Resolution No. 23-9253 — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, August 29, 2023

Resolution/ Kifer Battery Energy Storage System Project – MND & MMRP Page 1 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-9253

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE KIFER RECEIVING

STATION BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM PROJECT

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara ("City") proposes the development of the Kifer Receiving Station Battery Energy Storage System Project adjacent to the existing Kifer Receiving Station ("Project"), which is more fully described in the mitigated negative declaration referenced below; WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Project, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act and the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (collectively, "CEQA");
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, specifically section 15070 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City prepared an initial study which identified potentially significant effects o n the environment which will be avoided or mitigated through the implementation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); WHEREAS, the City prepared the MND and MMRP and circulated these documents for a 30 - day public review period on April 27, 2023, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA; WHEREAS, during the public review period, the City received comments from the Santa Clara Valley Water District;
WHEREAS, the City prepared a “Responses to Comments” document is included in Section 8 of the MND and addresses all comments raised;
WHEREAS, the City conducted its own independent analysis of the MND and MMRP prior to releasing it for public review and determined that the MND and MMRP were appropriate as there is substantial evidence the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts;
Resolution/ Kifer Battery Energy Storage System Project – MND & MMRP Page 2 of 3 Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara City Council has reviewed and considered the MND, MMRP, the comments received to date and the r esponses prepared, and the City Council, in reviewing the Project as proposed, intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the MND and the M MRP have been attached to the staff report for this environmental approval and the approval of the Project and, by this reference, are incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the City Council hereby finds th at the above Recitals are true and c orrect and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. That based on the whole record before it, the City Council hereby finds that all potentially significant environmental impacts that may directly or indirectly result from the Project would be reduced to a les s than significant level by the mitigation measures speci fied in the MND and MMRP and that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

3. That the City Council hereby finds that the MND and MMRP is complete, prepared in compliance with CEQA, and represents the independent judgment of the City Council.

4. That the City Council further finds that the MND and MMRP are adequate to serve as the required CEQA environmental documentation for the Project, and hereby adopts the MND and MMRP for the Project.

5. That the City Council hereby designates the Chief Electric Utility Officer of t he City of Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power as the Custodian of Records for the Project, and the Planning Division at City Hall, 881 Martin Avenue , Santa Clara, California, is the location of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.
//
//

6. The City Council directs the City Manager or designee to file a notice of determination with the County of Santa Clara and State Clearinghouse .

7. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 2grH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES : COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS :

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS :

Attachments incorporated tiy reference:

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Becker , Hardy, Park, and Watanabe, and Mayor
Gillmor
None
None
Chahal and Jain .

ATTESTGi:Lsf £

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/ Kifer Battery Energy Storage System Project - MND & MMRP Rev: 7/27/2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

FINAL

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND SUPPORTING INITIAL STUDY

Kifer Receiving Station BESS Project

FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY
July 2023

Example of a typical Battery Energy Storage System
Lead Agency Project Sponsor Technical Assistance

Silicon Valley Power

FINAL

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND SUPPORTING INITIAL STUDY
FOR
SILICON VALLEY POWER’S

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT

LEAD AGENCY:

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
1500 WARBURTON AVENUE
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
PROJECT SPONSOR:

SILICON VALLEY POWER
881 MARTIN AVENUE
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:

ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 640
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

JULY 2023

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT CONTENTS

JULY 2023 i FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

CONTENTS

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration .................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. Project Information ............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3. Project Description ................................................................................................................ 1-2

1.4. Environmental Determination ............................................................................................... 1-2

1.4.1. Mitigation Measure for Construction Phase Air Quality ........................................ 1-2

1.4.2. Mitigation Measures for Nesting Birds .................................................................. 1-3

1.4.3. Mitigation Measure for Previously Unidentified Historical Resources .................. 1-3

1.4.4. Mitigation Measure for Disturbance of Human Remains ...................................... 1-4

1.4.5. Mitigation Measure for Geologic and Seismic Hazards ......................................... 1-4

1.4.6. Mitigation Measure for Paleontological Resources ............................................... 1-5

1.4.7. Mitigation Measure for Hazardous Materials ........................................................ 1-5

1.4.8. Mitigation Measure for Water Quality .................................................................. 1-7

1.4.9. Mitigation Measure for Transportation Impacts ................................................... 1-7

1.4.10. Mitigation Measure for Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources ......................... 1-8

2. Environmental Determination ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.1. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................................... 2-1

2.2. Environmental Determination ............................................................................................... 2-1

3. Introduction to the Initial Study .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1. Proposed Project Overview ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2. Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1. CEQA Process ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.2. CEQA Lead Agency ................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.3. Initial Study ............................................................................................................ 3-1

4. Project Description ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1. Project Title ............................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2. Lead Agency Name and Address ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.3. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................. 4-1

4.4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address.................................................................................... 4-1

4.6. General Plan Designation ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.7. Zoning .................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ....................................................................................... 4-1

4.9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ............................................................. 4-2

4.10. Description of the Project ...................................................................................................... 4-2

4.10.1. Overview ................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.10.2. Project Objectives .................................................................................................. 4-5

4.10.3. Project Components .............................................................................................. 4-5

4.10.4. Project Construction Activities ............................................................................... 4-6

4.10.5. Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................ 4-10

4.10.6. Fire Safety ............................................................................................................ 4-10

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT CONTENTS

JULY 2023 ii FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

4.10.7. Required Approvals .............................................................................................. 4-11

4.10.8. Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 4-11

5. Environmental Setting and Environmental Impacts ...................................................... 5-1

5.1. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................... 5.1-1

5.1.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.1-1

5.1.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.1-2

5.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................... 5.2-1

5.2.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.2-1

5.2.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.2-2

5.3. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 5.3-1

5.3.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.3-1

5.3.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.3-4

5.4. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 5.4-1

5.4.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.4-1

5.4.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.4-4

5.5. Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 5.5-1

5.5.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.5-1

5.5.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.5-8

5.6. Energy ................................................................................................................................. 5.6-1

5.6.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.6-1

5.6.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.6-3

5.7. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 5.7-1

5.7.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.7-1

5.7.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.7-9

5.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 5.8-1

5.8.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.8-1

5.8.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.8-3

5.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 5.9-1

5.9.1. Setting ................................................................................................................. 5.9-1

5.9.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.9-8

5.10. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 5.10-1

5.10.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.10-1

5.10.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.10-5

5.11. Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 5.11-1

5.11.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.11-1

5.11.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.11-2

5.12. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 5.12-1

5.12.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.12-1

5.12.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.12-2

5.13. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 5.13-1

5.13.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.13-1

5.13.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.13-3

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT CONTENTS

JULY 2023 iii FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.14. Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 5.14-1

5.14.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.14-1

5.14.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.14-2

5.15. Public Services .................................................................................................................. 5.15-1

5.15.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.15-1

5.15.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.15-2

5.16. Recreation......................................................................................................................... 5.16-1

5.16.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.16-1

5.16.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.16-2

5.17. Transportation .................................................................................................................. 5.17-1

5.17.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.17-1

5.17.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.17-4

5.18. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 5.18-1

5.18.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.18-1

5.18.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.18-4

5.19. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 5.19-1

5.19.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.19-1

5.19.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.19-5

5.20. Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 5.20-1

5.20.1. Setting ............................................................................................................... 5.20-1

5.20.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 5.20-2

5.21. Corona and Induced Current Effects ................................................................................ 5.21-1

5.21.1. Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 5.21-1

5.21.2. Environmental Impacts and Assessment .......................................................... 5.21-1

5.22. Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................................. 5.22-1

6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................................. 6-1

7. References .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.2. Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3. Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.4. Biological Resources .............................................................................................................. 7-1

7.5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.6. Energy .................................................................................................................................... 7-3

7.7. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... 7-3

7.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................... 7-4

7.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 7-5

7.10. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................ 7-6

7.11. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................. 7-6

7.12. Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 7-6

7.13. Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 7-7

7.14. Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 7-7

7.15. Recreation.............................................................................................................................. 7-7

7.16. Traffic and Transportation ..................................................................................................... 7-8

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT CONTENTS

JULY 2023 iv FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

7.17. Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 7-8

7.18. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................. 7-8

7.19. Wildfire .................................................................................................................................. 7-9

7.20. Corona and Induced Current Effects ..................................................................................... 7-9

8. Comments and Comment Responses .......................................................................... 8-10

8.1. Response to Santa Clara Valley Water District Comment ................................................... 8-11

TABLES
Table 4-1. Anticipated Personnel and Equipment Required for Project Construction (based on typical estimates) ............................................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-2. Equipment Expected to be Used During Construction ....................................................... 4-8 Table 4-3. Permits and Approvals Necessary for the Proposed Project ........................................... 4-11 Table 5.3-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................. 5.3-1 Table 5.3-2. Attainment Status for San Francisco Bay Area ................................................................ 5.3-2 Table 5.3-3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lb/day) .......................................... 5.3-5 Table 5.5-1. Key Cultural Resources Reports Within Project Area ...................................................... 5.5-3 Table 5.6-1. Energy Sources of Electricity Supplied to Customers (2021 Power Content) ................. 5.6-1 Table 5.6-2. Electricity Consumption for Load Served by SVP (million kWh per year) ....................... 5.6-2 Table 5.7-1. Significant Active and Potentially Active Faults within 50 miles of the Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................. 5.7-5 Table 5.13-1. Typical Noise Levels for Individual Construction Equipment ........................................ 5.13-3 Table 5.14-1. Year 2020 Existing Conditions – Population, Housing, and Employment: City of Santa Clara and County of Santa Clara .......................................................................... 5.14-1 Table 5.17-1. Existing Local Roadway Conditions ............................................................................... 5.17-2 Table 5.19-1. Utility Providers ............................................................................................................. 5.19-1 Table 5.19-2. Landfill Capacities .......................................................................................................... 5.19-2 Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................ 6-2

FIGURES
Figure 1. Kifer Receiving Station BESS Location ................................................................................. 4-3 Figure 2. Preliminary Kifer Receiving Station BESS Layout ................................................................ 4-4

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT LIST OF ACRONYMS

JULY 2023 i FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACE Altamont Commuter Express
ADT Average daily traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APN Assessor’s parcel number
ARB Air Resources Board
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BESS Battery Energy Storage System
BMPs Best Management Practices
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAP Climate Action Plan
CBRNE Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive CCJPA Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CGS California Geological Survey
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CLG Certified Local Government
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon monoxide
CPRC California Public Resources Code
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CVC California Vehicle Code
CWA Clean Water Act
DHS Department of Health Services
DOC Department of Conservation
DPM Diesel particulate matter
DPR Department of Pesticide Regulation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control
EAP Energy Action Plan
EHC Environmental Health Criteria
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMF Electric and magnetic fields
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT LIST OF ACRONYMS

JULY 2023 ii FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHG Greenhouse gas
GO General Order
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IBC International Building Code
ICC International Code Council
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
IWMB Integrated Waste Management Board
JPB Joint Powers Board
LUST Leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most likely descendant
MM Mitigation measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRDS Mineral Resources Data Systems
MRR Mandatory reporting rule
MRZ Mineral resource zone
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NCP National Contingency Plan
NESC National Electric Safety Code
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NIMS National Incident Management System
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System NPL National Priorities List
NSH National Seismic Hazard
NWIC California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
OMR Office of Mine Reclamation
PERP Portable Equipment Registration Program
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PGA Peak ground acceleration
PM10 Particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) PM2.5 Fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) POU Publicly owned utility
PRC Public Resources Code
PRMP Paleontological Resources Management Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
ROG Reactive organic gases
ROW Right-of‐way
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWF Regional Wastewater Facility

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT LIST OF ACRONYMS

JULY 2023 iii FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SBWR South Bay Water Recycling
SCFD Santa Clara Fire Department
SCPD Santa Clara Police Department
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
SMGB State Mining and Geology Board
SRRE Source Reduction Recycling Element
SVP Silicon Valley Power
SWGS Solid Waste Generation Study
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs Toxic air contaminants
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TWW Treated Wood Waste
U.S. U.S. Highway
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWW Utility Wood Waste
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
VOC Volatile organic compounds
VTA Valley Transportation Authority
WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements
WEAP Worker environmental awareness program
WHO World Health Organization

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JULY 2023 1-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

FINAL
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study
for
Silicon Valley Power’s
Kifer Receiving Station Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project

1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1.1. Project Information
Project: Kifer Receiving Station Battery Energy Storage System Project City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California
Project Sponsor: City of Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power 881 Martin Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 615-6610
General Plan: Low Intensity Office/R&D (Research and Development) Zoning: ML – Light Industrial

1.2. Introduction
The City of Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is proposing the Kifer Receiving Station (KRS) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project ( Project or proposed Project), which would construct a BESS adjacent to the existing Kifer Receiving Station. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), SVP has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Project to determine if any significant adverse effects on the environment would result from project implemen tation. The Initial Study uses the significance criteria outlined in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. If the Initial Study for the Project indicates that a significant adverse impact could occur, SVP would be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration), a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a pro - posed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JULY 2023 1-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, it has been determined that all Project-related environmental impacts would be less than significant or would be reduced to a less than significant level with the incor- poration of feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will satisfy the requirements of CEQA. The mitigation measures included in this MND are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described in the Initial Study. Mitigation measures are structured in accordance with the criteria in Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.3. Project Description
SVP is proposing to have constructed a 50-megawatt (MW) battery energy storage system (BESS) adjacent to the existing SVP Kifer Receiving Station (KRS) to increase SVP system reliability. The new BESS would occupy approximately 24,000 square feet within a larger parcel owned by the City of Santa Clara that is adjacent to the existing KRS. SVP is currently planning to contract with Ameresco to install and own the battery energy storage systemto provide SVP energy storage services from the BESS. The 60 kV Space Park Junction substation to be owned and maintained by SVP will be constructed on the Project property to interconnect with the BESS. An existing structure on the property where the BESS will be located will be demolished under a ministerial permit from the City of Santa Clara as part of the Project.

1.4. Environmental Determination
The Initial Study was prepared to identify the potential environmental effects resulting from the proposed Project’s implementation, and to evaluate the level of significance of these effects. The Initial Study relies on information provided by SVP, Project site reconnaissance by SVP’s consultant the Aspen Environmental Group, and information and documents cited in individual resource topic discussions.

Based on the Initial Study analysis, mitigation measures are identified for adoption to ensure that impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant. SVP has agreed to implement all of the recom- mended mitigation measures as part of the proposed Project.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would avoid potentially significant impacts identi - fied in the Initial Study or reduce them to less than significant levels.

1.4.1. Mitigation Measure for Construction Phase Air Quality MM AQ-1 Implement Basic Construction Air Quality Mitigation. The Project shall ensure that basic construction emissions control measures are implemented as “Best Management Prac - tices,” as follows:
 All exposed soil surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, and graded areas) shall be watered two times per day.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at l east once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
 All areas to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Foundation pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading.
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JULY 2023 1-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Clear signage regarding idling shall be provided for construct ion workers at all access points.
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at SVP regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

1.4.2. Mitigation Measures for Nesting Birds
MM BIO-1 Biological Monitoring. A qualified biologist will be assigned to the Project and will mon- itor the Project periodically. The qualified biologist will be the point of contact for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a special -status species or anyone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped animal. The qualified biologist or biolog- ical monitor shall have the authority and responsibility to halt any Project activities that are not in compliance with applicable mitigation measures, permit conditions, or other Project requirements, or will have an unauthorized adverse effect on biological resources.

MM BIO-2 Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to construction, a construction emp - loyee education program will be conducted in reference to all sensitive envi ronmental resources potentially affected by site work (e.g., air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, hazardous materials) and the measures associ - ated with their protection (i.e., mitigation measures and applicable laws and regulations).

MM BIO-3 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surve ys and Nest Protection. A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted of the site and vicinity by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before any work activities are performed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall also be required prior to any veg- etation removal or trimming that occurs during the nesting season. Surveyors will search for all potential nest types (e.g., ground, cavity, shrub/tree, structural, etc.) and deter- mine whether the nest is active. A nest will be determined to be active if eggs or young are present in the nest. Upon discovery of active nests, Silicon Valley Power’s biological monitor will determine if there is need for a buffer or shield to minimize distu rbance of the nest. Upon this determination and execution of any required minimization action, work may proceed. The extent of mitigation will be based upon: acclimation of the species or individual to disturbance, nest type (cavity, tree, ground, etc.), a nd level and duration of construction activity. If there is a period of 7 or more days during nesting season in which construction does not occur, a new survey shall be undertaken to determine if any nests have been established.

In the unlikely event a special-status or listed species is found nesting nearby, CDFW and USFWS will be notified, and the City of Santa Clara will be provided with nest survey results, if requested. When active nests are identified, monitoring for significant distur - bance to the birds will be implemented.

1.4.3. Mitigation Measure for Previously Unidentified Historical Resources MM CR-1 Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources. SVP shall conduct a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) for Project personnel who, during the course of Project work, might KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JULY 2023 1-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

encounter or alter historical resources or important/unique archaeological materials. This program may be combined with any similar required program, such as for biological resources. The WEAP may include a kickoff tailgate session that describes how to identify cultural resources and what to do if an unanticipated discovery is made during construc- tion, presents site avoidance requirements and procedures to be followed if unantici- pated cultural resources are discovered during Project construction, and includes a discussion of disciplinary and other actions that could be taken against persons violating historic preservation laws and SVP policies.

1.4.4. Mitigation Measure for Disturbance of Human Remains MM CR-2 Treatment of Human Remains. Any human remains discovered are to be treated with respect and dignity. Upon discovery of human remains, all work within 50 feet of the dis- covery area must cease immediately, nothing is to be disturbed, and the a rea must be secured. The Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office must be called. The Coroner has two working days to examine the remains after notification. The appropriate land manager of the site is to be called and informed of the discovery. It is very impo rtant that the suspected remains, and the area around them, are undisturbed and the proper author- ities called to the scene as soon as possible, as it could be a crime scene. The Coroner will determine if the remains are archaeological/historic or of modern origin and if there are any criminal or jurisdictional questions.

After the Coroner has determined the remains are archaeological/historic-era, the Coroner will make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the descendant does not make recom- mendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the prop- erty secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC.

1.4.5. Mitigation Measure for Geologic and Seismic Hazards MM G-1 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations. Because seismically induced liquefaction -related ground failure has the potential to damage or destroy Project components, design-level geotechnical investigation for the Project shall be performed by SVP and shall include investigations designed to assess the potential for geologic and seismic hazards, and KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JULY 2023 1-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

specifically include evaluation of potential for liquefa ction and expansive soils to affect the BESS system components and the 60 kV line at the Project site. Where liquefaction or expansive soils hazards are found to exist/verified, appropriate engineering design and construction measures shall be incorporated into the Project designs as deemed appro - priate by the Project engineer. Finalized Project design incorporating geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to Project construction.

1.4.6. Mitigation Measure for Paleontological Resources MM G-2 Worker Training and Management of Paleontological Resources. A paleontologist must be retained who meets the professional paleontologist qualifications (Society of Verte- brate Paleontology’s Standard Procedures, 2010) and has demonstrated experience in carrying paleontological Projects to completion. The qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological worker environmental awareness program (WEAP), and training shall be provided for all staff who will be onsite during excavations. This program may be combined with any similar required program, such as for biological resources. The WEAP shall show what local Pleistocene fossils look like in general, where they may appear in the Project, and how to proceed should material suspected to be a fossil is encountered.

The qualified paleontologist must develop and implement a Paleontological Resources Management Plan (PRMP) for the Project area that meets the standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). This PRMP shall include:
 A monitoring plan for ground disturbing activities that provides the monitor(s) with the authority to temporarily halt or divert equipment. The Paleontologist shall deter mine a suitable monitoring schedule based on construction activities and anticipated depth of ground disturbance. Monitors shall be onsite for any disturbance of sediments with high or unknown paleontological sensitivity. Monitors must have dem onstrated suffi- cient paleontological training and field experience to have acceptable knowl edge and experience of fossil identifica tion, salvage and collection methods, pale ontological techniques, and stratigraphy.
 A recovery plan for significant fossils that provides for the treatment of specimens to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
 A specimen identification, analysis, and curation plan that includes identification to the lowest taxonomic level possible; taxonomic, taphonomic, and biostratigraphic analysis; and curation to the standards of the repository where they will be curated.

