determines there to be sufficient need for the Proposed Project, it should therefore approve the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative rather than the Proposed Project. CITY OF CHULA VISTA r Develop merit Services Department ............ .... ................ Inland Industries' comments to DER Pg 11 (referrina to Broadwav & Palomar site Alternative): The Commission should consider this site as another Enviromnentalty Superior Alternative and adopt it or the other Envirom- entally Superior Alternatives (the No Project Alternative, and the Existing Substation Alternative) instead of the Proposed Project.. CITY OF CHULA VISTA �� - -_ CITY OF CHULA VISTA _.a Develop merit Services Department .................................... CITY OF CHULA VISTA South Bay Sub%tation Relocation ProjFLf-t. — 23OkV Scope ReqLje!5tpd Famcorn Pr�posed Prc)lp-.t Air Ale;J at l,ry i3lv:l NL'4 il.% 414d Sllb � , .14000 Wt�� Enhanoemem Fugd ,. 13.8;,�V Tovyer Removed I m l le, k,p orl..� ol Bay Blvd 1-5 m 4 " fii,11 31 H i p 1-- i•d -- dh bijd -1111 230kl No" '%I.L-el 4 'Aple Polp * 2 c New Mrd Pole 4 1315kV Nero SLvrt UWAr Pok, • 1304V 1,,4'11 11 -r '11irri III IPM C. 1 19 Ot erhewd 230k%' L-int 1% -trkA 131 V SAFie $nrnulafian Puma �> o. ,w Dir6thdri 1)3 M4PM sumtlwo Notes: I Foi dkjyjjlL;111riJb VLCI)OWS zjrJk ,2 Only 0%,emoad I,1&,2, 4k1J Iorjificl* :), rM aria .3watt-d typ SCGAE tir-P %hr,%mn �,Ogkv iint3hijYm an Lhmsk&1=h: 3 TK%:;ki;vh and Anrmdah:d kmilafor,ri Ar• rial We fAil-Ae Irmwirviiuri Ire curNmarlm, A Mr,, In ; r.3 le CITY OF CHULA VISTA I �`a Development Services Department ......... .............................. South Bay substation Reloc".1,70on P Prnpased Projef7l, Am, Imkila�p.d. $kit)slalion at 1propoged Rfdocallran $iqe� 11 14 Pr ose-i Proj ect AAr Insu I ated, .Sub statinn at 8 a Blvri i Proposed Relocabon WO Ba or t Enhancement Fund - `1 j T-Dwer Removed w -d CITY OF CHULA VISTA L.J pment Services Develo L, CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Filings and Testimony CITY OF CHULA VISTA t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Devel Department .................. .............t..... t ri UC issues FE:IR • Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative (build in place) no longer environmentally superior to Proposed Project enabling CPUC decision for either alternative • FEIR responds to comments CM OF CHULA VISTA • Pg 2 -12: Develop merit Services Department ......... .............t,.... FEIR addresses land use impact at existing site "The determination in the Draft EIR that the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative was the environmentally superior alternative was based on its ability to reduce project - related impacts to wetlands while not resulting in more overall impacts than the Proposed Project. As discussed in common response ALT2, the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative has now been determined to create a significant land use impact since it would conflict with an applicable land use plan as approved by the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, given the comprehensive nature of the alternatives analysis, CPUC has determined in the Final EIR that besides the No Project Alternative, there is no other clear alternative among the alternatives considered in the EIR, including the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative, that avoids or substantially reduces identified adverse effects of the Proposed Project without creating a significant effect in addition to those that would be caused by the Proposed Project." CM OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ......... .............t,.... F F I R addresses deletion of Project Objective • Pg 2 -8: "SDG &E Project Objective — Facilitate the City's bayfront redevelopment goals by relocating the South Bay Substation: The CPUC determined that elimination of an alternative based on not meeting SDG &E's project objective of relocating the South Bay Substation would limit the objectives of a project in such a way as to effectively confine the range of alternatives that are available to the Proposed Project site, thereby eliminating the consideration of alternative sites for the project. Therefore, for purposes of presenting and evaluating a reasonable range of alternatives in the EIR and responding to public scoping comments received that requested the consideration of alternative locations to minimize impacts to visual resources, land use, and biological resources, this project objective was not considered in screening of alternatives." OW OF CH LA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ............................... FEIR addresses why BEFA was not further evaluated • Pg 2 -10: "After review of the submitted comments, CPUC has determined that the EIR provides a range of reasonable alternatives as defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6. As previously discussed, the comparison of alternatives evaluated in the EIR is based on whether the alternative would