The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09111990 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSa�,.------_ o F1124: Harvey E. Bragdon ;: _ Contra} Director of Ccnmunity Development GATE: -September 4 1990 S>A COtITti SUBJE T: Pacific Gas Transmission Company, Natural Gas Pipeline Project SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR .RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Endorse the selection of Alternative 4 for the pipeline route and Alternative C for the compressor station for the PGT/PGE pipeline project. 2 . Forward this recommendation to both the California Public Utilities Commission and to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. FISCAL IMPACT" The construction of -a pipeline through the County will add property taxes. and franchise fees to the County. The pipeline company will fund all improvement costs and there should be no direct County. costs. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The California Public Utilities Commission, as lead agency, has prepared a Draft EIR on the Pacific Gas Transmission Company/ Pacific .Gas and Electric Company's (PGT/PGE) proposed natural gas pipeline project, which would transport "755 million cubic .feet per, day of natural gas :from Canada to- Fresno County, " California. . While the EIR covers three states and one Canadian provence, a substantial . amount of discussion focuses on two controversial locations in California. The . Jepson Prairie Peserve in Solano County and the Brentwood pipeline and compresso station alternatives in Alameda and Contra Costa County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES " SIGNA RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND N OARD COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON // 9 d APPROVED" AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER The Board approved the a ove recommendations, -and as recommended -by Supervisor Torlakson, directed the Community De velopment: Director to meet with Pacific Gas and Electric Company relative to renegotiating fees in the franchise agreement. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ISA ,_UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT ,COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Community Development ATTESTED CAO PHIL XATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR California Public Utilities Commission BY DEPUTY PG&E cjc10/jb/gaspipe.bos Due to local input when the EIR was being scoped, several alternatives were identified which would cross Eastern Contra Costa County in a north-south fashion. The preferred alternative, upon . which the EIR was prepared, called for a pipeline which crosses Jersey Island and goes due south just east of Oakley and Brentwood through the prime agricultural soil areas of the County. The existing Brentwood compression station southwest of the city was to be expanded to handle the vast capacity of this pipeline. My staff reviewed the Draft EIR and wrote a letter on the document (Attachment A) which encouraged selection of Alternative 4 which would generally place the pipeline into the existing right-of-way for PGE electric transmission towers; it would avoid the impacts of the prime soil agricultural areas. The other alternatives considered cross the rapidly growing Oakley and Antioch areas and would cause land use and transportation impacts (see map) . Alternative 4 would minimize the impact within the rapidly growing urban areas as well as within the Agricultural Core. Of the three proposed compressor stations, one was located southwest of Brentwood, a second between the Los Vasquero* Reservoir and the East Contra Costa Airport, and the third in Alameda County just south of our common boundary. The Brentwood compressor station would have, among other impacts, substantial noise and would conflict with the agricultural fabric of the area. Staff urged selection of the Alternative C in Alameda County. While the California PUC will not make a final decision on which alternative to select until December, 1990, their staff felt it would be helpful to express our County's views now so they can consider shifting their efforts from the original proposed project to a different alternative. For this reason, staff recommends the Board endorse pipeline Alternative 4 and compressor station Alternative C. We have been told that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors has already endorsed those alternatives. A • I OR I• I IN 1 • J ,\¢`-\ _ �•r_._r-. ( ♦tea / I � ,IS �f r � ,_.// -_F'fV �'../ \\'S� /�'/..i.'I c 1t _ ........ ....... c't ,\,`..'•,��.�Q 1 I/ il�I � `� � _�� ..ff),\ ^� � � � 4�'' �'� t :.� V I/ " 1 7 :{ 7 I''Q=- l`+.•I /�;�- I'� ....--\ �. (\9•. ,V .e'P. - 'I • ,d:.. 1' 1 r P• is p �'+.• \\ ' •^ u-_, �� . •_,' � ,I �� ^� � y� : " ,tib F�. .ir n , !�� .-.., �I '� .. . \ t JI •. 