1.4.7. Mitigation Measure for Hazardous Materials
MM HM 1 Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response. SVP shall implement its hazard- ous substance control and emergency response procedures as needed. These procedures identify methods and techniques to minimize the exposure of the public and site workers to potentially hazardous materials during all phases of Project construction through oper- ation. They address worker training appropriate to the site worker’s role in hazardous substance control and emergency response. The procedures also require implementing appropriate control methods and approved containment and spill -control practices for construction and materials stored on site. If it is necessary to store chemicals on site, they KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JULY 2023 1-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

shall be managed in accordance with all applicable regulations. Material safety data sheets shall be maintained and kept available on site, as applicable.

No known soil contamination was identified within the Project area, however historic groundwater contamination has occurred at the site and at upgradient sites (SWRCB, 2023b though f). In the event that soils, or groundwater suspected of being contaminated (on the basis of visual, olfactory, or other evidence) are removed/encountered during site grading or excavation activities or dewatering activities, the excavated soil and/or extracted groundwater shall be tested and, if contaminated above hazardous waste levels, shall be contained and either treated or dispo sed of at a licensed waste facility.

The presence of known or suspected contaminated soil or groundwater shall require testing and investigation procedures to be supervised by a qualified person, as appro pri- ate, to meet state and federal regulations.

All hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations, by personnel qualified to handle hazardous materials. The hazardous substance control and emergency response procedures include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Proper disposal of potentially contaminated soils.
 Establishing site-specific buffers for construction vehicles and equipment located near sensitive resources.
 Emergency response and reporting procedures to address hazardous material spills.  Stopping work at that location and contacting the City Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division immediately if visual contamination or chemical odors are detected.

Work will be resumed at this location after any necessary consultation and approval by the Hazardous Materials Division.

SVP shall complete its Emergency Action Plan Form as part of Project tailboard meetings.

The purpose of the form is to gather emergency contact numbers, identify first aid locations and provide other tailboard safety information.

MM HM-2 Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Testing and Removal. The Project would implement the following measures to reduce impacts due to the presence of unknown asbestos con - taining materials (ACMs) and/or lead based paint (LBP) in the structure to be demolished:
 In conformance with State and local laws, a visual inspection/predemolition survey, and sampling and testing , shall be conducted prior to the demolition of the on-site building to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint, and to determine appropriate handling and disposal requirements.  Prior to demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR) 1523.1. Employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control shall be conducted during demolition also in accordance with this Standard. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.  All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESHAP guidelines prior to any building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demo- lition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JULY 2023 1-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall b e retained to remove and dis pose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above.
 Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Removal of materials con taining more than one percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements.

1.4.8. Mitigation Measure for Water Quality
MM HYD-1 SWPPP or Erosion Control Plan Development and Implementation. Following Project approval, SVP will prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), if required by State law, or erosion control plan to minimize construction impacts on surface water and groundwater quality. Implementation of the SWPPP or ero- sion control plan will help stabilize graded areas and reduce erosion and sedimentation.

The plan will designate BMPs that will be adhered to during construction activities.

Erosion and sediment control measures, such as straw wattles, covers, and silt fences, will be installed before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events. Suitable stabilization measures will be used to protect exposed areas during construction activi- ties, as necessary. During construction activities, measures will be in place to prevent contaminant discharge.

The Project SWPPP or erosion control plan will include erosion control and sediment transport BMPs to be used during construction. BMPs, where applicable, will be designed by using specific crit eria from recognized BMP design guidance manuals. Erosion- minimizing efforts may include measures such as properly containing stockpiled soils.

Erosion control measures identified will be installed in an area before construction begins during the wet sea son and before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events. Temporary measures such as silt fences or wattles, intended to minimize sedi- ment transport from temporarily disturbed areas, will remain in place until disturbed areas have stabilized. The plan will be updated during construction as required by the SWRCB.

A worker education program shall be established for all field personnel prior to initiating fieldwork to provide training in the appropriate application and construction of erosion and sediment control measures contained in the SWPPP. This education program will also discuss appropriate hazardous materials management and spill respo nse. Compliance with these requirements will be ensured by the on-site construction contractor.

1.4.9. Mitigation Measure for Transportation Impacts
MM T-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the Project owner shall prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan for review and approval to the City of Santa Clara (City) Planning Department for public roads and transportation facilities that would be directly affected by the construction activities and/or would require permits and approvals. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be sub mitted to the City for review and approval prior to conducting activities covered in the traffic control permits. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
 Identification of any routes that would require lane closures or detours to accommo- date material and equipment deliveries and methods to ensure safety.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

JULY 2023 1-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

1.4.10. Mitigation Measure for Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources MM TCR-1 Management of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources. During Project-level construc- tion, should subsurface tribal cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist and an authorized tribal representative shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 21074. If any find is determined to be significant, the archae- ologist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, Project reroute or redesign, Project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall devel op additional treat - ment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in the tribal cultural resource.

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to ensure that mitigation measures are properly implemented (see Section 6). The MMRP describes specific actions required to implement each measure, including information on timing of implementation and monitoring require- ments.

Based on the analysis and conclusions of the Initial Study, the impacts of the Project as proposed by SVP would be mitigated to less than s ignificant levels with the implementation of the mitigation measures presented herein, which have been incorporated into the proposed Project.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION JULY 2023 2-1 DRAFT MND/INITIAL STUDY

2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

2.1. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact ” and requiring implementation of mitigation as indi- cated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.2. Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, bu t at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mi tigation mea sures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze on ly the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been an alyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose d upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date Sachin Bajracharya, Project Manager
Silicon Valley Power
06/07/2023Sachin Bajracharya
Digitally signed by
Sachin Bajracharya
Date: 2023.06.07
09:11:10-07'00'
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE INITIAL STUDY

JULY 2023 3-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE INITIAL STUDY

3.1. Proposed Project Overview
The City of Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is proposing to construct a BESS adjacent to the existing Kifer Receiving Station (KRS) to increase reliability. The Project is described in more detail in Section 4.10.

3.2. Environmental Analysis

3.2.1. CEQA Process
This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the amended State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). The purpose of the Initial Study is to inform the decision-makers, responsible agencies, and the public of the proposed Project, the existing environment that would be affected by the Project, the environmental eff ects that would occur if the Project is approved, and, where appropriate, propose mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce environ- mental effects.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared based on the assessment of potential envi - ronmental impacts identified in the Initial Study. All potentially significant impacts associated with the Project can be mitigated to be less than significant; therefore, an MND can be adopted by the City of Santa Clara in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.

3.2.2. CEQA Lead Agency
The City of Santa Clara is the lead agency for review of the Project under CEQA because it must make a decision whether to adopt the MND and to approve or deny the proposed Project. The Project sponsor is Silicon Valley Power (SVP), a not -for-profit municipal electric utility owned and operated by the City. It began in 1896 as the City of Santa Clara Electric Department, which became Silicon Valley Power in 1998.

3.2.3. Initial Study
The Initial Study presents an analysis of potential effects of the proposed Project on the environment. The Initial Study is based on information provided by SVP, Project site visits, and additional research.

Construction activities and Project operation could have direct and indirect impacts on the environment.

The following environmental parameters are addressed based on the potential effects of the proposed Project and potential growth -inducing or cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other projects:

Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gases
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
Corona and Induced Current Effects
Mandatory Findings of Significance
The Initial Study has been organized into the following sections:
 Section 3: Introduction. Provides an introduction and overview describing the proposed Project and the CEQA process and identifies key areas of environmental concern.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE INITIAL STUDY

JULY 2023 3-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 Section 4: Project Description. Presents the Project objectives and provides an in-depth description of the proposed Project, including construction details and methods.  Section 5: Environmental Analysis and Mitigation. Includes a description of the existing conditions and analysis of the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.  Section 6: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Includes mitigation measures that SVP or the Project developer must implement as part of the Project, actions required to implement these mea - sures, monitoring requirements, and timing of implementation for each measure.  Section 7: References. Lists the sources of information used to prepare the Initial Study.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1. Project Title
Kifer Receiving Station Battery Energy Storage System Project (Project)

4.2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050

4.3. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number
Sachin Bajracharya, Project Manager
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Phone: (408) 568-1080
E-mail: [email protected]

4.4. Project Location
The Kifer Receiving Station BESS site is on a portion of County Assessor’s parcel number (APN) 224-08- 085. The property is at 3025 Raymond Street, Santa Clara, California 95054. The property is located west of the Kifer Receiving Station and is accessed from Raymond Street on the west side of the property. The Proposed Project would occupy the northern 1.20 acres of the parcel; the southern 1.37 acres would not be affected by the KRS BESS Project.

4.5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power
881 Martin Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95050

4.6. General Plan Designation
The City of Santa Clara General Plan designates the Project site as Low Intensity Office/R&D. All adjacent parcels to the north, south, and west have the same General Plan Designation. The parcel to the east of the Project, where the Kifer Receiving Station is located, has a general plan designation of Light Industrial.

4.7. Zoning
The Project site’s zoning is ML – Light Industrial. All adjacent parcels to the north, south, and west have the same zoning. The parcel to the east of the Project where the Kifer Receiving Station is located is zoned B – Public or Quasi Public.

4.8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The site is surrounded by light industrial uses, including office buildings and utilities. There is one road adjacent to the Project site, Raymond Street. Raymond Street is a two -lane surface street with a speed limit of 25 mph and on street parking on both sides.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

4.9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The Applicant may be required to obtain the permits from agencies listed in Table 4 -3, Permits and Approvals Necessary for the proposed Project (see Section 4.10.7).

4.10. Description of the Project

4.10.1. Overview
The proposed Kifer Receiving Station Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Project would be built and operated by Ameresco to provide Silicon Valley Power additional local area capacity for electrical system reliability and flexibility. The BESS would h ave a rated power capacity of up to 50 MW with a four-hour duration. The energy capacity is up to 200 megawatt-hours (MWh). A BESS allows surplus renewable electricity to be acquired at a low cost and released when demand and prices are higher. Batteries can also balance generation and consumption , thus reducing congestion , and can help to control voltage and frequency. By building and using the proposed Project, a clean, reliable resource would be gained to help integrate renewables, reduce dependence on gas-fired generation, and reduce GHG and criteria air pollutant emissions.

The approximately 1.2-acre Project site is located adjacent to the Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). The BESS will be interconnected to SVP’s Kenneth (KEN) Substation, via a 60 kV interconnection to the existing KEN-OKJ 60 kV line that extends between Kenneth Substation and Oaks Junction (OKJ) Substation. The Kenneth Substation is a 12 kV general distribution substation. The Oaks Junction Substation is a 60 kV substation dedicated to a single data center customer. The 60 kV line would come from the southwest corner of the BESS parcel and run south to interconnect to the existing 60 kV line. The line between Kenneth Substation and Oaks Junction Substation would be tapped and the terminal 60 kV line would be established at the southern end of the parcel for this Project. An easement may need to be secured for this line and will be determined during the design process. See Figure 1, Kifer Receiving Station BESS Location. SVP plans to enter into an energy storage tolling agreement with Ameresco. Ameresco will develop, own, and operate the BESS, with SVP supplying the charging energy. The energy in the BESS will belong to SVP. Charging and dispatch operations will be controlled by SVP through the 60 kV substation on the property.

The Project site currently has a building located on it which would be demolished by Ameresco under a ministerial permit from the City of Santa Clara as part of the Project. This building is older than 50 years, therefore a historic building evaluation is required prior to demolition. The historic building evaluation was completed in February 2023, and it was determined that the existing structures on the site did not meet State or Federal criteria for listing on national, state, or local historic registers, meaning it does not qualify as an historical resource under CEQA.

It is anticipated that construction would begin in December 2023 and take approximately 16 months to complete. The Project site is City -owned property and would be leased to Ameresco. SVP would occupy approximately 0.10 acres of the site for 60 kV Space Park Junction substation, which will include a 60 kV switchyard and a buyer’s control house, which would be approximately 15 feet by 30 feet by 10 feet. The switchyard and control house would be surrounded by a chain link fence. See Figure 2, Preliminary Kifer Receiving Station BESS Layout.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Figure 1. Kifer Receiving Station BESS Location

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Figure 2. Preliminary Kifer Receiving Station BESS Layout

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

4.10.2. Project Objectives
The objectives of the KRS BESS Project are to:
 Improve energy reliability for the City of Santa Clara  Increase the reliability and flexibility of SVPs electrical grid by storing energy  Help to solve California’s “duck curve” power production problem by installing battery energy storage capacity that can be called upon in periods of peak demand

4.10.3. Project Components
The Project involves two major components: the BESS system and a 60 kV line to interconnect to SVP’s grid.

4.10.3.1. Battery Energy Storage System
The proposed BESS facility would use advanced technology batteries and control systems. Construction would require removal of an existing building on-site and removal of trees prior to construction.

Subject to final engineering, the BESS would consist of multiple battery container units that are up to nine feet in height, up to 30 feet long, and up to eight feet wide. Initially, the Project will have up to 64 battery container units. The BESS will also have approximately 16 Power Conversion System (PCS) enclosures. To maintain the capacity of the system, smaller modular battery containers will be added to the site in future years. See Figure 2, Preliminary Kifer Receiving Station BESS Layout.

The battery container units will be separated from each other by at least 8 feet and setback more than 30 feet from off-site properties. Power lines between the PCS units will be underground, but the lines from step up transformers to the SVP junction will be overhead.

The BESS includes the following major equipment and systems:
 Battery container units include battery cells/modules, an HVAC system, a battery management system, and fire suppression equipment;
 The Power Conversion System (PCS) enclosures include an AC/DC inverter, transformer, and controls;  Balance of Plant equipment, which includes a control house with medium voltage (MV) and low voltage electrical systems, fire suppression, HVAC systems, net work/Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, power distribution panel boards, and auxiliary power transformers; and  High Voltage (HV) equipment, including a step -up transformer, HV circuit breaker, HV current trans - formers and voltage tra nsformers, a packaged control enclosure for the HV breaker and transformer equipment, HV towers, structures, and HV cabling.

4.10.3.2. 60 kV Line Interconnection
The Proposed Project would include construction of a n overhead 60 kV line constructed by SVP to inter - connect the BESS to SVP’s grid. The SVP-owned line would be approximately 300 feet long and supported on 2 light-weight steel monopoles approximately 60 feet tall. Depending on final engineering, SVP will secure an easement from the adjacent property for the interconnection line, if required.

The 60 kV line would interconnect the new Space Park Junction Substation on the Project property to the existing KEN-OKJ 60 kV line, between Kenneth (KEN) Substation and Oaks Junction (OKJ) Substation. This interconnection will be used to receive and deliver energy. Protection and con trol panel upgrade or configuration also will be required at SVP’s Kenneth and Oaks Junction Substations.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

4.10.4. Project Construction Activities

4.10.4.1. Staging Area
The Project site is planned to be used as the primary staging area for construction equipment, new mate- rials, and parts for the Project. If additional staging areas or storage space is necessary, Ameresco will rent temporary space near the Project site. Some equipment and materials may be temporarily stored at exist- ing SVP yards prior to delivery to the BESS site. One example of a potential staging area would be SVP’s storage yard located at 1715 Martin Avenue, Santa Clara, CA, which is approximately 1 mile from the Project site. The Project KRS BESS staging area would include temporary portable bathroom facilities; construction equipment storage during off work hours and weekends; materials storage; and a construction trailer.

Access to the site would be from Raymond Street by way of the existing driveway. After pProject comple- tion, all temporary facilities, debris, and old equipment would be removed. As described below, work would occur in phases, with demolition of the existing building occurring before construction activities.

4.10.4.2. Site Work
Site Preparation
Phase 1: Ameresco would obtain a Demolition Permit from the City to demolish the existing building prior to the start of BESS construction.

Phase 2: Site preparation would include all required earthwork and subsurface work. All work activities would take place within the proposed Project area. Installation of temporary fencing to secure the Project area during construction will be installed. Existing vegetation, including trees, within the property would be removed. Overhanging trees outside the property may be trimmed or removed as necessary to ensure safe operation of the BESS facility. Ameresco would consult with the City arborist regarding tree work.

The area would be graded to ensure proper drainage, and grading would occur in coordination with adja- cent Kifer Receiving Station projects. If hazardous materials are encountered during building demolition or Project earthwork, the material will be handled consistent with the requirements of State and Federal regulations regarding treatment or disposal and remediation of hazardous materials. Clean fill material may be required to achieve the planned final grade. Soil compaction of the site would be impl emented per engineering recommendations.

Construction
Phase 3: Equipment pads and foundations would be installed to support all major equipment. Once foundations are installed, the prefabricated BESS and PCS enclosures and all major equipment would be set in place. Below ground conduit runs for all system required cabling would be installed throughout the BESS yard.

Once all equipment is installed a finished grade for the BESS yard along with an access road around the BESS yard would be installed per CitySVP standards. A permanent chain link fence would be installed on the south and east sides of the Project site and a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall would be installed on the north and west sides of the site.

SVP would construct the 60 kV line interconnection during Phase 3 of construction.

4.10.4.3. Site Access, Security, and Lighting
Security would consist of a combination of a 10-foot-high chain link fence and CMU block wall. Two con - trolled gates would access the site from Raymond Street. The gates would be either swinging or sliding KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

gates, with a minimum width of 20 feet. This access would be keyed, and a KNOX box 1 installed to allow only authorized access.

Additional site security measures may include a monitoring camera system designed to cover the entire facility. This system would be remotely monitored, and security breaches would be reported to emer- gency responders as well as site operators. An intrusion detection system may be installed along perim- eter of the fence to alter monitors of breaches. A camera system working in conjunction with the fence intrusion system would decrease the number of false alarms. The Project would comply with North American Energy Reliability Corporation (NERC) and Western Electricity Coordination Council (WECC) requirements for regulatory control and security systems.

Low-level lighting would be installed at the gates and at strategic locations around the facility. All Project lighting would be shielded and directed downward to minimize the potential for glare or spillover onto adjacent properties. The lighting would conform to National Electric Safety Code (NESC) requirements and all applicable City of Santa Clara outdoor lighting standards.

4.10.4.4. Water Use
Water use during construction would be for dust control, concrete cleaning, and basic housekeeping pur- poses. Adjacent buildings, walls, and trees shelter the site from strong winds. However, ground disturbance could raise dust. This would be controlled by watering. The quantity of water needed would be nominal and would be supplied from existing hydrants and/or trucked to the site. During BESS operation, little water use would be required.

The Project includes installation of two fire hydrants on the site (See Figure 2, Preliminary Kifer Receiving Station BESS Layout). These fire hydrants are for additional fire suppression beyond what is integral to the BESS enclosures, to prevent from the spread of a fire to surrounding properties.

4.10.4.5. Construction Workforce and Equipment
The size of the daily workforce would vary depending on the construction activities occurring on any particular day. Workers would carpool or arrive in crew trucks. It is estimated that the peak number of construction personnel would rarely exceed 25 workers and traffic to and from the site generated by workers and equipment/materials delivery would not exceed a maximum of approximately 30 trips per day. Most workdays would have a smaller workforce and lower trip generation. Table 4 -1, Anticipated Personnel and Equipment Required for Project Construction (based on typical estimates), lists the expected equipment and personnel by construction activity. Not all equipment and personnel would be used during all construction phases or activities . This is a preliminary equipment list; other equipment may be identified when Project design is finalized or during construction if unexpected conditions require additional equipment.