eliminate or reduce significant effects of the Proposed Project and does not consider the benefits of any alternative beyond its ability to reduce or avoid significant effects of the project. Therefore, since the Bayfront Enhancement Alternative would not reduce or avoid significant effects of the project, the CPUC has determined that analysis of the Bayfront Enhancement Alternative would not provide more meaningful data about ways to lessen or avoid project impacts deemed significant and therefore was not carried forward for further evaluation in the Final EIR." �r Develop meat Services 14544 i� e. CITY OF Department CHU ai LA VI T ........I......... .. ............t..... ":7PIR addresses Palomar and Broadway Alternative "The Draft EIR, Section D, Environmental Analysis, thoroughly evaluates the Broadway /Palomar Alternative for all issue areas and in Section E compares those impacts with the Proposed Project. As discussed in Section E, the Broadway and Palomar Site Alternative — Gas Insulated Substation Alternative is preferred over the Proposed Project for potential impacts to biological resources. The resulting aesthetic environment that would result with constructing a substation at this alternative site location would be greater than those identified under the Proposed Project. The Broadway and Palomar Site — Gas Insulated Substation Alternative would result in greater visual impacts when compared to the Proposed Project because it would alter the existing character of the site to include additional industrial components and would be in close proximity to commercial and residential uses. As stated in Section D.2.4.5.2, unlike the Proposed Project the Broadway and Palomar Site — Gas Insulated Substation Alternative would construct and operate an industrial electrical substation where facilities of similar scale and nature do not currently exist. And although the presence of overhead transmission structures contribute to the existing character of the area, the site remains largely vacant, and development of a substation would alter the character of the site to entirely industrial (see Section D.2.4.5.2 for additional detail). Given the greater aesthetic impacts anticipated to result from this alternative, the Proposed Project is environmentally preferred from an aesthetics perspective as the proposed site is industrial and contains similar facilities similar to those of the electrical substation." CITY OF CHULA VISTA -Develop merit Services ........ ... Departmen.t ..... I ................... . 4LJ releases Proposed Decision • Refutes FEIR mitigation measure for land use impact • Identifies Proposed Project as the environmentally superior alternative • Does not support BEFA • Grants construction permit for the Proposed Project CM OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ......... .............t,.... Excerpts from Proposed Decision • Section 7, pg 16: "Because the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative has a land use impact that cannot be mitigated by Mitigation Measure L -3 (see Part 6.5, above), while all of the Proposed Project's significant impacts can be avoided or mitigated to less than significant, we disagree with the EIR's determination that the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to, and the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative ranks equally with, the Proposed Project." Development S Department ............................... • Section 8, pg 18: "Inland Industries asserts that the EIR incorrectly concludes that the Proposed Project will have less than significant impacts on aesthetics and land use because it is inconsistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act and implementing regulations, it violates the local coastal plan, and it is inconsistent with a memorandum of understanding between SDG &E and the City of Chula Vista requiring SDG &E to underground any additional electric lines. To the contrary, the EIR considered these matters in its consistency analysis (see Exhibit A, Section D.2.2) and provides sufficient explanation for its determination that the Proposed Project does not substantially impact aesthetics and land use and planning. Furthermore, Inland Industries raised these assertions in its comments on the draft EIR, and the final EIR appropriately summarizes and responds to them. (See Exhibit B, at 3 -108 through 3 -113.) We reiterate CEQA Guideline § 15151 which states in part, "Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts." • Section 8, pg 19: "Although it recognizes that the Proposed Project does not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the City of Chula Vista urges the Commission to consider additional enhancements to the Proposed Project's environmental impacts. We decline to do so, as such further enhancements are not necessary to reduce the Proposed Project's impacts to less than significant. CEQA provides that a mitigation measure should minimize a project's significant adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1), emphasis