1 4 ` L _ y1I l i •. .,,I ( .1 ,_� I b�TE7 �, 1. 98 01 EA� "- � � .. _�®".5 •� ,`,I'. I (,i - of ,til- .. �. o } i ROUfi i-7 I I v 11. i via O ENT BAY, 'S i..\' `V^'... LSZ '� ti -.,.:f ` cp,.rY 1."ter. 1,`S� r .�9 :-A 'r•,� �. I� . tAarte�•• 'a,;-,i �a ,I _ -E- r -. r ,� 1 , � �Y, —_ �i `�� '♦' It fi 4 Yi4 A;ION 41 r ` ALTERNATIVE COMPRESSOR STATION i- ,.T� '""r��ri ~RO T A -� -•i i SITE8 AND PIPELINE ROUTES IN THE 1 „ -"1LLL BRENTWOOD AREA,CALIFORNIAs. .� r -� Pr ,"I f 6l �, _ B 1 1 ) �"•r•• �•�•• ' pa T/PQ&E NATURAL GAS 4 — . J A'� s�o PIPELINE PROJECT 4. /', (♦T `fty� J,, .\,_ ''¢.F' -'' _.,��}, ti ® ALreNNArrva cornluao�rrrArror trta e, ;¢ �'� ��' �� rll Y r 1 rtoro.•o nreuNt Nous ALrtNNAn.0 � \5�'` ,1� �, °/ ,� i.- s ' , J r �' � f _ _ r ..¢..N.bT..AT..bT.... �� Nom♦ Yr,.wl r 4T `.- i� y% 1 '/�' 1 �' t .- bbt..raoro.lo a¢aCTNK raAMb..ION¢Ira NODTU t r \ /I , 4 )♦�* - 1 r a-I !�t(�J1� F ,�j Lykes ✓7 � 11E {,: �• A¢AraDA co- .ua.,Vwb' 1 , .i.6 �I*,/ ?.I¢ �1; ` -y.5! aowru 'N � t YblOAOY■COb r ui uANr,w ��i. �.' 4 ..I JJ�A'� � ht A..r +�3,1' ! � ri.� , i �. /t r 1��_-,—/1 i I \.a.J f �t )A..- .! T��vz ` •.T! ,`.`4 } �lf�'tyt ( ♦ t fI �f`_ -''. !, • _.' r 1 '�: 1:.J I.. .0 :) 1:.. 1 ) _..:.. �-_°"c� \•.. �_ .... ._..TTPRIRWSEDI� ., ... .t FIGURE 2-4. BRENTWOOD ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT A Harvey E. Bra don 'community Contra Director of Community Developmer Development . Costa Department County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: 646-2035 ii-mac`- ws :i August 21, 1990 Mr. Clyde Murley California Public Utilities Coamnission 505 Van Ness Avenue Sian Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Mr. Murley: Thank you for the ,opportunity to review the Draft EIR on the. Pacific Gas Transmission Conpany/Pacific Gas and Electric Company Natural Gas Pipeline Project (application #89-04-033) . I will limit my connents to the impacts of this project on Contra Costa County due to the complex multi-jurisdiction.nature of this proposal. As with most pipeline projects, the impacts of construction will be short-term- in nature. However, the impacts on land use tend to last for exceptionally long periods of time. The acquisition of right-of-way for the construction of this pipeline .will create a linear belt of open space lands running north-south across this county. Since this right-of-way is being acquired in fee-simple ownership rather than as easements, the loss of agricultural use of the land may be permanent. For the portion of the project within Contra Costa County, this will be a permanent significant impact of the project. An additional concern is that the pipeline right-of-way may not be maintained in a manner consistent with adjacent agricultural uses by control of weeds, etc. This concept of requiring maintenance which will minimize impact on agriculture should be considered as a mitigation measure for the project. Contra Costa County is a rapidly suburbanizing area which is attempting to maintain a balance between desirable growth and protection of our agricultural resources. A review of the environmental impacts outlined in the Draft EIR tend to reinforce our concerns with the original route (Alternative 1) which crosses through agricultural areas including areas with prime agricultural soils. Alternative 4, which also crosses undeveloped lands, does the best job of minimizing impact on development while avoiding the county prime agricultural soil areas. Since that route parallels an existing PG&E transmission line corridor, the impact of acquisition of additional right-of-way won't be as severe as acquisition of separate new right-of-way through the county. Clyde Murley August 21, 1990 Page 2 The County is considering two applications for general plan, changes along alternative 4: tli6 Byron 78 and Discovery Bay West plan amerdwnt requests. Both projects are,`in the process of having environmental documents prepared on them and are in their preliminary planning phases. If alternative 4 is to be selected, it should be done in a time .frame to ensure that this pipeline can be considered within review of those plan proposals. In considering the alternatives for the Altanont Compressor Station, alternative A & B will impact the agricultural resources of this County and cause the, impacts outlined on the Draft EIR. Alternative C would appear to best serve the needs of this project while minimizing negative inpacts. Sunnarily, this Draft EIR covers most of the concerns of this agency. ' 'Alternative 4 for the pipeline route and Alternative- C for the Ccnpressor Station would seem to have the least environmental inpact and are preferred for selection. Should you have any questions on these ca eats, feel free' to call me at (415) 646-2035. Sincerely yours, �% James W. 'Cutler Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning JWC/jb--- cc: Supervisor Tom. Torlakson jwc10/murley.ltr