Table 4-1. Anticipated Personnel and Equipment Required for Project Construction (based on typical estimates)
Activity People Quantity of Equipment
Survey 1 to 2 1 Pickup truck
BESS Installation 10-15 5 semi-trucks with trailers
1 crane

1 A Knox Box is a small, wall -mounted safe that holds building keys for fire departments, emergency medical services, and sometimes police to retrieve in emergency situations. Local fire departments can hold master keys to all boxes in their response area so that they can quickly enter a facility without having to force entry or find individual keys held in deposit at the station.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 4-1. Anticipated Personnel and Equipment Required for Project Construction (based on typical estimates)
Activity People Quantity of Equipment
Auger Holes for Wood and Light Duty Poles 3 1 Line truck with auger attachment 1 Pickup truck
1 Backhoe or skid loader
Concrete Pier Foundation Installation 5-6 1 Line truck
1 Backhoe or skid loader
1 Drill rig
1 Crane
1 Water truck
1 Pickup truck
3 Cement trucks
Material Haul 3 1 semi-truck with trailer
Pole Delivery 3 1 Pole delivery truck
1 Pickup or light SUV
Light-Duty Steel Pole Installation (Ground access,
per crew; construction would include 2 crews)
5 per
crew
2 Crew cab truck
2 Line trucks with bucket and trailer
(transports boom and auger)
1 Backhoe or skid loader
Conductor Installation (up to 2 crews may be
present during wire stringing activities)
5 per
crew
1 Line truck or semi-truck with wire reel
2 Pickup trucks
2 Line truck with bucket/crane
1 Line truck with wire puller
1 Line truck with wire tensioner
Table 4 -2, Equipment Expected to be Used During Construction, describes the anticipated use of the equipment listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-2. Equipment Expected to be Used During Construction Equipment Use
Aerial Lift (or Line Truck with Bucket) Lifts crew members to make line connections Auger truck Drill holes for wood pole installation
Cement mixer/truck Deliver and pour concrete foundations Crane Lifting of heavy equipment and poles into place
Crew cab truck or pickup truck Transport personnel
Dump truck Hauling of dirt around site
Excavator Excavating for foundations and removal of existing concrete structures
Generator set Power generation for operation of tools
Line truck (with auger, puller, worker lift
bucket, crane/boom, etc.)
Transport, install or remove, poles, conductor, or materials Mechanics service trucks Service/repair vehicles and construction equipment Mixer Mixing mortar for concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls Reel trailers with reel stands (semi-trailer
or truck mounted type)
Haul conductor
Office trailers Supervision and Project meeting activities Plate compactor Grading, compact soil
Pump Dewatering if groundwater is encountered, removal of foundation slurry, and watering for dirt suppression, if necessary Forklift Loading and Transport of poles
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-9 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 4-2. Equipment Expected to be Used During Construction Equipment Use
Roller Soil compaction and paving
Semi-truck (with trailer) Deliver major equipment (BESS and substation) and Haul wire reel
Sweeper/Scrubber Road cleaning, if necessary
Tensioner (line truck mounted) Install conductor
Backhoe or skid loader Grading, backfilling of holes, loading soil Water truck Dust suppression, transport water to concrete foundation locations, water for stabilizing slurry
Welder For any welding that may be required
Worker lift (truck mounted) Lift workers to perform work on structures

4.10.4.6. Construction Traffic and Circulation
Site access for crews, materials, and equipment would be from Raymond Street via the existing driveways.

The driveways are each approximately 25 feet wide. No materials, equipment, or vehicles would be staged in the driveways. Temporary short-term lane closures on some public roads may be required during the 16-month construction period to accommodate delivery of oversized equipment or materials.

4.10.4.7. Vegetation Clearance
There are approximately 11 trees currently on the site, within a planter surrounded by pavement in the parking lot. There is also scattered vegetation surrounding an existing building on the site. All the trees and vegetation would be removed as part of the Project. Tree trimming for trees located on adjacent parcels may be required. SVP would consult with the City Arborist to determine the proper time to remove the trees, outside of nesting bird season, and whether replacement trees would be required to be planted elsewhere in the City.

4.10.4.8. Erosion and Sediment Control and Pollution Prevention A small, temporary stockpile of excavated dirt for foundations may be located onsite. There may be two foundations required. The stockpile would either be spread on the site or transported offsite. Sediment controls would be implemented to prevent water or wind disturbance and migration of the soil.

4.10.4.9. Cleanup and Post Construction Restoration
Construction debris, waste, and old equipment would be reused, recycled, or disposed of in accordance with all laws and regulations regarding the disposal of construction debris.

Waste would be stored in approved on site containers or areas and periodically hauled away for recycling or disposal. SVP would conduct a final site survey to document that clean-up activities have been success- fully completed as required.

4.10.4.10. Construction Schedule
Construction is expected to take approximately 16 months and is anticipated to be complete by the end of July 2025. Construction would start with mobilizing construction equipment, crews, and materials to the Project site. In general, after demolition and vegetation removal, construction would begin with site grading and compacting and below grade work (e.g., excavating for the groun d grid, holes for poles, and concrete foundations) and would be followed by installation of all major equipment, including battery and PCS enclosures, HV circuit breakers, dead end structures, control houses, and auxiliary transformers.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-10 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

SVP would install the interconnection line between the BESS site and the SVP grid. The KEN -OKJ 60 kV would be deenergized to interconnect the BESS, but no customer outages are expected. When construc- tion is essentially complete, the site would be paved with an aggregate base. Various types of construction activity may occur simultaneously within the site. It is anticipated that to the extent feasible, construction activities would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work performed on Sundays.

4.10.5. Operation and Maintenance
Once the KRS BESS is energized and interconnected, the pProject would be unmanned. Ameresco’s existing operations and maintenance division would assume inspection, patrol, and maintenance duties.

At least two staff from Ameresco’s operations and maintenance division would be assigned to the Kifer BESS Project, who will perform preventative maintenance. The 60 kV interconnection and the portion of the site supporting the 60 kV substation owned and maintained by SVP would be incorporated into SVP’s existing maintenance programs. The operation and maintenance activities at the BESS would be similar to SVP’s existing activities.

4.10.6. Fire Safety

4.10.6.1. Fire Safety During Construction
Fire protection provided during construction would limit risk of personnel injury, property loss, and potential disruption to the adjacent Kifer Receiving Station.

Fire extinguishers and other portable fire‐fighting equipment would be available onsite and at KRS. These fire extinguishers would be maintained in accordance with local and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Locations of portable fire extinguishers would include, but not be limited to, office spaces, hot work areas, flammable storage areas, and mobile equipment such as work trucks and other vehicles. Fire‐fighting equipment would be marked conspic uously and be accessi- ble. Portable equipment would be routinely inspected, as required by local and federal laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards, and replaced immediately if defective or needing charge. Fire protection would include minimizing flammable materials in the BESS yard, such as vegetation.

4.10.6.2. Fire Safety During BESS Operations
The BESS would comply with the current California Fire Code (CFC), which governs requirements to minimize the risk of fire and life safety hazards specific to battery energy storage systems used for load shedding, load sharing, and other grid services (Chapter 12 Section 1206 of the 2019 CFC). In accordance with the CFC, the battery enclosure s and the site installation design are required to be approved by the State Fire Marshal. If applicable, the BESS would be certified to UL 9540, the standard a ssociated with control, protection, power conversion, communication, controlling the system envi ronment, air, fire detection and suppression system related to the functioning of the energy storage system. The battery would be tested to UL 9540A, a test method intended to document the fire characteristics associated with a thermal event or fire and would confirm that the system will self -extinguish without active fire-fighting measures. The system would be designed such that, during a fire event, the resul ts of the UL 9540A test would show that any internal fire is contained within the enclosure and not spread to the other parts of the facility. The results of this test are used to inform facility safety system design and emergency response plans, which would be shared with first responders. The BESS system would be equipped with a dry agent fire suppression system. If smoke or heat were detected, or if the system were manually triggered, an alarm would sound, horn strobes would flash, and the system would r elease suppressant, typically KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

JULY 2023 4-11 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

FM-200, NOVEC 1230 or a similar clean agent 2 from pressurized storage cylinders. However, final safety design would follow applicable standards and would be specific to the battery technology chosen, includ- ing, but not limited to, National Fire Protection Association 855 (standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems) and Section 1206 of the California Fire Code.

During O&M activities, standard defensible space requirements would be maintained surrounding any welding or digging operations.

4.10.7. Required Approvals
The Applicant would obtain permits for the Project, as needed. Table 4-3, Permits and Approvals Neces - sary for the Proposed Project, lists permits and approvals that may be required for Project construction.

Table 4-3. Permits and Approvals Necessary for the Proposed Project Agency Purpose Permit, Approval, or Exemption
State
Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Region 2 (San Francisco Bay)
Consistency with state water
quality standards
 401 Certification
 Storm Water Construction General
Permit 99-08-DWQ
 National Pollutant Discharge and
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
 Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDRs)
Local
City of Santa Clara Construction and Demolition  Grading and Wall Permits  Traffic Control Plans
 Excavation Permit
 Tree Removal Permit
 Building permit for BESS
 Demolition Permit

4.10.8. Alternatives
The purpose of an alternatives analysis under CEQA is to identify options that would feasibly attain the Project’s objectives while reducing the significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project. CEQA does not require the inclusion of an alternatives analysis in a mitigated negative declaration (MND) because the Initial Study (IS) concludes that, with incorporation of any mitigation measures required, there would be no significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063(d) and 15071). Therefore, no alternatives analysis is provided in the Initial Study. Building the Project at the proposed site places the BESS close to an existing substation and t akes advantage of the existing transmission network already established at and near the site. Any alternative to the Project would require a parcel of land near an SVP substation, which would be difficult to find in the City, which is largely built out.

2 Clean agents, including inert gases, are commonly used to suppress fires in machinery and electrical equipment , including occupied spaces, because they do not damage components and are considered safe for people and the environment.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS

JULY 2023 5-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

5.1. Aesthetics

AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?

c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.1.1. Setting

5.1.1.1. Methodology
Visual or aesthetic resources are the visible natural and cultural features of the environment that contribute to the public’s enjoyment of the environment. Visual resource or aesthetic impacts are generally defined in terms of a project’s physical characteristics and potential visibility and the extent that the Project’s presence would change the visual character and quality of the environment where it would be located.

Visual resources at and near the Project site were assessed in the field and potential visual changes due to Project activities were evaluated. Visual resources of the Project area were investigated based on the fol- lowing criteria: (1) existing visual quality and scenic attributes of the landscape; (2) location of sensitive receptors in the landscape; (3) assumptions about receptors’ concern for scenery and sensitivity to changes in the landscape; (4) the magnitude of visual changes in the landscape that would be brought about by construction and operation of the proposed Project; and (5) compliance with State, County, and local policies for visual resources. The evaluation of potential changes in the area’s visual character is presented in the following paragraphs.

5.1.1.2. Existing Landscape Setting and Viewer Characteristics This section discusses the existing visual character of the region, existing visual quality in the Project area; viewer concern, and viewer exposure to the proposed Project, leading to a rating of overall visual sensi - tivity. Also discussed are the existing sources of light and glare within the Project area.

Aesthetic Context of the Project and its Vicinity . The proposed Project would be located on an existing SVP property in an urbanized area of the City of Santa Clara. The site is located on a public surface street.

The Project vicinity is highly developed, with the SVP Kifer Substation to the east, low intensity office developments to the north and west, and a continuation of the SVP parcel to the south. All parcels in the KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS

JULY 2023 5.1-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Project vicinity are zoned for either Light Industrial use or Public or Quasi Public use, the latter of which is used for substations.

The land use in the area is a mix of light industrial and low intensity office/R&D, which includes data centers. The proposed Project site is not located in an area designated as a protected scenic resource and is therefore not subject to scenic protection standards. In addition, the proposed site is not located near an officially designated scenic highway (Caltrans, 2023).

Existing Views of the Project . Views of the proposed Project are limited by its location behind existing industrial developments, office buildings, and vegetation. The closest residential community to the Project is approximately 0.55 miles to the northeast. The Project would not be visible from this location due to the distance and dense urban development in the area. There are several trees on the sit e which would be removed during site preparation, as part of the Project.

Viewer Concern and Sensitivity to Visual Change. Viewer concerns regarding the observed landscape are shaped by expectations of what the viewer will experience and by existing condi tions. The Project site currently supports a building which is no longer in use. The building is currently overgrown with vegeta- tion. These visual elements have been long established in the landscape. As well, the surroundings on all sides of the site consist of a densely built environment, with no sensitive receptors. The visual change proposed at the site would be largely viewed from nearby or adjacent businesses . The wall proposed to surround the site would screen ground-level views. There are no transmission poles currently at the site, and two poles would be added, neither of which would be directly on a public street. The new transmission line would interconnect with an existing transmission line . The visual change due to the Project would be visible to a limited number of people, mostly people who work at the adjacent office buildings, and would be consistent with the current visual character of the site and vicinity.

5.1.1.3. Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the aesthetic resources’ regulatory framework. There are no federal or state regulations or policies related to aesthetic resources applicable to the Project.

Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The City’s land use policies consider the effects of development to public facilities and infrastructure. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.3.1‐P27. Encourage screening of above‐ground utility equipment to minimize visual impacts.  Policy 5.3.1‐P28. Encourage undergrounding of new utility lines and utility equipment throughout the City.
 Policy 5.3.1‐P29. Encourage design of new development to be compatible with, and sensitive to, nearby existing and planned development, consistent with other applicable General Plan policies.

5.1.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? NO IMPACT. The flat topography and developed character of this part of the City of Santa Clar a does not provide scenic vistas, which typically are views of open spaces or views from elevated topographic posi - tions. The nearest mountains or areas of high elevation that would provide panoramic views that could include the Project site are over 5 mil es away. Views from these locations would overlook the highly KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS

JULY 2023 5.1-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

developed urban landscape, within which the BESS facility would be indiscernible. The Project would therefore result in no impact to a scenic vista.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would require vegetation and tree removal. The Project site is not visible from a scenic highway or an historic building. Based on these conditions, there would be no impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual c haracter or quality of the public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experi- enced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The Project is located in an urbanized area with primarily light industrial and low intensity office/R&D land uses, as defined in the City of Santa Clara General Plan. An abandoned building currently sits on the site.

In the short term, the presence of equipment and vehicles may be noticeable to the nearby businesses and persons using local roads. However, construction activities would be temporary.

Currently, the site is paved, and the site would be paved as part of the Project. The existing building, all vegetation, and all trees on the site would be removed. I f necessary, trimming overhanging vegetation from adjacent parcels would be conducted. This removal would change the Project site, but would not be a significant change within the overall landscape, due to the urbanized character of area.

The proposed Project would be consistent with applicable zoning, regulations and the applicable policies of the City of Santa Clara General Plan, as noted in Section 5.1.1 and in Section 5.11 (Land Use); thus, the impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glar e which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours and would not include nighttime work that would necessitate the use of lighting within work areas. The surfa ces of new structures and enclosures would be non -reflective and would not create glare. The existing nighttime lighting at the site consists of one light in the existing parking area and two street lights across the street from the Project site on Raymond Street. Adjacent properties also have night lighting.

For safety and security, low level lighting would be installed at the gates and at strategic locations around the facility. All Project lighting would be shielded and directed downward to minimize the potential for glare or spillover onto adjacent properties. The lighting would conform to National Electric Safety Code (NESC) requirements and all applicable City of Santa Clara outdoor lighting standards.

There is existing lighting from the industrial developments near the entrance to the Project site on Raymond Street. The new lighting would be minimal and would not adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area, therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.2-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) pre - pared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to infor- mation compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Pro- tection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measure ment methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.2.1. Setting
The proposed Project is located in a developed area with no agricultural activity or forestry resources at or near the site. The surrounding lands are designated as Urban and Built -Up Land under the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (DOC, 2022). The properties in the areas along the proposed Project are not under California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (referred to as the Williamson Act) contracts (DOC, 2017).

5.2.1.1. Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the agriculture and forestry resources regulatory framework. There are no federal or local regulations associated with agriculture and forestry resources that are relevant to the proposed Project.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.2-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 to identify vari- ous categories of farmland throughout California and to assess the location, quantity, and quality of agri- cultural lands and conversion of these lands to other uses.

Williamson Act. The Williamson Act is intended to help preserve farmland by allowing counties to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use in return for a reduction in assessed property taxes. As stated in Section 51222 of the California Government Code, the minimum acreage requirement for individual parcels to enter into Williamson Act contracts is 100 acres.

5.2.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as Shown on the Maps Prepared Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to Non-agricultural use? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project site and all of the land in the vicinity are designated as Urban and Built - Up Land. Agriculture is not practiced in the area. The proposed Project would not result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NO IMPACT. The City of Santa Clara does not participate in the Williamson Act. There is no designated zoning for agricultural use, and the City of Santa Clara General Plan does not include an Agriculture Element. The proposed Project route would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use. c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Tim berland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project route is in an urban area and is not forested. The proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for forest land, timberland, or timber production. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not affect any forest land since the proposed Project site is located in an urban area that is not forested. There would be no conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? NO IMPACT. There is no Farmland, agriculture, or forestland along or near the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion to non - agricultural or non-forest uses.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.3-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.3. Air Quality

AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control dist- rict may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen- trations?

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.3.1. Setting
Air Basin. The KRS BESS Project would be in the San Francisco Bay Area air basin in the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which regulates sources of air pollution and the programs to improve air quality in the region. The San Francisco Bay Area air b asin is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, which distort normal wind flow pat terns. The Coast Range has a western coastal gap, the Golden Gate, and an eastern coastal gap, the Carquinez Stra it, which allow air to flow in and out of the Bay Area air basin and California’s Central Valley (BAAQMD, 2017).

Criteria Air Pollutants. Air quality is determined by measuring ambient concentrations of certain criteria air pollutants. The criteria polluta nts are ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Ozone is an example of a secondary pollutant that is not emitted directly from a source (e.g., an automobile tailpipe), but it is formed in the atmosphere by chemical and photochemical reactions. Reactive organic gases (ROG), including volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are regulated as precursors to ozone formation.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) have independent authority to develop and establish health-protective ambient air quality standards, although the different legislative and scientific contexts cause some diversity between State and Federal standards currently in effect in California. The monitored levels of the pollutants are compared to the current National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) to determine degree of existing air quality degradation. The standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 5.3-1.

Table 5.3-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards Ozone 1-hour
8-hour

0.09 ppm

0.070 ppm
—

0.070 ppm
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour
Annual Mean
50 µg/m3
20 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
—
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.3-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 5.3-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour
Annual Mean
—
12 µg/m3
35 µg/m3

12.0 µg/m3
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour
8-hour
20 ppm

9.0 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour
Annual Mean

0.18 ppm

0.030 ppm

0.100 ppm

0.053 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour
24-hour
Annual Mean

0.25 ppm

0.04 ppm
—

0.075 ppm

0.14 ppm

0.030 ppm
Notes: ppm=parts per million; µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter; “—“ = no standard Source: ARB, 2016.

Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status and
Air Quality Plans. The U.S. EPA, ARB, and the
local air district classify an area as attainment,
unclassified, or nonattainment of a pollutant,
and these designations dictate the air quality
management planning activities needed make
future air pollutant reductions. The classifica-
tion depends on whether the monitored am-
bient air quality data show compliance, insuf-
ficient data available, or non -compliance with
the ambient air quality standards, respec -
tively. Table 5.3 -2 summarizes attainment
status in the San Francisco Bay Area air basin
for the criteria pollutants under both the state
and federal standards.

Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants that may lead to serious illness or increased mortality, even when present in relatively low concentrations. Potential human health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundred s of dif ferent types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another’s. TACs do not have ambient air qu ality standards but are regulated by the local air districts using a risk -based approach. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is classified as a TAC, and statewide and local programs focus on managing this pollutant through motor vehicle fuels, engine, and tai lpipe standards because many toxic compounds adhere to diesel exhaust particles. The KRS BESS Project would not be considered a stationary source subject to risk assessment programs.

Sensitive Receptors. Residential areas, day care centers, hospitals, and schools are some examples of sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities or land uses that include mem - bers of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses (BAAQMD, 2017). The site is surrounded by other light industrial uses, including office buildings and utilities. No air quality sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the Project site.