added) and that mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not significant (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(3))." C°HU-A � 51A • Section 9, pg 20: Develop merit Services Department ............................... "Inland Industries contends that the Proposed Project should be rejected for being inconsistent with community values and fundamental fairness, unless the Commission requires, as additional mitigation, the undergrounding of 300 feet of new 230 kV transmission line to eliminate and reduce the project's visual and aesthetic impacts. Otherwise, Inland contends, the Proposed Project will deprive the residents of southern Chula Vista bayfront of the enjoyment of public access to bayfront amenities, and deprive the lower- income communities of southern Chula Vista of the benefits of the Chula Vista bayfront redevelopment even as it confers those benefits on the communities of northern Chula Vista. We reject Inland Industries' contention and proposal for two reasons." "First, while community values are an important and necessary consideration in selecting among project alternatives (see, e.g., Application of SCE for CPCN for Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (2009) D.09 -12 -044 at 47), they are not a basis for imposing conditions that are not required to mitigate the project's environmental impacts. To the contrary, if the Proposed Project's impact on community values renders it infeasible, the remedy is to select another alternative. As discussed previously, the Proposed Project's visual and aesthetic impacts are less than significant; they do not give cause to either reject the Proposed Project or to condition it on measures to mitigate them." CHU-A � x_51 Development S _ Department rvi .................. ................... (Con't) "Second, as between Inland Industries, whose participation in this proceeding is premised on its interest as the owner of land parcels adjacent to the Proposed Project that, according to Inland Industries, are ideally suited for redevelopment and will be negatively impacted by the Proposed Project,5 and the City of Chula Vista and the Port District, who participated with numerous other federal, state and local agencies and environmental and civic organizations to develop the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan, we find that the City of Chula Vista and the Port District better represent the values and interests of the Chula Vista community. These parties have expressed their support for the Proposed Project, even in the absence of additional measures that would enhance its aesthetics. As the Proposed Project does not conflict with the expressed values of the parties who best represent the Chula Vista community, we find that it is not infeasible for reasons of community values." CITY OF CHULA VISTA -Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Next process steps • CPUC decision scheduled for 10/3 • Future Coastal Development Permit, application submitted by SDG &E to CCC CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services ........ ... Departmen.t .. Issues raised leading to public meeting. • Conformance with City /SDG &E MOU • Draft LCP 2010 vs Adopted LCP 2012 • Impacts to Southwest Chula Vista • Delegation of CDP to CCC • Design of substation • 44' height limit • Audit of use of 20A funds for 138kV undergrounding CITY OF CHULA VISTA -Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Conformance with MOU • Disagreement amongst parties • Proposed Project with BEFA CITY OF CHULA VISTA �--A- Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. LCP 2010 vs. adopted LCP • Comparison of text • CPUC addressed consistency with LCP in FEIR IL : ti April 2010 Land Use Plan �elopment Services Department ......... ............................... Policy A.FA7 High - voltage (230kV) transmission lines shall be placed below ground. Policy A.FA8 New development within the LCP Planning Area shall include the placement of new utility lines below ground. September 2012 Land Use Plan Objective GD.2 Utilities serving the bayfront shall be undergrounded. Policy: GD.2.A The City will require undergrounding of utilities on private property and develop a priority based program of utility undergrounding along public ROWs. CM OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ......... .............t,.... F FIR on ( r consistency • (F1 -10): "Figures B -3 and B -3a depict an existing 230 kV steel pole structure located southeast of the proposed substation yards that would remain in place with implementation of the Proposed Project. This structure is existing and receives TL23042 prior to the transmission line turning north and proceeding to the existing OMPL steel cable pole riser, which would be removed with implementation of the Proposed Project. The two referenced overhead transmission lines are part of the existing infrastructure strung on existing transmission structures in the area. With implementation of the Proposed Project, the existing overhead 230 kV