Table 5.3-2. Attainment Status for San
Francisco Bay Area
Pollutant California Designation Federal Designation
Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Source: BAAQMD, 2023.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.3-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.3.1.1. Regulatory Background
California Clean Air Act. The California CAA and the California Health and Safety Code requires each region to develop and implement strategies to attain CAAQS and establishes broad authority for Cali fornia to regulate emissions from mobile sources. The BAAQMD must periodically prepare air quality management plans to show how the standards will be met. The 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan is the current control strategy to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins.

U.S. EPA/ARB Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program. The California Clean Air Act man - dates that ARB achieve the maximum degree of emission reductions from all off -road mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quali ty standards. Off -road mobile sources include construction equipment. The earliest (Tier 1) standards for large compression-ignition engines used in off-road mobile sources became effective in California in 1996. Since then, the Tier 3 standards for large compression- ignition engines used in off -road mobile sources went into effect in California for most engine classes in 2006, and Tier 4 or Tier 4 Interim (4i) standards apply to all mobile off -road diesel engines model year 2012 or newer. Engines used in large generator sets became subject to Tier 4 exhaust emissions standards for model year 2015 and newer. These standards address NOx emissions and toxic particulate matter from diesel combustion. The California Emission Standards for Off -Road Compression-Ignition Engines are as specified in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 4, Section 2423.

ARB In-Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation. The regulation for in -use off -road diesel-fueled fleets is designed to re duce mobile -source NOx and toxic DPM. Depending on the size of the fleet of equipment, the fleet owner must ensure that the average emissions performance of the fleet meets certain statewide standards. In lieu of improving the emissions performance of the fleet, electric systems can be installed to replace diesel equipment in the fleet average calculations. Presently, all equipment owners are subject to a five-minute idling restriction in the rule (13 CCR, Chapter 10, Section 2449).

ARB Portable Equipment R egistration Program (PERP). This program allows owners or operators of portable engines and associated equipment commonly used for construction or farming to register their units under a statewide portable program that allows them to operate their equipmen t throughout Cali- fornia without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.

ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM). Diesel engines on portable equipment and vehicles are subject to various ATCMs that dictate how diesel sources must be controlled statewide. For example, the ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling generally limits idling of commercial motor vehicles (including buses and trucks) within 100 feet of a school or residential area for more than five consecutive minutes or periods aggregating more than 5 minutes in any one hour (13 CCR, Chapter 10, Section 2485). Diesel engines used in portable equipment fleets are subject to stringent DPM emissions standards, generally requiring use of only newer engines or verified add-on particulate filters (17 CCR Section 93116).

City of Santa Clara General Plan. The City of Santa Clara, 2010-2035 General Plan (General Plan) includes the following air quality goals and policies to help promote sustainability and encourage land use and transportation patterns that reduce air pollutant emissions and to provide adequate buffer distances between sources and receptors (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Goal 5.10.2‐G1. Improved air quality in Santa Clara and the region.  Goal 5.10.2‐G2. Reduced greenhouse gas emissions that meet the State and regional goals and require- ments to combat climate change.
 Policy 5.10.2‐P3. Encourage implementation of technological advances that minimize public health hazards and reduce the generation of air pollutants.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.3-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 Policy 5.10.2‐P4. Encourage measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
 Policy 5.10.2‐P5. Promote regional air pollution prevention plans for local industry and businesses.  Policy 5.10.2‐P6. Require “Best Management Practices” for construction dust abatement.  Policy 5.10.5-P35. Establish minimum buffers between odor sources and new residential or other uses with sensitive receptors, consistent with BAAQMD guidelines, unless a project‐specific study dem on- strates that these risks can be reduced to acceptable levels.

The 2010 -2035 General Plan also includes certain prerequisite goal s and policies to support major strategies in the City and generally recognize the importance of planning from a “big picture” perspective, including the protection of community health, as follows (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.1.1-P24. Prior to the implementation of Phase III, the City will include a community Risk Reduc- tion Plan (“CRRP”) for acceptable Toxic Air Contaminant (“TAC”) concentrations, consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) CEQA Guidelines, including r isk and exposure reduction targets, measures to reduce emissions, monitoring procedures, and a public participations process.

BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Thresholds of Significance. The BAAQMD developed the following thresholds as recommendations for use in the CEQA process. For construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions, construction of a project may cause a significant impact if it would:
 Emit more than 54 pounds per day (lb/day) of reactive organic gases (ROG) or volatile organic com - pounds (VOC);
 Emit more than 54 lb/day of nitrogen oxides (NOx);
 Emit more than 82 lb/day of PM10 from exhaust; or
 Emit more than 54 lb/day of PM2.5 from exhaust.

Similar thresholds exist for a project during operation along with a threshold for localized concentrations of CO greater than 9 ppm (8 -hour average) or 20 ppm (1 hour average). For PM10 and PM2.5 related to construction fugitive dust, the BAAQMD recommends that every project should include best management practices rather than achieve specific fugitive dust emissions thresholds. The basic construction emissions control measures appear in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD, 2017).

5.3.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? NO IMPACT. The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for managing local air quality and adminis - tering other California and federal programs ensuring implementation of the air quality management plan.

The 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan is the BAAQMD’s current plan to achieve state and national ambient air quality standards, comply with California and federal air quality planning requirements, and maintain healthy air in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The BAAQMD recommends evaluating whether local long-range plans: (a) support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan; (b) include relevant control measures; and (c) do not interfere with implementa- tion of 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan anticipates that elec- tricity consumption and demand for electricity will increase as a result of economic and demographic growth and due to increased electrification caused by shifting energy demand away from fossil fuels. The Proposed Project would modify the existing SVP infrastructure to provide an electric transmission system resource that delivers stored electricity during peak times. By improving the delivery of electricity to the transmission system, the Project would support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and increased KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.3-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

electrification of energy demands. No control measures from the plan would be directly applicable to the Project, and the Project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any plan control measures.

A Pproject could be found inconsistent with the applicable air quality management plan or attainment plan if it could cause population and/or employment growth or growth in vehicle-miles traveled in excess of the growth forecasts included in the air quality attainment plan. Since the Project would be unmanned, the Project would not require any new permanent full -time or part-time staff after construction is com - plete. Ameresco’s existing operations and maintenance division will assign two staff who would provide O&M services as needed. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct imple mentation of the applicable air quality plan. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED – CONSTRUCTION. The construction -related increase in air pollutant emissions would occur in the regional context of the San Francisco Bay Area air basin that is currently designated as “nonattainment” for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 (Table 5.3-2, Attainment Status for San Francisco Bay Area).

The construction-phase activities include mobilizing vehicles and equipment for demolition and construc- tion, crews, and materials. The site work would include demolition of the existing building, vegetation removal, grading, installing concrete foundations, installing prefabricated equipment, paving, and install- ing poles for the 60 kV line interconnection. These activities during construction would generate emissions at the work area and along the roadways used to access the site.

Construction emissions would be caused by exhaust from vehicles and equipment (e.g., ozone precursors [volatile organic compounds and NOx], CO, and particulate matter [PM10 and PM2.5]) and fugitive dust that includes particulate matter from ground -disturbing activities. The mobile sources would be a mix diesel-powered off-road construction equipment types, including: cranes, lifts, loaders, an auger drill rig, rollers, and small welders. On -road mobile sources would include diesel and gasoline -powered vehicles for linework and trucks for deliveries o f concrete, water and other materials. Outside of the work site, construction traffic would cause exhaust emissions from the trucks and other vehicles used by crews, materials, and equipment to access the work site.

Construction is expected to take app roximately 16 months. The peak number of construction personnel would be 25 workers, and traffic to and from the site during construction would not exceed approximately 30 trips per day.

Project-related construction emissions calculations rely on factors f rom the ARB EMFAC2017 model and other databases embedded in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0.

The detailed emission calculations are based on the proposed workforce and types of equipment (see Project Description, Secti on 4.10.4). The activity details that were modeled and the results appear in CalEEMod output files (Aspen, 2023). Table 5.3 -3 summarizes the maximum daily emission rates of the Proposed Project construction activity.

Table 5.3-3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lb/day) Construction Activity VOC NOx CO SO2
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Demolition 1.4 13.6 12.1 0.0 0.6 0.5
Site Preparation, Foundations 1.9 18.3 19.5 0.0 0.7 0.6 BESS Installation, Tie-Line 2.2 19.5 24.6 0.1 0.7 0.7
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.3-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Construction Activity VOC NOx CO SO2
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Paving 0.7 6.5 9.6 0.0 0.3 0.2
Cleanup 30.5 2.3 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.1
Maximum Daily
Construction Emissions 30.5 19.5 24.6 0.1 0.7 0.7
Threshold of Significance 54 54 None None 82 54
Source: CalEEMod Output Files; Aspen Environmental Group, 2023.

Table 5.3-3 shows that Project construction would not exceed the thresholds for individually significant Project impacts. With implementation of basic control measures recommended by BAAQMD, construc - tion-related criteria air pollutants would not exceed threshol ds that indicate cumulatively considerable levels.

The thresholds of significance (BAAQMD, 2017) recommended by the BAAQMD define mass emission rates that represent a potentially significant net increase for ozone precursor emissions (NOx or VOC) or exhaust emissions of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). For construction dust, the BAAQMD recom - mends a qualitative approach emphasizing implementation of effective emissions control measures that avoid causing a cumulatively considerable net increase. The qualitative approach to reducing dust reflects the nature of construction phase emissions that are generally short‐term in duration.

Concurrent construction of other projects near the Project site could result in increased local air quality impacts for the duration of simultaneous construction activities (Section 5.22). Emissions generated by Project construction would be temporary and variable and would be similar in nature to emis sions from other typical and nearby construction activities. Simultaneous c onstruction of other cumula tive projects near the Project site would also be likely to implement general BAAQMD recommendations for minimizing air quality impacts. All activities must comply with BAAQMD rules regarding dust control.

To ensure that a cumulatively considerable net increase of emissions would not occur due to construction dust, basic construction emissions control strategies are drawn from BAAQMD guidance (BAAQMD, 2017).

The basic construction emissions control strategies represent “Best Management Practices” consistent with City of Santa Clara air quality policies. The recommended emissions control measur es appear in Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

With mitigation, construction of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutants for which the region in is nonattainment, and the construction-related emissions would not substantially contribute to any air quality violation. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure for Construction-Phase Air Quality
MM AQ-1 Implement Basic Construction Air Quality Mitigation. The Project shall ensure that basic construction emissions control measures are implemented as “Best Management Prac - tices,” as follows:
 All exposed soil surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, and graded areas) shall be watered two times per day.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.3-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 All areas to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Foundation pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading.
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage regarding idling shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone n umber and person to contact at SVP regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Operational emissions would be limited to the vehicle and equipment used for periodic maintenance, repair, and inspection of the KRS BESS Project. The Project would be unmanned, and m onitoring and control functions for the new faci lities would be assumed by Ameresco’s existing staff. No additional operations staff would be hired by SVP as a result of the Project being put into service. Operational activities would not result in any net increase in mobile source emissions due to workers or staff maintaining the facility, and no new stationary sources are proposed.

As a result, operation of the KRS BESS Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitiga tion would be required during operations.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED – CONSTRUCTION. Construction would generate toxic air contaminants routinely found in the exhaust of gasoline powered motor vehicles and of diesel -fueled equipment, including die sel particulate matter (DPM). The Project would not involve any permanent or stationary sources of air pollution, but construction would temporarily bring construction equipment into the Project site and onto roadways accessing the site. For assessing comm unity risks and hazards, the BAAQMD recommends evaluation of sources and receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project property boundary (BAAQMD, 2017). No air quality sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the Project site.

Short‐term emissions associated with construction would occur onsite and along the roadways accessing the work areas, and the activities would be variable in sequence and timing. The proposed activities include mobilizing vehicles and equipment for demolition and construction, crews, and materials, and use of fleet of diesel-powered offroad equipment on the site to install the Project components.

Construction equipment and vehicles would access and move within the Project site throughout the construction duration of approximately 16 months. Within the overall duration, the emissions would vary and would not occur for long periods; this minimizes the potential that any location would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Construction contractors would be required to control dust to avoid creating a nuisance, and the off-road diesel-fueled fleets regulation requires achieving a feasible level of control to minimize diesel exhaust emissions. Implementing “Best Management Practices” would minimize the emissions of pollutants, including dust and DPM or other toxic air contaminants . Mitigation Measure AQ -1, identified under criterion “b” in this section, would control dust, limit equipment idling times, and properly maintain equip- KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.3-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

ment to reduce co nstruction phase emissions to levels below the applicable thresholds of significance.

Implementing the best practices identified in the mitigation measure would ensure that receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations. Impacts under thi s criterion would be less than significant with mitigation for construction emissions.

Mitigation Measure for Construction-Phase Air Quality
MM AQ-1 Implement Basic Construction Air Quality Mitigation [see full text under Item (b) above.] LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. During Project operations, emissions would result from limited use of vehicles for routine maintenance, repair, and inspection . Operational activities would not result in any net increase in mobile source emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required during operations.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading t o odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The Project would not include any sources likely to create objectionable odors.

Construction would involve the temporary use of vehicles and construction equipment and mate rials, such as fuels and lubricants, that may generate intermittent, minor odors. Odors that occur in equipment exhaust would be minimized by mandatory use of ultra -low sulfur diesel fuel. Emissions of this nature would occur briefly during construction an d would cease at the end of construction. There would be no notable impact of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.4-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.4. Biological Resources

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candi - date, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally pro- tected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrologi- cal interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native res- ident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting bio- logical resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordi - nance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conser- vation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.4.1. Setting
This section describes the existing biological resources that occur in the proposed Project area. The Project site is located on a fully developed parcel in the City of Santa Clara, surrounded by urban development.

The Project site has been developed and physically altered such that native vegetation communities are no longer present. A few trees are located in the northern portion of the Project area. Ornamental landscaping is also present along the northern and northeastern property line and around the existing, vacant building on the site.

5.4.1.1. Special-Status Plants and Animals
Due to the absence of suitable habitat in this highly urbanized envi ronment there are no special -status plants or animals likely to occur in the Project area. The ground cover on the Project site is concrete pavement, and the limited vegetation consists of ornamental landscaping and approximately 11 trees.

Animals that may occur in the vicinity would include urban-adapted birds and mammals such as raccoon, skunk, and opossum. Except for a driveway onto the property, access to and through the site is impeded by existing fencing and adjacent urban development.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.4-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.4.1.2. Nesting Birds
A variety of birds adapted to the urban environment may nest i n the vicinity. Nests may be built in the trees or other vegetation, on the ground, or on structures on or near the site. Nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) as well as California Fish and Game Code.

5.4.1.3. Jurisdictional Waters
There are no jurisdictional waters or features within the Project site.

5.4.1.4. Regulatory Background
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1538). The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) designates and provides for protection of threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species and their critical habitat. “Take” of a federally listed species is prohibited without the appropr iate permits, which may be obtained through Section 7 consultation (between federal agencies) or a Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plan.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703–711). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 protects all migratory b irds. Birds protected under the MBTA include all native waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, eagles, owls, doves, and other common birds such as ravens, crows, sparrows, finches, swallows, and others, including their body parts (for example feathers and plumes), active nests, and eggs. A complete list of protected species is found at 50 CFR 10.13. Enforcement of the provisions of the MBTA is the responsibility of USFWS.

Clean Water Act (33 USC §§ 1251-1376). The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant obtain State certification for discharge into waters of the United States. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards administer the certification program in California. Section 404 of the CWA established a permit program, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.

State
CEQA Guidelines § 15380. Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires an applicant to fully disclose environmental impacts before issuance of a permit by state and local agencies. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) articulates the classifications of species to be analyzed under CEQA. In general, impacts to plants or their habitat having a California Rare Plant Rank of 1A (plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere), 1B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), 2A (plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere), 2B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California), or 3 (plants about which more information is needed — a review list) must be analyzed during preparation of the environmental doc uments relating to CEQA. According to the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Rare Plant Program, species with these California Rare Plant Rank rankings meet the definition of “rare and endangered” under the CEQA Guidelines.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (CFGC §§ 2050-2098). Sections 2050-2098 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) prohibit the take of state -listed endangered and threatened species unless specifically authorized by CDFW. The state definition of “take” is to hunt, pursue , catch, capture, or kill a member of a listed species or attempt to do so. CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and authorizes take-through permits or memoranda of understanding issued under Section 2081 of the CFGC or through a consistency determination issued under Section 2080.1. A consistency determi- nation allows CDFW to authorize a project to proceed if that agency agrees with terms and conditions KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.4-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

developed for a federal Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Permit. Section 2090 of CFGC requires state agencies to comply with threatened and endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species.

Fully Protected Species (CFGC §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). CFGC designates certain animal species as “fully protected” under Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish). “Take” permits for fully protected species may only be issued for fully protected species that are “covered” species in a Natural Co mmunity Conservation Plan (NCCP). Fully protected species in the San Francisco Bay Area include species such as the California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus).

CFGC Protection for Birds (CFGC § 3503 et seq.). CFGC Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird. Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game birds designated under the MBTA, except as provided by rules and regulations adopted under the MBTA.

California Species of Special Concern. “Species of Special Concern” is a designation assigned by the CDFW to species it considers at risk. Species of Special Concern meet one or more of the following criteria: (1) is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; (2) is federally, but not State, listed as threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; (3) is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; (4) has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. “Species of Special Concern” is an administrative designation intended to fo cus attention on at -risk species during environmental review and conservation planning. Species of Special Concern should be considered during the environmental review process. CEQA (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 -21177) requires state agenci es, local governments, and special districts to evaluate and disclose impacts from “projects” in the state. Because Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines defines endangered, rare or threatened species to include species which meet criteria consistent with the criteria required for listing under the federal and/or state endangered species acts regardless of whether such species are formally listed, Species of Special Concern are appropriately considered in the analysis of Project impacts.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) This act regulates surface water and groundwater and assigns responsibility for implementing federal CWA Section 401. It estab - lished the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to protect State waters.

Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The City of Santa Clara General Plan was adopted on November 16, 2010, and updated on December 9, 2014. The General Plan goals and policies pertaining to the biological resources are listed below.

Conservation Goals
 Conservation Goal 5.10.1 -G1: The protection of fish, wildlife and their habitats, including rare and endangered species.
 Conservation Goal 5.10.1-G2: Conservation and restoration of riparian vegetation and habitat.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.4-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Conservation Policies
 Conservation Policy 5.3.1 -P10: Provide opportunities for increased landscaping and trees in the com - munity, including requirements for new development to provide street trees and a minimum 2:1 on- or off-site replacement for trees to be removed as part of the proposal to help increase the urban forest and minimize the heat island effect.
 Conservation Policy 5.10.1 -P1: Require environmental review prior to approval of any development with the potential to degrade the habitat of any threatened or endangered species.  Conservation Policy 5.10.1 -P2: Work with Santa Clara Valley Water District and require that new development follow the “Guidelines and Standards for Lands Near Streams” to protect streams and riparian habitats.
 Conservation Policy 5.10.1 -P3: Require preservation of all City -designated heritage trees listed in the Heritage Tree Appendix 8.10 of the General Plan (see Appendix C of the Arborist Report).  Conservation Policy 5.10.1-P4: Protect all healthy cedars, redwoods, oaks, olives, bay laurel and pepper trees of any size, and all other trees over 36 inches in circumference measured from 48 inches above - grade on private and public property as well as in the public right-of-way.  Conservation Policy 5 .10.1-P5: Encourage enhancement of land adjacent to creeks in order to foster the reinstatement of natural riparian corridors where possible.  Conservation Policy 5.10.1-P11: Require use of native plants and wildlife-compatible non-native plants, when feasible, for landscaping on City property.
 Conservation Policy 5.10.1-P12: Encourage property owners and landscapers to use native plants and wildlife-compatible non-native plants, when feasible.

5.4.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

5.4.2.1. Special-Status Plants and Wildlife
A review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) did not identify any occurrences of special status species overlapping the Project site. As previously described, the site is largely devoid of vegetation.

Landscaped trees, shrubs, and other vegetation are found on the Project site; however, it is in a highly developed, built out urban area and does not include suitable habitat for any special-status plant species.

5.4.2.2. Nesting Birds
A variety of common birds may nest in the Project vicinity and in trees on the Project site. Nests may be built in trees or other vegetation, on the ground, or on existing vacant structures. Birds may also attempt to nest in construction materials or on idle construction equipment.

Nesting birds are protected under the MBTA as well as the CFGC. Further, raptors (e.g., eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both federal and State regulations. CFGC Section 3503 prohibits the needless destruction of the nest, eggs, or young of any bird covered under the MBTA . Construction disturbance, including tree trimming, tree removal, and other vegetation removal (e.g., shrubs) during the KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.4-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

breeding and nesting season (February 15 through August 31) could adversely impact breeding birds by removing potential nesting habitat (e.g., trees and other vegetation). Other adverse impacts may include damage to nests and injury or mortality to eggs and young, and disruption of nesting behavior or care of young due to noise and disturbance during construction. Because of the urban environment, nesting birds in the Project area would likely be somewhat tolerant of noi se, dust, and vibration from construction.

However, some construction activities in close proximity to nests may still disturb nesting birds, poten - tially causing nest failure.

It is expected that any birds nesting in vegetation around the site would be habituated to the urban envi- ronment, which includes the presence of lighting, vehicles, equipment, people, and pets. To avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds, SVP would implement mitigation measures MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-3.

MM BIO-1 (Biological Monitoring) requires a qualified biologist be assigned to the Project and conduct periodic site visits, as well as be the main point of contact for construction if a bird is found injured, entrapped, or dead. MM BIO-2 (Worker Environmental Awareness Training) requires all employees on the Project be aware of nesting birds and protocols if an unanticipated biological resource is encountered.

MM BIO-3 (Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds) requires preconstruction surveys for nesting birds.

If tree/vegetation trimming or removal and/or construction activities occur dur ing the bird breeding and nesting season (February 15 through August 31), preconstruction nesting surveys would be performed by a qualified biologist within 7 days prior to the s tart of construction. This time window is necessary to ensure that nests are identified. With the implementation of these measures, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures for Nesting Birds
MM BIO-1 Biological Monitoring. A qualified biologist will be assigned to the Project and will mon- itor the Project periodically. The qualified biologist will be the point of contact for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a special -status species or anyone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped animal. The qualified biologist or biolog- ical monitor shall have the authority and responsibility to halt any Project activities that are not in compliance with applicable mitigation measures, permit conditions, or other Project requirements, or will have an unauthorized adverse effect on biological resources.

MM BIO-2 Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to construction, a construction emp - loyee education program will be conducted in reference to all s ensitive environmental resources potentially affected by site work (e.g., air quality, biological resources, cul tural resources, hydrology and water quality, hazardous materials) and the measures associ - ated with their protection (i.e., mitigation measures and applicable laws and regulations).

MM BIO-3 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Nest Protection. During the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted on the site and vicinity by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before any work activities are performed. A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall also be required prior to any veg- etation removal or trimming that occurs during the nesting season. Surveyors will search for all potential nest types (e.g., ground, cavity, shrub/tree, structural, etc.) and deter- mine whether the nest is active. A nest will be determined to be active if eggs or young are present in the nest. Upon discovery of active nests, Silicon Valley Power’s biological monitor will determine if there is need for a buffer or shield to minimize disturbance of the nest. Upon this determination and execution of any required min imization action, work may proceed. The extent of mitigation will be based upon: acclimation of the species or individual to disturbance, nest type (cavity, tree, ground, etc.), and level and duration KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.4-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

of construction activity. If there is a period of 7 or more days during nesting season in which construction does not occur, a new survey shall be undertaken to determine if any nests have been established.

In the unlikely event a special-status or listed species is found nesting nearby, CDFW and USFWS will be notified and the City of Santa Clara will be provided with nest survey results, if requested. When active nests are identified, monitoring for significant distur - bance to the birds will be implemented.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive nat- ural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? NO IMPACT. Sensitive natural communities are communities that have limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to the environmental effects of projects. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community within the proposed Project site. No impacts would occur.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
NO IMPACT. The Project area is highly urbanized and no waters or wetlands under the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW occur on or near the Project site. No impacts would occur. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project area is within a highly urbanized area near busy roadways and active land uses. However, landscaped areas and trees in the area provide some habitat for avian foraging and breeding. Except for a driveway onto the property, wildlife movement through the site is impeded by existing fencing and adjacent urban development. Construction of the Project includes installation of a permanent fence and a wall, which would result in no change to migratory movement. The Project site does not provide wildlife nursery opportunities. Impacts will be less than significant. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The limited vegetation on the site would be removed prior to construction. The City of Santa Clara General Plan Conservation Policy 5.10.1 P4 states, “Protect all healthy cedars, redwoods, oaks, olives, bay laurel and pepper trees of any size, and all other trees over 36 inches in circum ference measured from 48 inches above -grade on private and public property as well as in the public right -of- way.” Land Use Policy 5.3.1‐P10 states “Provide opportunities for increased landscaping and trees in the community, including requirements for new development to provide street trees and a minimum 2:1 on‐ or off‐site replacement for trees removed as part of the proposal to help increase the urban forest and minimize the heat island effect.” A few trees within the Project site that would be removed may be greater than 36 inches in circumference. As a standard practice, SVP consults with the City Arborist to determine if any removed trees require replacement and the number and location of such plantings elsewhere in the City.

No heritage trees, as liste d by the City of Santa Clara General Plan Heritage Tree Appendix 8.10, are present within or immediately adjacent to the proposed Project.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.4-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

By consulting with the City Arborist and executing any required tree replacement, impacts will be less than significant.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project area is outside of the Santa Clara Habitat Conservation Plan area. No impacts would occur.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.5. Cultural Resources

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.5.1. Setting
This section describes the existing cultural resources in the Project area and discusses potential impacts associated with the proposed Project. Cultural resources are historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, historic-aged architectural or engineering features and structures, and places of traditional cultural sig - nificance to Native Americans and other ethnic groups.

5.5.1.1. Environmental Setting
The Project area is located in a previously disturbed and entirely built environment. The City of Santa Clara General Plan designates the KRS BESS Project area as Low Intensity Of fice/Research and Development (R&D). All adjacent parcels to the north, south, and west have the same General Plan Designation. The parcel to the east of the Project, which is where the Kifer Receiving Station is located, has a General Plan Designation of Light Industrial. The site is surrounded by other light industrial uses, including office buildings and utilities. There is one road, Raymond Street, adjacent to the Project site is a two-lane surface street.

Prehistory
Paleoindian Period (11,500–4,500 years before present [BP]). Native American occupation and use of the Santa Clara Valley began around 11,000 BP. Natural environmental changes to the Bay Area land scape have occurred since humans’ first arrival. Many of the landforms originally available for human habitation in prehistory were inundated as sea levels rose and flooded the Franciscan Valley, burying sites with sediments. Since the earliest systematic studies of central California and Bay Area archaeology in the 1950s, researchers have recognized that a significant portion of the archaeological record is buried in the fans and massive alluvial plains of the lowland valleys (Heizer, 1949, 1950, 1952; Heizer and Cook, 1953; Lillard et al., 1939; Meighan, 1965).

The earliest cultures of the Paleoind ian/Early Holocene Period are generally considered to be repre - sented by wide -ranging mobile hunters and gatherers. Throughout California, the Paleoindian sites are most often represented by isolated fluted projectile points , although sites dating to this time period in the Bay Area are sparse. The Coyote Narrows (CA-SCR-177) and the Metcalf Creek Site (CA-SCL-178) sites in the Santa Clara Valley, are considered two of the oldest cultural deposits in the Bay Area. They were discovered in buried soil and dat ed between 11,000 and 9,500 years old (Fitzgerald and Porcasi, 2003; Hildebrandt, 1983).

Early Horizon (4,500 –3,500 BP). The Early Horizon period is characterized by a mobile forager pattern throughout the Bay Area. The milling slab and handstone, as well as a variety of large, wide-stemmed and KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

leaf-shaped projectile points, all emerged during this period. Local Franciscan chert dominated the Early Holocene components in the Santa Clara Valley. The Metcalf Creek Site (CA -SCL-178) yielded cultural materials as deep as 9 meters below the surface (Fitzgerald and Porcasi, 2003). New groundstone technol- ogy and the first cut shell beads in mortuaries signal a more sedentary life, regional symbolic integration, and increased regional trade in the Bay Area, beginning at about 3,500 BP, signaling the end of the Early Horizon.

Middle Horizon (3,500–1,500 BP). Sites of the Middle Horizon period are more common throughout the Santa Clara Valley. These sites usually have deep, stratified deposits that contain large quantities of ash, charcoal, fire -altered rock, fish, bird, and mammal remains. The presence of significant numbers of mortars and pestles suggests a growing reliance upon gathered plant foods as opposed to hunted animal foods. An increase in violence is suggested by the number of Middle Horizon burials found with projectile points embedded in the bones or with other physical markers of violence (Fitzgerald, 1991).

Late Horizon Period (1,500 BP–A.D. 1769). Late Horizon sites are the most numerous and are composed of extensive midden deposits, indicating a more sedentary lifestyle. Important mound/ midden sites along the Peninsula margins include the University Village site (CA -SMA-77), the San Bruno Mountain mound (CA-SMA-40), and the Ynigo Mound (CA -SCL-12/H). Several technological and social develop ments characterize the Late Horizon period such as the introduction of the bo w and arrow, which replaced the atlatl and dart. Dietary emphasis on acorns and seeds is prevalent in the materials recovered from excavated sites. This change from hunter-gatherers to an increased sedentary lifestyle is due both to more efficient resource procurement as well as a focus on staple food exploitation, the increased ability to store food at village locations, and the development of increasingly complex social and political systems including long-distance trade networks (Clark, 1989; Levy, 1978).

Ethnography
A review of the ethnographic context for the Project area is presented in Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

Regional History
The Historic Period of the Santa Clara Valley is generally divided into three major periods: the Spanish period (1777–1821), the Mexican period (1822–1848), and the American period (1848–present).

Spanish Period (A.D. 1777–1821). Spanish explorers in the late 1760s and 1770s were the first Europeans to traverse the Santa Clara Valley. The first party, led by Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan Crespi, arrived in the Alviso–San Jose area in the fall of 1769. The following year, Pedro Fages led another party through the Santa Clara Valley, and in 17 72 Fages returned to the same vicinity with Crespi. In 1776, the exploration party of Juan Bautista de Anza and Father Pedro Font traveled through the Santa Clara Valley.

The favorable reports of Anza and Font led to the establishment of both Mission Santa Clara and the Pueblo San Jose de Guadalupe in 1777 (Hart, 1987; Winther, 1935; Cutter, 1978).

Mexican Period (A.D. 1822–1848). The 1822 Mexican revolt against Spain followed by the 1834 seculari- zation of the missions changed land ownership patterns in the Santa Clara Valley. The Spanish philosophy of governance was directed at the founding of presidios, missions, and secular towns, with the land held by the Crown. In contrast, the later Mexican policy stressed individual ownership of the land. During the Mexican Period, vast tracts of land, including former mission lands that had reverted to public domain, were granted to individuals (Broek, 1932; Hendry and Bowman, 1940; Hart, 1987).

American Period (A.D. 1848–Present). The population of the Santa Clara Valley began to expand sig nifi- cantly following the 1848 Gold Rush; further population expansion resulted during construction of the KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

railroad to San Francisco in 1864 and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 (Findlay and Garaventa, 1983). Throughout the late nineteenth century rancho, pueblo, and mission lands in the Santa Clara Valley were subdivided as the result of population growth, Anglo -American takeover, and the con - firmation of property titles. Large cattle ranches were converted to farming of crops; this agricultural land- use pattern continued throughout the American Period. During this period, agricultural experimentation took place. After 1875, the success of many agricultural experiments and expanded access to markets via rail encouraged the development of fruit production in the Santa Clara Valley. From 1875 onward, the expanding fruit market led to innovations in fruit preser vation and shipping, including: drying fruit, canning fruit, and shipping fresh fruit in refrige rated cars. This created a wider economic boom that attracted new residents to the Santa Clara Valley (Broek, 1932; Winther, 1935). The City of San Jose served as the County seat, a primary service, financial and social center. Since the 1990s, the agraria n land-use pattern has been displaced by residential housing, commercial centers, and the development of research and manufacturing facilities associated with the electronics industry. The contemporary focus on techno- logical advancement resulted in the designation of the general region as the “Silicon Valley.” Records Search
Aspen submitted a California Historical Resources (CHRIS) Data Request for the Project to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University requesting data within 0.25 miles of the Project area. On January 6, 2023, the results were received identifying two previously recorded resources/sites and within

0.25 miles of the Project area. Neither of these resources are within the Project area. Additionally, the record search identified a total of 51 previously cultural resources studies within 0.25 miles of the Project area. Of these 51 studies, 23 of them include all or a portion of the Project area in the study (Table 5.5-1).

The records search included consultation of the following registers and lists.  National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
 California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
 California State Historical Landmarks
 California Points of Historical Interest
 California Inventory of Historic Resources
 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory
 California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD)  City of Santa Clara Historic Survey Complete Report – 1981 Table 5.5-1. Key Cultural Resources Reports Within Project Area Report No. Author Year Study
S-000848 David A. Fredrickson 1976 A Summary of Knowledge of the Central and Northern California Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas, Vol. III, Socioeconomic Conditions, Chapter 7: Historical & Archaeological Resources
S-003453 Roy Meadows, Roy
Martin, and Ann Fisher
1950 Notes on the Carmel Indians (notes taken from Roy Meadows and Roy Martin on March 4th, 1950); and Southern Costanoan-Esselen Notes (notes taken from Ann Fisher on March 4th, 1950)
S-005259 Ann Hines, Pauline
Pace, and Gail Woolley
1979 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory
S-005260 Joseph C. Winter 1978 Tamien - 6000 Years in an American City S-005272 Jan Otto Marius Broek 1932 The Santa Clara Valley, California: A Study in Landscape Changes S-007483 Albert B. Elsasser, et al. 1985 Revised Data Recovery Plan, Part I: Review of the Prehistory of the Santa Clara Valley Region as Part of the Guadalupe Transportation Corridor Compliance with 36 CFR Part 800
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 5.5-1. Key Cultural Resources Reports Within Project Area Report No. Author Year Study
S-008585 Thomas King, et al. 1974 Archaeological Element, Environmental Impact Report on the San Felipe Water Distribution System
S-009462 Teresa Ann Miller 1977 Identification and Recording of Prehistoric Petroglyphs in Marin and Related Bay Area Counties
S-009583 David W. Mayfield 1978 Ecology of the Pre-Spanish San Francisco Bay Area S-013200 Donna M. Garaventa,
et al.
1991 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Santa Clara County Transporta- tion Plan - T2010 EIR
S-015529 Robert L. Gearhart II,
et al.
1993 California, Oregon, and Washington: Archaeological Resource Study S-016394 Colin I. Busby, et al. 1994 Recorded Archaeological Resources in Santa Clara County, California (Plotted on the BARCLAY 1993 LoCaide Atlas)
S-016394a Colin I. Busby, et al. 1995 First Supplement, Recorded Archaeological Resources in Santa Clara County, California
S-016394b Colin I. Busby, et al. 1996 Second Supplement, Recorded Archaeological Resources in Santa Clara County, California
S-016394c Colin I. Busby, et al. 1997 Third Supplement, Recorded Archaeological Resources in Santa Clara County, California
S-017852 Jacquelin Jensen Kehl
and Linda Yamane
1995 Ethnohistoric Genealogy Study, Tasman Corridor Light Rail Project, Santa Clara County, California
S-018217 Glenn Gmoser 1996 Cultural Resource Evaluations for the Caltrans District 04 Phase 2 Seismic Retrofit Program, Status Report
S-020395 Donna L. Gillette 1998 PCNs of the Coast Ranges of California: Religious Expression or the Result of Quarrying
S-024967 Basin Research
Associates, Inc.
2000 Cultural Resources Review (Positive), Proposed RCN Fiber Optic Cable Program, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County
S-030204 Donna L. Gillette 2003 The Distribution and Antiquity of the California Pecked Curvilinear Nucleated (PCN) Rock Art Tradition.

S-032596 Randall Milliken,
Jerome King, and
Patricia Mikkelsen
2006 The Central California Ethnographic Community Distribution Model, Version 2.0, with Special Attention to the San Francisco Bay Area, Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 4 Rural Conventional Highways
S-033600 Jack Meyer and Jeff
Rosenthal
2007 Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District 4
S-039091 Basin Research
Associates
2010 Historic Property Survey Report/Finding of Effect, South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR), Santa Clara Industrial 3B, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County
S-046375 Archives and
Architecture, LLC.
2012 County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement
S-048927 Donald Scott Crull 1997 The Economy and Archaeology of European -made Glass Beads and Manufactured Goods Used in First Contact Situations in Oregon, California and Washington
S-049780 Brian F. Byrd, et al. 2017 San Francisco Bay -Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4 S-049780a Julianne Polanco 2016 FHWA_2016_0615_001, Caltrans District 4 Archaeological Context KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Native American Heritage Commission and Native American Consultation A search of the Sacred Lands File database from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), located in Sacramento, California, was conducted. The record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed with negative results (i.e., no records found). Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation is discussed in Section 5.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources).

Historic Resource Research
In-depth historical research was conducted including but not limited to consultation of historic maps, historic and current aerial photographs, hist oric newspapers and various online databases, a detailed examination of previously prepared cultural survey reports provided by the Northwest Information Center, a review of data provided to Aspen by SVP, in an effort to determine the potential historic significance of the office building, storage building, and any other features located within APN# 224-08- 085 (Study Area) or Project area. Based on this research and a built environment survey of the Project area conducted under the under the direction of an NPS qualified Architectural Historian, it was determined that these features did not meet State or Federal criteria for listing on national, state, or local historic registers, meaning they do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA. Specifically,

1. The office building and storage building located at 3025 Raymond Street were originally permitted in 1971. They are barely 50 years old and are of ubiquitous design. Although largely unaltered, they do not appear to be historically or architecturally uni que, have no apparent individually significant engineering features, and do not exhibit any unusual use of materials or building fabric.

2. The office building and storage building located at 3025 Raymond Street are not associated with known historical events of significance, and do not appear to have risen to a level of important state or local historic significance.

3. The office building and storage building located at 3025 Raymond Street are not known to be associated with any important architect, engineer, contractor, or any individual that appears to have risen to a level of important state or local historic significance.

5.5.1.2. Regulatory Background
State
State of California CEQA Guidelines. State of California CEQA Guidelines require that historical resources and unique archaeological resources be taken into consideration during the CEQA planning process (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5; PRC §21083.2). If feasible, adverse effects to the significance of historical resources must be avoided or the effects mitigated (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(4)). State CEQA Guide- lines require that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if the prescribed mitigation does not mitigate impacts to a less than significant level (California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2001b:6).

The term that CEQA uses for significant cultural resources is “historical resource,” which is defined as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); ( 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)). A his torical resource consists of:

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…. Generally, a resource sh all be considered by the lead agency to be ‘his - torically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA requires a lead agency to determine if an archaeological resource meets the definition of a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or neither (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(c)). Prior to considering potential impacts, the lead agency must determine whether an archaeological resource meets the definition of a historical resource in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(c)(1). If the archaeological resource meets the definition of a historical resource, then it is treated like any other type of historical resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.4. If the archaeological resource does not meet the defini tion of a historical resource, then the lead agency determines whether it meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Statutes §21083.2(g). In practice, most archaeolog ical sites that meet the definitio n of a unique archaeological resource also meet the definition of a his torical resource. If the archaeological resource meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource, then it must be treated in accordance with CEQA Statutes §21083.2. If the archaeological resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, then effects to the resource are not considered significant effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(c)(4)).