transmission line would be rerouted into the proposed Bay Boulevard Substation as indicated on Figures B -3 and B -3a and as discussed in Section B.4.3." • (F1 -11): "Section D.10, Land Use and Planning, discusses the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP) since it is a relevant planning document for the project area. As indicated in Section D.10 (see the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program — Land Use Plan discussion in Table D.10- 3), the Proposed Project does not propose the installation of new transmission lines. Rather, the project would relocate transmission lines and structures to interconnect with the proposed Bay Boulevard Substation (as opposed to the existing South Bay Substation). Portions of the project transmission line improvements, including an existing 230 kV line, would be placed belowground." CITY OF CHULA VISTA Devel Departnient .................. .............t..... Impacts to Southwest Chula Vista • Entire project in Southwest Chula Vista • Undergrounding and removal of towers • Future public park and RV park • Moves industrial use off of property designated for recreational use and into an area designated and zoned industrial • CPUC states that Proposed Project will not have significant impacts to public views ! � �, i i � ". � � —' i i �I e �� ... .`�� . \ rte.. ....�+ a. � � �� . CITY OF -HULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ..,,..,,,........I ...................... FEIR on visual impacts (F1 -55): "The Draft EIR does not consider land uses such as Industrial — Research and Development (I -R) and Industrial — General (1) to be visually sensitive to change. The businesses referenced by the commenter are all assumed to operate indoors and would therefore not carry the same level of sensitivity to changes in the existing landscape as would outdoor areas such as parks and natural areas or facilities containing scenic designations such as designated scenic roads and other areas listed in Section D.2.1." (F1 -57): "Views from existing buildings are not represented by a KOP in the Draft EIR since such views are considered private and are experienced by a relatively small volume of users. Regarding view corridors, as stated in Section D.2, the Proposed Project would install, remove, and replace transmission structures similar in nature to existing structures located in the project area; therefore, visual impacts were determined to be less than significant." (KOP = Key Observation Points) * I' �uY rod. iii yy 411: 1 "AA— "v It 4 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DevpmentServices Department .................. .............t..... Delegate GAP authority to CCC • Avoids duplication of process • CPUC not bound by local IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII discretionary permit • Conditions of CCC issued CDP will have greater chance of being included in CPUC construction permit 0 �r Develop meat Services 14544 i� e. CITY OF Department CHU ai LA VI T ........, ...................... FEIR addresses regulatory jurisdiction Pg 2 -13: "The Draft EIR concludes in Impact LU -3 that because CPUC has sole jurisdiction over the project and alternatives, off -site alternatives would not be subject to local land use plans, zoning regulations, and discretionary permitting, and therefore would not conflict with any applicable plans or regulations of any agency with jurisdiction over the Proposed Project, and determined that no impact would occur under Land Use Impact LU -3. The CPUC has subsequently determined that approval of the PMP by the California Coastal Commission on August 9, 2012, subsequent to release of the Draft EIR, results in the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative not being consistent with the coastal act policies embodied in the PMP as approved by the California Coastal Commission (Impact LU -3). As a result, Section D.10, Land Use, and Section E, Comparison of Alternatives (Air Insulated Substation configuration), have been modified in the Final EIR to reflect that the Existing South Bay Substation Site Alternative has now been determined under Impact LU -3 to create a significant land use impact (class II). As discussed under common response ALT1, this determination also alters the EIR findings on the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As further discussed in common response GEN2, this new information included in the Final EIR does not relate to substantial adverse effects of the Proposed Project or feasible ways to mitigate or avoid such an effect." Design issues • Is this state of the art, lower profile? CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. Height limit • 44' by underlying zone • 19.16.040 Height limitations — Exemptions from applicability designated. Height limitations stipulated in this title shall not apply: A. To church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes, monuments, electric generating stations and liquefied natural gas tanks, water towers, fire and hose towers, observation