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. California HSC Section 7050.5 states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearb y area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has deter - mined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origi n, the County Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper tr eatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. PRC Section 5097.5 provides for the protection of cultural resources. This PRC section prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

California Register of Historical Resources Criteria of Evaluation. The State of California Historical Resources Commission has designed the California Register for use by State and l ocal agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California’s historical resources. The California Register is the authoritative guide to the State’s significant historical and archaeological resources.

The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architec - tural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for State historic preservation grant funding, and affords certain protections under CEQA. The following criteria are used when determining if a particular resource has architectural, historical, archaeological, or cultural significance.  Criterion 1: Is the resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States?  Criterion 2: Is the resource associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history?
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 Criterion 3: Does the resource embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, method of construction, or represent the work of a master or possesses high artistic values?  Criterion 4: Has the resource yielded, or have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation? Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan (2010 -2035). The City of Santa Clara’s current General Plan provides information to the community to define acceptable development. It is a guide for decisions by the City Council, Planning Commission, and other governmental agencies on specific development applications.

The following overarching Goals and Policies are identified with regard to architectural and built environ- ment resources:

City of Santa Clara Historical and Landmarks Commission. To support its historic preservation goals, the City established a Historical and Landmarks Commission and obtained recognition by the State Office of Historic Preservation as a Certified Local Government (CLG). The City currently uses the following tools to evaluate historic resources:

The Historical and Landmarks Commission advises the City Council on all matters pertain- ing to historical landmarks, names, and renaming of streets, museums and the establish - ment thereof in the City, and in the marking and preservation of historical landmarks and places. As required by the State CLG program, the City has established a list of Architec - turally or Historically Significant Properties, which is the foundation for the Commission’s recommendations.

The Cri teria for Local Significance establishes evaluation measures, to ensure that the resource is at least 50 years old and that the property is associated with an important individual or event, an architectural innovation, and/or an archaeological contribution in order to be deemed significant. The City maintains a list of qualified historic con sultants for these evaluations.

Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties refer to prehistoric and historic features, structures, sites or properties that represent important aspects of the City’s heritage. Historic Preservation policies strengthen the City’s Historic Preservation Goals, providing direction for changes to historic resources and new development proposed within 100 feet of historic properties in order to evaluate any potential effects on the historic context for the resource. A 100 –foot radius, defined as the Area of Historic Sensi - tivity, is approximately equal to all properties abutting, across the street, and adjacent to abutting prop - erties from a historic resource. This would comprise a little less than a typical City block. Preservation of Santa Clara’s long history is also supported by policies that protect archaeological resources, such as relics found in burial sites.

City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance. The Criteria for Local Significance were adopted on April 8, 2004, by the City of Santa Clara City Council. These criteria establish evaluation measures that help to determine significance for properties not yet included on the historic list. Any building, site, or property in the City that is 50 years old or older and meets certain criteria of architectural, cultural, historical, geo- graphical or archeological significance is potentially eligible. As buildings and other r esources age, addi - tional properties will be added to the inventory. In order to accomplish this, a property owner can apply to have their property listed as a historic resource, or the City can nominate properties. The Historical and Landmarks Commission evaluates these applications and forwards a recommendation to the City council.

Updates to the Historic Preservation and Resource Inventory require an amendment to the General Plan.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 Criteria for Historical or Cultural Significance. To be historically or culturally significant, a property must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The site, building or property has character, interest, integrity and reflects the heritage and cultural development of the city, region, State, or nation.

2. The property is associated with a historical event.

3. The property is associated with an important ind ividual or group who contributed in a signifi cant way to the political, social and/or cultural life of the community.

4. The property is associated with a significant industrial, institutional, commercial, agricultural, or transportation activity.

5. A building’s direct association with broad patterns of local area history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes or social, political, or economic trends and activities.

6. Included is the recognition of urban street pattern and infrastructure.

7. A notable historical relationship between a site, building, or property’s site and its immediate envi- ronment, including original native trees, topographical features, outbuildings or agricultural setting.  Criteria for Architectural Significance. To be architecturally significant, a property must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The property characterizes an architectural style associated with a particular era and/or ethnic group.

2. The property is identified with a particular architect, master builder or craftsman.

3. The property is architecturally unique or innovative.

4. The property has a strong or unique relationship to other areas potentially eligible for preservation because of architectural significance.

5. The property has a visual symbolic meaning or appeal for the community.

6. A building’s unique or uncommon building materials, or its historically early or innovative method of construction or assembly.

7. A building’s notable or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature. These may include massing, proportion, materials, details, fenestration, ornamentation, artwork or functional layout.  Criteria for Geographic Significance. To be geographically significant, a property must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. A neighborhood, group or unique area directly associated with broad patterns of local area history.

2. A building’s continuity and compatibility with adjacent buildings and/or visual contribution to a group of similar buildings.

3. An intact, historical landscape or landscape features associated with an existing building.

4. A notable use of landscaping design in conjunction with an existing building.

5.5.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 [§15064.5 generally defines historical resource under CEQA]? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The office building and storage building located at 3025 Raymond Street were permitted and built beginning in 1971. Because these buildings are greater KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-9 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

than 50 years old, they are considered historic age resources. However, an eval uation of the site and all built environment features based and field inspection and on historic records has concluded that these buildings do not meet the established criteria to be considered as a significant resource eligible for inclu- sion on local, State, or Federal registers, meaning it is not considered a historical resource under CEQA.

Likewise, no known prehistoric or historic aged archaeological resources have been id entified as being present at or in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. Although no known historical resources have been identified within the area, there remains the possibility that presently unidentified historical resources exist below the groun d surface that could be discovered and damaged or destroyed during ground disturbing work, which would con stitute a significant impact absent miti gation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-1 would evaluate and protect unanticipated discoveries, thereby reducing this impact to less than significant.

5.5.2.1. Mitigation Measure for Previously Unidentified Historical Resources MM CR-1 Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources. SVP shall conduct a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) for Project personnel who, during the course of Project work, might encounter or alter historical resources or important/unique archaeological materials. This program may be combined with any similar required program, such as for biological resources. The WEAP may include a kickoff tailgate session that describes how to identify cultural resources and what to do if an unanticipated discovery is made during construc- tion, presents site avoidance requirements and procedures to be followed if unantici- pated cultural resources are discovered during Project construction, and includes a discussion of disciplinary and other actions that could be taken against persons violating historic preservation laws and SVP policies.

If previously unidentified cultural resources are identified during construction, con struc- tion work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and directed away from the discovery until a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist assesses the significance of the resource. The archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Santa Clara, State His toric Preservation Officer, any interested Tribes, and any other responsible public agency, shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the evaluation and mitigation of impacts if the finds are found to be eligible to the National or California Registers, qualify as a unique archaeological resource under California Environmental Quality Act Section 21083.2, or are determined to be tribal cultural resource as defined in Section 21074.
b. Would the project cause a substantial advers e change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Although no known archaeological resources have been previously identified within the Project area, there remains the possibility that presently unidentified archaeological resources exist below the ground surface that could be discovered and damaged or destroyed during ground disturbing work, which would constitute a significant impact absent miti gation.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-1 would evaluate and protect unanticipated discoveries of archaeological resources, thereby reducing this potential impact to a less than significant level.

5.5.2.2. Mitigation Measure for Previously Unidentified Archaeological Resources MM CR-1 Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources. [see full text under Item (a) above.] KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.5-10 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ceme - teries?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. There is no indication that human remains are present within the Project area. Background archival research failed to find any potential for human remains (e.g., existence of formal cemeteries) in the area. The limited nature of the proposed ground disturbance makes it unlikely that human remains would be unearthed during construction. However, it is possible that previously unknown human remains could be discovered and damaged or destroyed during ground disturbance, which would constitute a significant impact absent mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-2, which requires evaluation, protection, and appropriate disposition of human remains, would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

5.5.2.3. Mitigation Measure for Disturbance of Human Remains MM CR-2 Treatment of Human Remains. Any human remains discovered are to be treated with respect and dignity. Upon discovery of human remains, all work within 50 feet of the dis- covery area must cease immediately, nothing is to be disturbed, and the area must be secured. The Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office must be called. The Coroner has two working days to examine the remains after notification. The appropriate land manager of the site is to be called and informed of the discovery. It is very important that th e suspected remains, and the area around them, are undisturbed and the proper author- ities called to the scene as soon as possible, as it could be a crime scene. The Coroner will determine if the remains are archaeological/historic or of modern origin and if there are any criminal or jurisdictional questions.

After the Coroner has determined the remains are archaeological/historic-era, the Coroner will make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible fo r the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six (6) or more human burials at one (1) location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.6. ENERGY

JULY 2023 5.6-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.6. Energy
ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.6.1. Setting
The proposed Project would construct and operate a BESS facility and 60 kV interconnection line.

As the City of Santa Clara municipal electric utility, Silicon Valley Power owns power generation facilities, has investments in joint ventures that produce electric power, and trades power on the open market. These efforts are directed toward ensuring its retail electricity customers (the citizens, organizations, and businesses of the City of Santa Clara) a highly reliable source of electric power at low, stable rates (City of Santa Clara, 2021).

The proposed Project includes partnering with a company, Ameresco, who would build and operate the Project. Ameresco would lease the land from SVP and . SVP would pay Ameresco for energy storage services, including a monthly kW-month rate for the ability to schedule and dispatch the BESS Project into the CAISO market. The BESS will charge during the hours of the day when the CASIO’s Day Ahead pr ices are the lowest, and discharge during the hours of the day when the CAISO’s Day Ahead prices are the highest.

The energy sources that make up the mix of power supplied to SVP’s customers, relative to the 202 1 California power mix, are summarized from u tility-specific Power Content Label data gathered by the California Energy Commission shown in Table 5.6-1 (CEC, 2023a).

Table 5.6-1. Energy Sources of Electricity Supplied to Customers (2021 Power Content) Energy Resources
Santa Clara
Residential Mix
Santa Clara
Non-Residential Mix
2021 California
Power Mix
Eligible Renewable 35.9% 27.0% 33.6%
Biomass & biowaste 0% 2.1% 2.3%
Geothermal 0% 7.1% 4.8%
Eligible hydroelectric 0% 5.9% 1.0%
Solar 14.7% 4.1% 14.2%
Wind 21.2% 7.8% 11.4%
Coal 0% 0% 3.0%
Large Hydroelectric 64.1% 6.7% 9.2%
Natural Gas 0% 34.3% 37.9%
Nuclear 0% 0% 9.3%
Other 0% 0% 0.2%
Unspecified sources of power* 0% 32% 6.8%
Total 100% 100% 100%
* “Unspecified sources of power” means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.6. ENERGY

JULY 2023 5.6-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Source: CEC 2023a, 2021 Power Content Label for SVP.

For recent years including 2021, the average annual electricity consumption served to SVP customers has grown to approximately 4,382 million kilowatt‐hours (kWh). Table 5.6‐2 shows the baseline elec tricity consumption by the SVP loads over the prior 5 years, separated by customer classes.

Table 5.6-2. Electricity Consumption for Load Served by SVP (million kWh per year) Sector, Served by SVP 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Ag & Water Pump 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.10
Commercial Building 2,332.19 2,393.16 2,437.06 2,547.24 3,090.69 Commercial Other 41.00 41.52 43.80 44.25 46.23
Industry 896.16 862.57 821.66 816.73 910.88
Mining & Construction 18.76 24.74 35.63 46.50 80.18
Residential 235.64 226.01 234.49 264.73 251.08
Streetlight 4.30 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00
SVP Total Usage 3,528.08 3,551.53 3,575.73 3,722.54 4,382.15 Note: Usage expressed in millions of kWh (one million kWh equals one gigawatt-hour or GWh).

Source: CEC, 2023b; Electricity Consumption by Entity.

5.6.1.1. Regulatory Background
Energy Action Plan and Loading Order. California has mandated and implemented aggressive energy-use reduction programs for electricity and other resources. In 2003, California’s first Energy Action Plan (EAP) established a high-level, coherent approach to meeting California’s electricity and natural gas needs and set forth the “loading order” to address California’s future energy needs. The “loading order” established that the state, in meeting its energy needs, would invest first in energy efficiency and demand -side resources, followed by renewable resources, and only then in clean conventional electricity supply (CPUC, 2008). Since that time, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California Energy Commission (CEC) have overseen the plans, policies, and programs for prioritizing the pre ferred resources, including energy efficiency and renewable energy.

California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). Electric utilities in California must procure a minimum quantity of the electricity sales from eligible renewable energy resources as specified by RPS require- ments. The most -recent update to the RP S targets was set forth in 2018 with the “100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018” [Senate Bill 100 (SB 100)], which establishes the policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. SB 100 requires the CPUC and CEC to ensure that implementation of this policy does not cause or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions increases elsewhere in the western grid.

Integrated Resource Planning. An Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is an electricity system planning doc u- ment that lays out the energy resource needs, policy goals, physical and operational constraints, and the general priorities or proposed resource choices of an electric utility , including customer -side preferred resources. Through Senate Bill 350 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) (SB 350), the publicly owned utilities (POU) such as SVP must adopt and file an IRP that is subject to a review by the CEC for consistency with statewide targets for energy efficiency, renewable resources, and greenhouse gas emissions reduc- tions. The IRP must also consider how renewable generation, grid operational efficiencies, energy storage, and distributed resources (including energy efficiency) serve to meet the peak hour energy and reliability needs. In November 2018, the City Council approved SVP’s current IRP (SVP, 2019).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.6. ENERGY

JULY 2023 5.6-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Energy Storage Targets. Assembly Bill 2514 (Skinner, Chapter 469, Statutes of 2010) (AB 2514), amended by Assembly Bill 2227 (Bradford, Chapter 606, Statutes of 2012), requires California’s publicly owned utilities to develop energy storage procurement targets. In response to these require ments, SVP peri - odically evaluates the viability of energy storage proj ects and considers energy storage as a resource to reduce the need for new or additional gas-fired generation and provide other benefits to the distribution and transmission system.

State CEQA Guidelines. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted ce rtain amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines effective in 2019, to change how CEQA Lead Agencies consider the environmental impacts of energy use. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) and Appendix F require analysis of a project’s energy use, in order to assure that energy implications are considered in Project decisions. CEQA requires a discussion of the potential environmental effects of energy resources used by projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing the “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy” (see Public Resources Code section 21100(b)(3)).

5.6.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The proposed Project would construct, operate, and maintain a B ESS facility and 60 kV interconnection line. The objectives of the proposed Project are to increase the reliability and flexibility of SVP’s electrical grid and to help solve California’s “duck curve” power production problem. The proposed Project would achieve these objectives by utilizing the BESS to store energy. The proposed Project would allow SVP to store energy and discharge it to the electrical grid during periods of high demand.

Energy storage would improve SVP’s ability to efficiently integrate renewable resources. The growth of zero- carbon resources, especially solar resources, has shifted the reliability concerns from the peak hour (hour with the highest energy demand) to net peak hours (hours when energy demand minus wind and solar generation is largest). The changing resource mix is driving a change in the characteristics of the electricity system and requires consideration of the net demand curve, total electricity demand less the wind and solar generation. The “duck curve” is characterized by more drastic increases in net demand in the evening hours as solar decreases, and a net peak that occurs later in the evening when solar generation is substantially diminished or nonexistent (CEC, 2022). By charging during low net demand periods and discharging in higher net demand periods , the proposed Project would increase SVP’s ability to use renewable energy when demand is highest.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – CONSTRUCTION. Construction activity associated with the proposed Project would require the con sumption of fossil fuel resources, for example diesel fuel and gasoline to power the off - road construc tion equipment and construction vehicles. Additionally, construction w ould require the manufacture and delivery of new equipment and materials, which would require energy use. Depending on materials, some of the debris to be removed as part of the Project would be salvageable and recyclable.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Operations, including inspection, patrol, and main - tenance, of the proposed Project components would also require use of fossil fuel resources for routine upkeep. The energy being stored by the BESS would be delivered to the BESS from t he mix of renewable and fossil fuel powered generation resources available at the time of charging. This energy would be discharged during periods of high demand, when fossil fuel resources are most likely to be called upon.

As a result, the energy dischar ged by the BESS would be likely to displace the use of fossil fuel resources during periods of high demand. The operation and maintenance activities would be minimal and would not cause a change in the consumption or use of energy resources.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.6. ENERGY

JULY 2023 5.6-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

The energy used by the proposed Project during construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnec- essary in light of the new facilities that would increase capacity and system reliability, and no potentially significant environmental impact would occur due to th e direct or indirect energy consumption of the proposed Project.
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would construct, operate, and maintai n a BESS facility and 60 kV interconnection line. The Project would be interconnected to SVP’s existing system, via the KEN-OKJ 60 kV line between Kenneth Substation and Oaks Junction Substation. Protection and control panel upgrades or configuration will be required at the Kenneth and Oaks Junction Substation. The Project would increase the reliability and flexibility of SVP’s electrical grid.

Energy storage provides benefits to utilities by efficiently integrating increased amounts of renewable energy resources into the electrical transmission and distribution grid in a manner that can avoid use of fossil fuel resources during peak hours and minimize GHG emissions. The 2018 revised IRP addresses the requirements of AB 2514 and identifies SVP’s efforts in considering viable and cost -effective energy storage systems as ways to provide savings and reliability benefits within the electricity resource supply plan (SVP, 2019). SVP was required to open an energy storage system procurement proceeding and adopted an energy storage procurement target; a 50 MW research and development energy storage opportunity was identified for negotiation at that time (SVP, 2019). The proposed Project would contribute to SVP’s efforts to achieve the benefits of energy storage on the electrical grid. The proposed Project would not conflict with any state or local plan for prioritizing renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.7. Geology and Soils

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable a s a result of the project, and poten - tially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsi - dence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2019), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.7.1. Setting
This section describes geology, soils, and seismic conditions and analyzes environmental impacts related to geologic and seismic hazards that could result from the implementation of the proposed Project. The following discussion addresses existing environmental conditions in the affected area, identifies and analyzes environmental impacts, and recommends measures to reduce o r avoid any adverse impacts anticipated from Project construction and operation. In addition, existing laws and regulations relevant to geologic and seismic hazards are described. In some cases, compliance with these existing laws and regu- lations would se rve to reduce or avoid certain impacts that might otherwise occur with the implemen - tation of the Project.

Baseline geologic, seismic, and soils information were collected for the Project site and surrounding area from published and unpublished literature, GIS data, and online sources. Data sources included geologic literature from the U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, and other readily available online reference materials. The study area was defined as the Project site and the areas immediately adjacent to the proposed Project for most geologic and soils issue areas with the exception that the study area related to seismically induced ground shaking includes significant regional active and potentially active faults within 50 miles of the proposed Project.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.7.1.1. Regional Geologic Setting
The Project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, a relatively flat, elongate alluvial basin, in the Coat Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Santa Clara Valley is part of large structural depr ession that extends from south of Hollister to north of Santa Rosa and includes the San Pablo and San Francisco Bays (Norris & Webb, 1976). The Santa Clara Valley is bordered on the west and southwest by the Santa Cruz Mountains and on the east by the Diablo Mountain Range. The San Francisco Bay borders the Santa Clara Valley to the north, west, and east along its shorelines. The average slope of the valley floor ranges from nearly flat to about 2 percent grade, with the surrounding hillsides having steeper grades. (City of Santa Clara, 2011)
The Coast Ranges geomorphic province is characterized by ridges and valleys and by strongly deformed sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex and sediments deposited by a series of merging alluvial fans formed by streams that drain the adjacent mountains during recent geologic times.

The Santa Clara Valley The area’s groundwater aquifers occur in the alluvial sedi ments. The alluvial deposits in the Santa Clara Valley derived from the Diablo Range and Santa Cruz Mountains. In the north- central area of the Santa Clara Valley, the alluvial deposits are inter bedded with bay and lacustrine deposits. Soil types in the area include clay (low -lying central areas), loam and gravelly loam (northern area of the Santa Clara Valley), and eroded rock clay loam (foothills). (City of Santa Clara, 2011)

5.7.1.2. Local Geology
Most of the City of Santa Clara is located on a gently sloping area of the valley floor in the north -central portion of the Santa Clara Valley. The City is primarily situated on alluvial fan deposits consisting of gravel, sand and finer sediments. Natural levee deposits consisting of silt and clay are located along the City’s major streams. Man-made engineered levees have been constructed over many but not all of the natural levee deposits for flood control. (City of Santa Clar a, 2011) The Project site is mapped as underlain by alluvial surficial sediments consisting of Holocene alluvial clay soil which includes bay mud deposits (Dibblee and Minch, 200 5) and as Holocene fine grained alluvial fan deposits generally containing lar ge percentages of clay and fat clay (CGS, 2001) . Based on Pleistocene alluvium contour mapping (Helley, 1990), Pleistocene alluvium is located between approximately 5 to 10 feet below the overlying Holocene alluvium.

Artificial Fill. Although not mapped at the Project site or immediate vicinity (Dibblee and Minch, 200 5), artificial fill, often referred to as undocumented or man-made fill, has been placed throughout the City of Santa Clara in developed areas and likely underlies portion s of the Project site. Generally, artificial fill is comprised varying amounts of sand, clay, and gravel, and may have local areas of man -made debris such as lumber, concrete and brick fragments, and industrial slag materials in areas of undocumented or ve ry old fill. Consistency of the clays range from soft to very stiff, and density of the sands range from very loose to medium dense. The artificial fills in the City of Santa Clara include materials that were placed to fill in naturally low areas, to create building pads and roadways, and to construct landfills. In some cases, older, non-engineered fills have been placed in the City of Santa Clara without standards for fill materials or compaction. Building on non -engineered fills can result in the excessiv e settlement of structures, pavements, and utilities. However, artificial fills placed using current engineering practices would avoid impacts from excessive or differential settlement. (City of Santa Clara, 2011)

5.7.1.3. Soils
Soils within the Project area reflect the underlying rock type, the extent of weathering of the rock, the degree of slope, and the degree of human modification. The Project site is underlain by two soil associ - ations, the Urban Land –Clear Lake complex, and the Urban Land –Campbell complex (NR CS, 2022). The site is entirely underlain by the Urban Land -0 to 2 percent slopes -basins soil unit. Urban Land -0 to 2 percent slopes-basins soils consist of disturbed/human transported material on basin floors (NRCS, 2023).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink and swell) due to variations in soil moisture content. Changes in soil moisture can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, and/or perched groundwater. Exp ansive soils are typically very fine grained with a high to very high percentage of clay. Such soil conditions can affect the structural integrity of buildings and other structures. Soils with moderate to high shrink -swell potential would be classified as expansive soils. Expansion potential of the Urban Land -0 to 2 percent slopes -basins soils underlying the Project site is undetermined (NRCS, 2023), however the site is mapped as being underlain by alluvial clay (Dibblee and Minch, 2005) that may contain expansive soils due to the high clay content.

Weak (loose or poorly consolidated) soils can compress, collapse, or spread laterally under the weight of buildings and fill, causing settlement relative to the thickness of the weak soil. Usually, the thickness of weak soil will vary and differential settlement will occur. Weak soils also tend to amplify shaking during an earthquake, and can be susceptible to liquefaction, as discussed further in sections below. (City of Santa Clara, 2011) According to hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara (2012), only soils near the Bay at the City’s northernmost edge are identified as compressible.

Potential soil erosion hazards vary depending on the use, conditions, and textures of the soils. The proper- ties of soil that influence erosion by rainfall and runoff are those that affect the infiltration capacity of a soil, and those that affect the resistance of a soil to detachment and being carried away by falling or flowing water. Additionally, soils on steeper sl opes would be more susceptible to erosion due to the effects of increased surface flow (runoff) on slopes where there is little time for water to infiltrate before runoff occurs. Soils containing high percentages of fine sands and silt and that are low in density, are generally the most erodible. With increasing clay and organic matter content of these soils, the potential for erosion decreases. Clays act as a binder to soil particles, thus reducing the potential for erosion. Soil erosion hazards are not identified for wind or water at the Project site (NRCS, 2023), however the geologic unit underlying the Project site is mapped as alluvial clay and is thus not expected to be highly erodible (Dibblee and Minch, 2005).

5.7.1.4. Subsidence
Land subsidence can occur in valleys containing aquifer systems that are, in part, made up of fine-grained sediments and that have undergone extensive groundwater development. As the ground water is with - drawn, the pore-fluid pressure in the sediments decreases allowing the weight of the overlying sediment to permanently compact or compress the fine -grained units. This effect is most pronounced in younger, unconsolidated sediments. Land subsidence is generally characterized by a broad zone of deformation where differential settlements are small. The main cause of subsidence in California is groundwater pumping. The effects of subsidence include damage to buildings and infra structure, increased flood risk in low-lying areas, and lasting damage to groundwater aquifers and aquatic ecosystems (USGS, 2023a).

Between about 1915 and 1969, the northern portion of Santa Clara County experienced as much as 13 feet of subsidence caused by excessive pumping of groundwater. Over 100 square miles from San Jose to southern San Francisco Bay were impacted (SCCVWD, 2023). The Santa Clara Valley Water District aquifer recharge effort s starting in the mid -1930s of building dams, importing water, and implementing a pumping tax in 1964 proved successful in allowing groundwater levels to recover (USGS, 2023a). By about 1970, subsidence was essentially halted because of Santa Clara Valley Water District ’s investments in reservoirs, diverse water supplies, and groundwater recharge, along with management programs that allowed groundwater conditions to recover (SCCWD, 2023).

5.7.1.5. Slope Stability
Important factors that affect the slope stability of an area include the steepness of the slope, the relative strength of the underlying rock material, and the thickness and cohesion of the overlying colluvium and alluvium. The steeper the slope and/or the less strong the rock, the more likely the area is susceptible to KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

landslides. The steeper the slope and the thicker the colluvium, the more likely the area is susceptible to debris flows. Another indication of unstable slopes is the presence of old or recent landslides or debris flows.

The Project site, located in the City of Santa Clara is on the gently sloping and nearly flat valley floor, is a flat graded parcel and would not be subject to landslides. According to landslide hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara (2012), the City of Santa Clara is not within a landslide hazard zone and the CGS does not map and any landslide hazard zones within the city or at or near the Project site (CGS, 2023a).

5.7.1.6. Seismicity
Per the Alquist -Priolo Act, seismic faults can be classified as a Holocene active, a Pre -Holocene, Age - undetermined, or inactive, based on the following criteria (CGS, 2018):
 Holocene-active faults: Faults that have moved during the past 11,700 years. This age boundary is an absolute age (number of years before present) and is not a radiocarbon (14C) age determination, which requires calibration in order to derive an absolute age.  Pre-Holocene faults: Faults that have not moved in the past 11,700 years, thus do not meet the criteria of “Holocene-active fault” as defined in the A -P Act and SMGB regulations. T his class of fault may be still capable of surface rupture but is not regulated under the A -P Act. Depending on available site - specific and regional data such as proximity to other active faults, average recurrence, variability in recurrence, the timing of the most recent surface rupturing earthquake, and case studies from other surface rupturing earthquakes, the Project geologist may, but is not required to, recommend setbacks.

Engineered solutions can also be considered by a licensed engineer operating wi thin his or her field of practice.
 Age-undetermined faults: Faults where the recency of fault movement has not been determined. Faults can be “age-undetermined” if the fault in question has simply not been studied in order to determine its recency of movem ent. Faults can also be age -undetermined due to limitations in the ability to constrain the timing of the recency of faulting. Examples of such faults are instances where datable materials are not present in the geologic record, or where evidence of recenc y of movement does not exist due to stripping (either by natural or anthropogenic processes) of Holocene -age deposits. Within the framework of the A -P Act, age-undetermined faults within regulatory Earthquake Fault Zones are considered Holocene-active until proved otherwise.
 Inactive: A fault may only be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity sometimes is difficult to obtain and locally may not exist.

Although it is difficult to quantify the probability that an earthquake will occur on a specific fault, this classification assumes that if a fault has moved during the Holocene epoch, it is likely to produce earth - quakes in the future and is considered an active fault.

The Project area will be subject to regional ground shaking associated with earthquakes on faults of the San Andreas fault system. Active faults of the San Andreas system are predominantly strike -slip faults accommodating translational movement between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates.

Significant damaging earthquakes that have occurred on the San Andreas fault system within 50 miles of the Project site include:
 M7.9 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, the M6.9 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake – resulted in 3,000 dead and $524 million in property damage (includes damage from fire);  M7.4 1838 San Andreas Fault Earthquake – magnitude estimated due to damage, resulted in d amage in San Francisco and Santa Clara;
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 M 6,9 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake – resulted in 63 dead, 3,737 injured, and $6 billion in property damage, and
 M6.8 1868 Hayward Fault Earthquake - 30 dead and $350,000 in property damage (USGS, 2023b; CGS, 2023a).

Periodic earthquakes accompanied by surface displacement can be expected to continue in the Project area. Active and potentially active faults within 50 miles of the Project that are significant potential seismic sources relative to the proposed Project are presented in Table 5.7 1.

Table 5.7-1. Significant Active and Potentially Active Faults within 50 miles of the Proposed Project
Fault Name
Distance1
(miles)
Estimated Maximum
Magnitude2,3 Fault Type1
Hayward–Rodgers Creek 5.92 6.8–7.3 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Monte Vista–Shannon 6.92 6.5 Thrust Fault, dips 45°W
Calaveras 9.22 6.4–7.0 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip San Andreas 11.12 7.1-7.9 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Zayante-Vergeles 19.9 7.0 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Greenville Connected 24.1 7.0 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip San Gregorio Connected 24.7 7.5 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Mount Diablo Thrust 25.4 6.7 Blind Thrust, dips 38° NE
Monterey Bay–Tularcitos 32.8 7.3 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Great Valley 7 34.1 6.9 Blind Thrust, dips 15° W
Green Valley Connnected 36.2 6.8 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Ortigalita 37.6 7.1 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip
Great Valley 8 43.8 6.8 Blind Thrust, dips 15° W
Great Valley 5 , Pittsburg Kirby Hills 44.5 6.7 Blind Thrust (reverse), dips 90° Quien Sabe 44.9 6.6 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip
Rinconada 49.5 7.5 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip
1 Fault distances and type obtained from the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps – Source Parameters website (USGS, 2023c).

Fault distances measured to generalized to the National Seismic Hazard Map (NSHM) fault trace. 2 Fault distance modified using USGS and CGS Quaternary Faults data (USGS and CGS, 2023). 3 Maximum Earthquake Magnitude – the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework; magnitude listed is “Ellsworth -B” magnitude from USGS 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters unless otherwise noted.
4 Range of Magnitude represents varying potential rupture scenarios with single or multiple segments rupturing in various combinations.

Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is the surface displacement that occurs when movement on a fault deep within the earth breaks through to the surface. Fault rupture and displacement almost always follows preexisting faults, which are zones of weakness; however, not all earth quakes result in surface rupture (i.e., earthquakes that occur on blind thrusts do not result in surface fault rupture). Rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. In addition to damage caused by ground shaking from an earthquake, fault rupture is damaging to buildings and other structures due to the differential displacement and deformation of the ground surface that occurs from the fault offset leading to damage or collapse of structures across this zone.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

While the closest fault to the Project site is the active Alquist -Priolo zoned Hayward fault (part of the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault zone), no known active or potentially active faults are mapped crossing or immediately adjacent to the Project site (CGS, 2023b). Additionally, the City of Santa Clara is not crossed by any faults zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (CGS, 2023b; City of Santa Clara, 2011). There is no risk of surface fault rupture at the Project site.

Ground Shaking
An earthquake is classified by the amount of energy released, which traditionally has been quantified using the Richter scale. Recently, seismologists have begun using a Moment Magnitude (M) scale because it provides a more accurate measurement of the size of major and great earthquakes. For earthquakes of less than M 7.0, the Moment and Richter Magnitude scales are nearly identical. For earthquake magnitudes greater than M 7.0, readings on the Moment Magnitude scale are slightly greater than a corresponding Richter Magnitude. Numerous moderate and large earthquakes have occurred within 50 miles of the Project site, including 49 earthquakes of M 5.5 or greater which includes 19 earthquakes of M 6.0 to M 6.9, and two earthquakes of greater than M 7.0. These include two catastrophically damaging earthquake: the 1906 M 7.9 San Francisco Earthquake and the 1989 M 6.9 Loma Prieta Earthquake and its aftershocks (USGS, 2023b).

The intensity of the seismic shaking, or strong ground motion, at the Project site during an earthquake is dependent on the distance between the Project area and the epicenter of the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions underlying and surrounding the Project area. Earthquakes occurring on faults closest to the Project area would most likely generate the largest ground motion.

Earthquake damage resulting from ground shaking is determined by several factors: the magnitude of an earthquake, depth of focus, distance from the fault, intensity and duration of shaking, local groundwater and soil conditions, presence of hillsides, structural design, and the quality of workmanship and materials used in construction. The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM) were used to estimate approximate peak ground a ccelerations (PGAs) in the proposed Project area. The NSHMs depict peak ground accelerations with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years which corresponds to a return interval of 2,475 years and for a maximum considered earthquake. The estimated approximate peak ground acceleration from large earthquakes for the Project site is between 0.80 and 1.2 g, which corresponds to strong to very strong seismically induced ground shaking (USGS, 2023 d). The City is located in a region characterized by a moderate to high ground shaking hazard. (City of Santa Clara, 2011) Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which saturated granular sediments temporarily lose their shear strength during periods of earthquake -induced strong ground shaking. The suscept ibility of a site to liquefaction is a function of the depth, density, and water content of the granular sediments and the mag- nitude and frequency of earthquakes in the surrounding region. Saturated, unconsolidated silts, sands, and silty sands within 50 feet of the ground surface are most susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction - related phenomena include lateral spreading, ground oscillation, flow failures, loss of bearing strength, subsidence, and buoyancy effects (Youd and Perkins, 1978). In addition, densification of the soil resulting in vertical settlement of the ground can also occur. In order to determine liquefaction susceptibility of a region, three major factors are considered: the density and textural characteristics of the alluvial sediments; the intensity and duration of ground shaking; and the depth to groundwater.

The City of Santa Clara is almost entirely within a zone of liquefaction hazard (County of Santa Clara, 2012).

Ground failure caused by liquefaction is thus a substantial concern f or much of the City’s development.

The Project site is within a mapped CGS liquefaction hazard zone (CGS, 2023b). Additionally, the Project site is underlain by potentially liquefiable young alluvial sediments with shallow (less than 10 feet below ground surface) to artesian water levels (water levels that flow to the surface) (CGS, 2001; DWR, 2023).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Paleontology
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. According to the City of Santa Clara General Plan EIR, the City is situated on alluvial fan deposits of the Holocene age, consisting of gravel, sand and finer sediment s. Along the City’s major streams are natural levee deposits consisting of silt and clay, also of the Holocene age. Geologic units of Holocene age are generally not considered sensitive for paleontological resources, because biological remains younger than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils. Holocene materials in the Santa Clara Valley may have some level of sensitivity for paleontological resources (City of Santa Clara, 2011).

The Project site is in the Santa Clara Valley, where these Holocene age sediments overlie older, Pleistocene age sediments that have a high potential to contain paleontological resources. The Pleistocene age sediments, often found at depths of 10 feet (3 meters) or more below the ground surface in the region, have yielded the fossil remains of plants and extinct terrestrial Pleistocene vertebrates (City of Santa Clara, 2011). Pleistocene alluvial sediments may be found at depths of 5 to 10 feet below Holocene alluvium in the Project area (Helley, 1990).

The Project site is underlain by artificial fill over young channel deposited alluvial sediments which have no and low paleontological sensitivity, respectively; the young alluvial sediments are unlikely to have sig- nificant fossils due to their age and their high energy method of deposition. The greatest anticipated depth of any excavation at the site would be approximately 10 feet for the 60 kV transmission line structures.

All other excavations would be at shallower depths.

5.7.1.7. Regulatory Background
Federal
The Clean W ater Act. The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the Waters of the U.S. The Act authorized the Public Health Service to prepare com - prehensive programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of i nterstate waters and tributaries and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters with the goal of improve ments to and conservation of waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life, recreational purposes, and agricultural and industrial uses. The proposed Project construction may disturb a surface area greater than one acre; therefore, SVP would be required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Disch arges Associated with Construction Activity under Clean Water Act regulations. Compliance with the NPDES would require that the applicant prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The International Building Code (IBC). The International Building Code (IBC) is published by the Inter - national Code Council (ICC). The scope of this code covers major aspects of the design and con struction and structures and buildings, except for three-story one- and two-family dwellings and town homes. The International Building Code has replaced the Uniform Building Code as the basis for the California Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. The 2018 IBC addresses the design and installation of structures and building s ystems through requirements that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire - and life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.

State
The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 (CBC, 2019). The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 provides building codes and standards for design and construction of structures in California. The 2019 CBC is based on the 2018 International Building Code with the addition of more ext ensive structural KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

seismic provisions. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures.

The California Fire Code , Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 12 (CFC, 2019). The California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9, Chapter 12 provides codes and standards for design and construction of Energy Systems as it relates to fire safety. Section 1206 specifically applies to electrical Energy Storage Systems (ESS) and provides information on permit, construction, hazard mitigation, and operational requirements. It also includes a requirement that ESS structures shall comply with seismic design requirements of CBC Chapter 16.

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972, Public R esources Code (PRC), sections 2621 – 2630 (formerly the Special Studies Zoning Act). The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulates development and construction of buildings intended for human occupancy to avoid the hazard of surface fault rupture. While this Act does not specifically regulate transmission and tele communication lines; it does help define areas where fault rupture is most likely to occur. This Act groups faults into categories of active, potentially active, and inactive faults. Hist oric and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered poten tially active, and pre -Quaternary age faults are considered inactive. These classifications are qualified by the conditions that a fault must be shown to be “sufficiently active” and “well defined” by detailed site-specific geologic explorations in order to determine whether building setbacks should be established.

The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (the Act) of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Division 2, sections 2690–2699). The Act directs the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology [now called California Geological Survey (CGS)] to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land-use planning and permitting processes. The Act requires that site -specific geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within seismic hazard zones.

PRC Section 5097.5 also affirms that no person shall willingly or knowingly excavate, remove, or otherwise destroy a vertebrate paleontological site or paleontological feature without the express permission of the overseeing public land agency. It further states under PRC Section 30244 that any development that would adversely impact paleontological resources shall require reasonable mit igation. These regulations apply to projects located on land owned by or under the jurisdiction of the State or any city, county, district, or other public agency (PRC §5097.5). The importance of paleontological resources is based on their scientific and educational value. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology identifies vertebrate fossils, their tapho- nomy (fossilization process) and associated environmental data, and fossiliferous deposits as scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010). Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be significant. Absent specific agency guidelines, most professional paleontologists in California adhere to guidelines set forth in “Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources” (Soc iety of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010). These categories include high, undetermined, low, and no potential.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-9 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The purpose of the City’s safety policies is to identify potential hazards and measures that can lessen risk s for the City’s population and property. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.10.5‐P5. Regulate development, including remodeling or structural rehabilitation, to ensure adequate mitigation of safety hazards, including flooding, seismic, erosion, liquefaction and subsidence dangers.
 Policy 5.10.5‐P6. Require that new development is designed to meet current safety standards and implement appropriate building codes to reduce risks associated with geologic conditions.  Policy 5.10.5‐P7. Implement all recommendations and design solutions identified in project soils reports to reduce potential adverse effects associated with unstable soils or seismic hazards.  Policy 5.10.5‐P10. Support efforts by the Santa Clara Valley Water District to reduce subsidence.