towers, distribution and transmission towers, lines and poles, windmills, chimneys, smokestacks, flag poles, radio towers, masts and aerials, or to parapet walls extending not more than four feet above the limiting height of the building; CM OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services Department ......... .............t,.... F R addresses height limit Pg. ES -11: "Visual Environment - Several comments received raised concern over potential impacts to visual resources associated with the proposed Bay Boulevard Substation and associated transmission interconnections. Commenters raised concern that, given the proximity to existing structures and the planned redevelopment efforts associated with the CVBMP, the Proposed Project would not be compatible with the existing and future visual environment. The City stated that the proposed telecommunications tower at 75 feet is inconsistent with the zoning height limit of 44 feet. The City also requested that a landscape plan be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to include a combination of screening solutions, such as landscaping materials of various types and solid walls. The City also stated that efforts are ongoing with the San Diego Unified Port District (Port District) and SDG &E regarding supporting resolutions that call for the removal and /or undergrounding of utility poles and transmission lines related to the Proposed Project." Deveh )p meat Services W` �� _ ......, .........................t..... • "ES.7.7 Reduced Communications Tower Height Alternative Description: This alternative would reduce the height of the communications tower, which is proposed by SDG &E to be 75 feet tall. The Reduced Communications Tower Height Alternative would include a communication tower with a height of approximately 44 feet, which is the permitted height of structures within the industrial district where the Proposed Project site is located. Rationale for Elimination: The reduced tower height would not be technically feasible because a height of 75 feet is proposed to provide adequate vertical clearance for uninterrupted communications. The communications tower needs to be approximately 75 feet tall to provide communication clearance above the 55- foot -tall A -frame structures. A height of 75 feet will ensure a clear line of sight for communication signals with the existing SDG &E backbone network. A reduced tower height would not be technically feasible because it would result in obstruction for the near -field communication. The telecommunications component is essential to the project reliability because it ensures a reliable transmission system. While this alternative would reduce potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, this alternative was not recommended to be carried forward for full EIR analysis because it does not meet feasibility criteria." CITY OF CHULA VISTA Develop merit Services t I` ........ ,... Department ..............t,.,.. 20A Funds • Audit of use of 20A Funds for undergrounding of 138kV lines on Bayfront CITY OF CHULA VISTA DevpmentServices Department .................. .............t..... Staff recommendation • Continue with previous Council direction to seek inclusion of BEFA in CPUC decision • If BEFA is not included in CPUC decision, work with CCC staff to include BEFA enhancements in Coastal Development Permit CITY OF CHULA VISTA aa Develop meat Services . . ........................................ Department '_ CITY OF CHULA VISTA Development, � Department 9 iltl 1�Ih 16� ........................................ YP*m Arai &NNM" At CITY OF CHULA VISTA Development Services Department ........................................ 9R v 1 'i w' k v a� c iorw 0 CITY OF CHULA VISTA doom o Devel pmentServices Department ........................................ MTCNFn...d prmilgi - - .. . . ....... CITY OF CHULA VISTA t A oa w �ti a . CITY OF CHULA VISTA rmrAAi tEwhb -xfwr ria rem l r* a•rlrN*m 00114"44m Drip f ul ip *uA h " Nrb-WA mm a rkm Ml rm T— ruv k � , Jeff CITY OF CHULA VISTA 44� ARM. Develop merit S v } Department ........................................ m F*drr x v 6aytt*u Erilb&mokirpo"r AfftmMlm Uvwbm"W AIN�64 Mmp 4 cd IP SaAh MoT Subwlwt� NpkmuHm Prmo)"A .. .. ... A7, + CITY OF CHULA VISTA r ,a Development Services Department ........................................ CITY OF CHULA VISTA 11 3�, F A-1!,Fhtmkm ooa&mw AAwmMd map t we 4 RAf S4n-OTW--ln LIP-7VIA—in P,ri)-rr L CITY OF CHULA VISTA Development Services 6AIL-aw Z' � ........................................ Department CITY OF CHULA VISTA Development S Department awM1 .................. .............t..... Environmental Impact Report Process • Notice Preparation - July 13, 2011 • Scoping Meeting -August 1, 2011 • Draft EIR - June 19, 2012 • Public Informational Meeting - July 10, 2012 • Public Comment Extension period — August 2, 2012 • Final EIR publication - April 26, 2013 • ALJ Proposed Decision — August 6, 2013 • Comments on ALJ Proposed decision — August 26, 2013 • Reply from Inland and SDGE — Sept. 3. 2013