In addition, the following Goals and Policies are identified related to paleontology:

Archaeological and Cultural Resources Goals
 Goal 5.6.3‐G1. Protection and preservation of cultural resources, as well as archaeological and paleon- tological sites.
 Goal 5.6.3‐G2. Appropriate mitigation in the event that human remains, archaeological resources or paleontological resources are discovered during construction activities.  Archaeological and Cultural Resources Policies
 Policy 5.6.3‐P1. Require that new development avoid or reduce potential impacts to archaeological, paleontological and cultural resources.
 Policy 5.6.3‐P2. Encourage salvage and preservation of scientifically valuable paleontological or archa- eological materials.
 Policy 5.6.3‐P4. Require that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist monitor all grading and/or exca - vation if there is a potential to affect archeological or paleontological resources, including sites within 500 feet of natural water courses and in the Old Quad neighborhood.  Policy 5.6.3‐P5. In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are discovered, require that work be suspended until the significance of the find and recommended actions are det ermined by a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist.

5.7.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a kn own earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earth- quake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substan- tial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

NO IMPACT. No Alquist -Priolo mapped or other known faults cross the proposed Project area or are immediately adjacent to it. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to damage by fault rupture and no project activities would result in triggering or to directly or indirectly causing primary fault rupture. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would be located in an area mapped as likely to experience strong to very strong ground shaking in the event of a large earthquake with PGAs ranging from 0.80 to KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-10 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

1.2 g for a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years for the Pro ject area. The area has historically experienced moderate to severe ground shaking due to the numerous earthquakes that have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area. These earthquakes have resulted in severe damage to structures, billions of dollars in property damage, and deaths.

There will be no full -time onsite workers or occupied structures as part of the Project; workers will be onsite periodically for as needed inspections and maintenance during Project operation. The proposed BESS system (including th e BESS units and enclosures and the PCS and their enclosures), and the 60 kV line may be subject to strong to very strong ground shaking during the Project’s lifetime. While the potential for seismically induced ground shaking in the Proposed Project area during Project operation is unavoidable, the BESS and PCS structures and the 60 kV line would be designed per all applicable local and State seismic design criteria. Design of these structures to all appropriate seismic design criteria reduces the potential for loss, injury, or death of workers or the public to less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed Project site is within a CGS liquefaction hazard zone a nd is underlain by potentially liquefiable alluvial sediments and very shallow groundwater. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction-related damage to the BESS system and 60 kV line is high. The BESS system structures would be designed to appropriate local and State guidelines. However, to ensure that direct and indirect impacts associated with seismically induced ground failures or lique - faction would be less than significant, mitigation measure MM G -1 (Conduct Geotechnical Investigations for Liquefaction) shall be implemented prior to final Project design to ensure that people or structures are not exposed to hazards from the Project associated with earthquake-induced liquefaction.

Mitigation Measure for Seismically Induced Liquefaction MM G-1 Conduct Geo technical Investigations. Because seismically induced liquefaction -related ground failure has the potential to damage or destroy Project components, design-level geotechnical investigation for the Project shall be performed by SVP and shall include investigations designed to assess the potential for geologic and seismic hazards, and specifically include evaluation of potential for liquefaction and expansive soils to affect the BESS system components and the 60 kV line at the Project site. Where liquefaction or expansive soils hazards are found to exist/verified, appropriate engineering design and construction measures shall be incorporated into the Project designs as deemed appropriate by the Project engineer. Finalized Project design incorporating geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to Project construction. iv. Landslides?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would be located on a flat to relatively flat graded area on the gently sloping Santa Clara Valley floor and no known landslides have occurred in the Project vicinity. The Project site is not located within or near a CGS designated landslide hazard area (CGS, 2023a). T herefore, landslides and other slope failures are highly unlikely to occur and there would be no impact related to landslides or slope instability.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The Project site is flat to nearly flat, however some grading and excavation would occur as part of Project construction . Surface disturbing activities such as trenching or grading will be required for construction of the proposed Project but would be done in compliance with regulations pertaining to sediment and runoff control, including silt fencing on the site perimeter. Sediment controls would be implemented to prevent water or wind disturbance and migration of the earth. In addition, as noted in Section 5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, a stormwater pollution KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-11 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

prevention plan or erosion control plan would be required under miti gation measure MM HYD -1 to address surface water quality. Implementation of this measur e would ensure that the potential erosion or loss of topsoil is limited and reduced to a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measure for Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
MM HYD-1 SWPPP or Erosion Control Plan Development and Implementation. (see full t ext in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality)
c. Would the project be located on geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spread- ing, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As discussed above in Item (a)(iii) regarding liquefaction, the proposed Project would be constructed in an area within the zone of liquefaction hazard; therefore, str uctures could potentially suffer liquefaction -related damage. However, compliance with applicable local and State design regulations and implementation of mitigation measure MM G-1 (Conduct geotechnical investigations) prior to final Project design would ensure that people or structures are not exposed to hazards associated with earthquake -induced liquefaction, reducing the impact to less than significant.

Additionally, as discussed above in Item (a)(iv) Landslides, there would be no impact from landslides as the proposed Project is located on and traverses flat to gently sloping terrain and would not be subject to landslides. Although the Project site is lo cated in an area with known historic subsidence, subsi dence in the Santa Clara Valley has been controlled/stopped due to activities and procedures put in place by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Project will not construct any new groundwater extraction wells and would not contribute to declining water levels and subsidence. Thus, there would be no impact from subsidence.

Mitigation Measure for Seismically Induced Liquefaction MM G-1 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations. (see full text above) d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2019), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED . Mapping by the NRC S indicates that the Project site is underlain by soils mapped as an Urban Land soil unit with undetermined expansive poten- tial. However, the mapped geologic unit underlying the Project site is known to contain high percentage of clay and therefore may be expansive. Expansive soils could impact the integrity and stability of BESS system foundations, damaging structures and potentially injuring workers. Compliance with local and State design requirements would reduce potential impacts from expansive soils. However, to ensure that direct and indirect impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant, mitigation mea- sure MM G-1 (Conduct Geotechnical Investigations) shall be implemented prior to final Project design to ensure that people or structures are not exposed to hazards from the Project associated with expansive soils.

Mitigation Measure for Expansive Soils
MM G-1 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations. (see full text above) e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alterna- tive wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

JULY 2023 5.7-12 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not include any components requiring septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, there would be no impact. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed Project is anticipated to disturb the ground surface for excavation and grading. Geologic units underlying the site consist of undetermined depths of artificial fill, Holocene alluvium, and Pleist ocene alluvium. Depth to Pleistocene alluvium at the site is estimated at 5 to 10 feet below ground surface (Helley, 1990). Although it is unlikely that the limited Project excavation and grading would exceed these depths, there is a chance that Project ground disturbance could potentially encounter older Quaternary alluvium (Pleistocene alluvial sediments) that may contain unique paleontological resources or sites. The possibility that previously unknown paleontological resources could be discovered and damaged or destroyed during Project ground distur- bance would potentially constitute a significant impact absent mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM G -2 would evaluate and protect unanticipated discoveries of unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features, thereby reducing this potential impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure for Paleontological Resources
MM G-2 Worker Training and Management of Paleontological Resources. A paleontologist must be retained who meets the professional paleontologist qualifications (Society of Verte- brate Paleontology’s Standard Procedures, 2010) and has demonstrated experience in carrying paleontological projects to completion. The qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP), and training shall be provided for all staff who will be onsite during exca vations. The WEAP shall show what local Pleistocene fossils look like in general, where they may appear in the Project, and how to proceed should material suspected to be a fossil is encountered.

The qualified paleontologist must develop and implement a Paleontological Resources Management Plan (PRMP) for the Project area that meets the standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). This PRMP shall include:
 A monitoring plan for ground disturbing activities that provides the monitor(s) with the authority to temporarily halt or divert equipment. The Paleontologist shall deter mine a suitable monitoring schedule based on construction activities and anticipated depth of ground disturbance. Monitors shall be onsite for any disturbance of sed iments with high or unknown paleontological sensitivity. Monitors must have dem onstrated suffi- cient paleontological training and field experience to have acceptable knowl edge and experience of fossil identification, salvage and collection methods, pale ontological techniques, and stratigraphy.
 A recovery plan for significant fossils that p rovides for the treatment of specimens to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
 A specimen identification, analysis, and curation plan that includes identification to the lowest taxonomic level possible; taxonomic, taphonomic, and biostratigraphic analysis; and curation to the standards of the repository where they will be curated.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

JULY 2023 5.8-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.8.1. Setting
Physical Setting and Effects of GHG Emissions. The global climate depends on the presence of naturally occurring greenhouse gases (GHG) to provide what is commonly known as the “greenhouse effect” that allows heat radiated from the Earth’s surface to warm the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is driven mainly by water vapor, aerosols, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and other con- stituents. Globally, the presence of GHG affects temperatures, precipitation, sea levels, ocean currents, wind patterns, and storm activity.

Human activity directly contributes to emissions of six primary anthropogenic GHGs: CO2, CH4, N2O, hydro- fluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). The standard definition of anthropogenic GHG includes these six substances unde r the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 1998). The most important and widely occurring anthropogenic GHG is CO2, primarily from the use of fossil fuels as a source of energy.

Changing temperatures, precipitation, sea levels, ocean currents, wind patterns and storm activity provide indicators and evidence of the effects of climate change. For the period 1950 onward, relatively compre- hensive data sets of observations are avail able. Research by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reports certain climate change indicators by categorizing the effects as:
changes in California’s climate; impacts to physical systems including oceans, lakes, rivers, and snowpack; and impacts to biological systems including humans, vegetation, and wildlife. The primary observed changes in California’s climate include increased annual average air temperatures, more -frequent extremely hot days and nights, and increased severity of drought. Impacts to physical systems affected by warming tem- peratures and changing precipitation patterns show decreasing snowmelt runoff, shrinking glaciers, and rising sea levels. Impacts to terrestrial, marine, and freshwater biological systems, with resulting changes in habitat, agriculture, and food supply are occurring in conjunction with the potential to impact human well-being (OEHHA, 2018).

GHG-Emissions Trends. California first formalized a strategy to achieve GHG reductions in 2008, when Cal- ifornia produced approximately 484 million metric tons of CO 2 equivalent (MMTCO2e) according to the official Air Resources Board inventory (ARB, 2021). The economy -wide emissions have been declining in recent years, and California emitted approximately 418 MMTCO2e in 2019 (ARB, 2021). Globally, anthro- pogenic GHG emissions have increased by roughly 80%, from around 27,000 to 49,000 MMTCO2e per year between 1970 and 2010 (IPCC, 2014). In this global context, California emits less than one percent of the global anthropogenic GHG.

5.8.1.1. Regulatory Background
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)]. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) required that California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be re duced to KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

JULY 2023 5.8-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

1990 levels by 2020. The reduction is being accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on global warming emissions beginning in 2012. AB 32 directs the ARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels (AB 32, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). AB 32 requires ARB to update the Scoping Plan at least every 5 years. Accordingly, the ARB released a 2022 Scoping Plan Update in November 2022 (ARB, 2022).

In passing AB 32, the California Legislature found that:

Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well -being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine eco - systems and the natural environment, and an inc rease in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problem.

Other major Executive Orders, legislation, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emis- sions support the implementation of AB 32 and California’s climate goals, as described below.

California Governor’s Executive Order B-30-15 and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). Executive Order B-30-15 (April 2015) establishes a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

One purpose of this interim target is to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This executive order also specifically addresses the need for climate adaptation and directs state agencies to update the California Climate Adaptation Strategy to identify how climate change will affect California infrastructure and industry and what actions the state can take to reduce the risks posed by climate change. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) of 2016 c odifies this GHG emissions target to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.

Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 [Senate Bill 350 (SB 350)]. California’s state policy objectives on long -term energy planning were updated with SB 350 legislatio n that was signed into law on October 7, 2015. The requirements include demonstrating through integrated resource planning how each energy service provider, such as SVP, will continue to expand the use of renewable energy supplies in the mix of electricity delivered to end-use customers. With SB 350 California expanded the specific set of objectives to be achieved by 2030, with the following:
 To increase the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from 33 percent to 50 percent for the procurement of California’s electricity from renewable sources; and  To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by retail customers.

California Governor’s Executive Order B-55-18 and Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). Beyond 2030, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a statewide goal for California to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. In Sep tember 2018, Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), to revise and extend California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program, was signed into law. SB 100 accelerated the RPS targets and established the goals of 50 percent renewable energy resources by 2026 and 60 percent renewable energy resources by 2030. These RPS targets are codified according to compliance periods in Pub. Util. Code Section 399.30, as follows: 33 percent by December 31, 2020, 44 percent by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also sets a target for California to achieve a GHG-free electricity supply for 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update assesses progress towards achieving the updated 2030 targets, while laying out a path to achieve the SB 100 target of carbon neutrality no later than 2045 (ARB, 2022).

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (17 CCR 95100 to 95158). The ARB Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, or mandatory reporting rule (MRR), applies to KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

JULY 2023 5.8-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

electric power distribution companies and to fossil fuel electricity genera ting facilities with a nameplate capacity equal or greater than 1 MW capacity. As an Electric Power Entity under this rule, SVP must report GHG emissions associated with providing electricity to end-use customers.

Cap-and-Trade Program (17 CCR 95801 to 960 22). The California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms Regulation (Cap-and-Trade Program) was initially approved by ARB in 2011. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies to covered entities that fall within certain source categories, including first deliverers of electricity (such as fossil fuel power plants) and electrical distribution utilities, such as SVP. The covered entities must hold compliance instruments sufficient to cover the actual GHG emissions, as evidenced through the MRR requirements. This means that SVP, as an electrical distribution utility, bears the GHG compliance obligation for electricity delivered to end -users that are not otherwise covered entities in the Cap-and-Trade Program.

Emission Reductions of SF 6 from Gas Insulated Switchgear (17 CCR 95350 to 95359). In 2010, ARB adopted a regulation for reducing or phasing-out SF6 emissions from electric power system gas insulated switchgear. The regulation requires owners of such switchgear to: (1) annually report their SF6 emissions; (2) determine the emission rate relative to the SF 6 capacity of the switchgear; (3) provide a com plete inventory of all gas insulated switchgear and their SF6 capacities; (4) produce a SF6 gas container inventory; and (5) keep all information current for ARB enforcement staff inspection and verification.

City of Santa Clara, Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City of Santa Clara CAP, adopted on December 3, 2013, proposed to reduce community GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2008 levels by the year 2020. The CAP’s reduction measures address energy use, transportation, land use, water, solid waste, and off -road equipment. On June 7, 2022, the City Council unanimously adopted an updated CAP to align with California’s 2030 GHG reduction targ ets and carbon neutrality goals for 2045. The City’s 2022 CAP envi - sions a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 (Senate Bill 32), with an interim target of an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2035, as it moves toward a 2045 goal of net carbon neut rality (EO B-55-18). In developing the CAP strategies, the City considered how actions contribute to social and economic co - benefits like emissions reductions, equity, green jobs, cost savings and others.

5.8.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed construction activities include mobilizing construction equipment, crews, and materials, excavating holes for poles, installing concrete foundations and equipment, installing poles, and wire stringing. These activities during construction would cause GHG emissions due to fuels used by the construction vehicles and equipment. Diesel and gasoline-powered construction equipment would include trucks for materials and crews, and the following types of equipment: auger, backhoe or loader, crane, compactor, small welder, pump, and generator. Equipment and motor vehicles would directly emit CO 2, CH 4, and N 2O due to fuel use and combustion, and motor vehicle fuel combustion emissions in terms of CO2e are approximately 95 percent CO2, and CH4 and N2O emissions occur at rates of less than 1 percent of the mass of combustion CO2 emissions.

The resulting one -time quantity of GHG emitted during the 16 -month period of construction would be around 788 MTCO2e (Aspen, 2023), based on use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod; v.2020.4.0). These one-time project-level emissions would cease at the conclusion of construction and would be well below the threshold level of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for annually recurring emissions from stationary sources (BAAQMD, 2017).

Upon completion of construction, operation of the Project would not result in a notable incremental increase in GHG emissions from O&M activities. During operation, the quantity of GHG emitted is KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

JULY 2023 5.8-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

expected to be approximately 134 MTCO2e per year (Aspen, 2023). These operational emissions would comply with the BAAQMD’s project-level threshold of significance, which is annual emissions of less than 1,100 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. California’s regulatory setting for GHG emissions (Section 5.8. 1) ensures that most of the existing and foreseeable GHG sources in electric power sector are subject to one or more programs aimed at reducing GHG. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update (ARB, 2022) provides an outline of actions to reduce California’s GHG emissio ns. The scoping plan requires ARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs.

The proposed Project would generate limited quantities of direct GHG emissions from the construc tion and O&M activities. The mix of power serving the end-use customers would not change as a result of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would improve the infrastructure used in delivery of SVP’s energy supply and would not affect SVP’s ability to supply renewable energy. By installing battery energy storage, the Project would be likely to improve SVPs reliability and flexibility in delivery of electricity in compliance with California’s RPS requirements. Increasing the use of renewable generation in conjunction with energy storage is important to the overall objective of decarbonizing the electricity sector (ARB, 2022).

California’s Cap-and-Trade regulation is the major climate program covering Project related GHG emis- sions. Construction and O&M activities would cause GHG emissions due to fuels used by the vehicles and equipment. The end -users of motor vehicle fuels like gasoline and diese l may include construction contractors that are not otherwise designated as covered entities in the Cap -and-Trade program, and these do not directly bear the Cap-and-Trade compliance obligation. However, all fuel suppliers, including refiners and pipeline companies, must cover the end -user’s GHG emissions. Because the Project-related GHG emissions, including construction -phase emissions and the opera tional-phase mobile source emissions, would be “covered” by the fuel suppliers subject to Cap -and-Trade req uirements, these emissions would not conflict California’s progress towards achieving GHG reductions.

As in the existing conditions, SVP would comply with ARB SF 6 regulations to inventory, report, and mini - mize SF6 leaks through the use of new technology. By complying with these requirements, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable GHG management plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ - ment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adop- ted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.9.1. Setting
This section addresses issues related to environmental hazards and hazardous materials in the existing conditions. Environmental hazards include accidental spills of hazardous materials, the presence of existing subsurface contamination, the risk of wildfire, and aircraft safety. Hazardous materials include fuel, oil, and lubricants. If encountered, contaminated soil can pose a health and safety threat to workers or the public.

5.9.1.1. Existing and Past Land Uses
Existing and past land use activities are commonly used as indicators of sites or areas with potential for hazardous material storage and use or potential environmental contamination. For example, many current and historic industrial sites have soil or groundwater contamination by hazardous substances.

Other hazardous materials sources include leaking underground tanks in commercial and rural areas, contaminated surface runoff from polluted sites, and contaminated groundwater plumes.

5.9.1.2. Hazardous Materials
Construction activities routinely involve use and storage of hazardous materials such as cleaning solvents, paints, adhesives, vehicle fuels, oil, hydraulic fluid, and other vehicle and equipment maintenance fluids. The use and storage of such materials must comply with federal and state regulations. Use of hazardous material during construction of the rebuilt substation would be limited to motor vehicles fluids associated with KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

construction vehicles. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials used in construction of the facility would be carried out in accordance with federal, state, and county regulations. No extremely hazardous substances (i.e., those governed pursuant to Title 40, Part 335 of the Code of Federal Regulations) are anticipated to be produced, used, stored, transported, or disposed of as a result of the Project’s con- struction.

Asbestos Containing Material and Lead Based Paint . As part of the Project the exist ing building on the Project site will be demolished. Due to the age of the building, more than 50 years old, there is a potential that asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP) may be present on or in the building.

5.9.1.3. Battery Energy Storage Systems
A battery energy storage system (BESS) is a type of system that uses an arrangement of batteries and other electrical equipment to store electrical energy. Containerized systems, which are one form of a modular design, have become a popular means of integrating BESS projects efficiently. The battery stor- age enclosures include battery cells/modules, an HVAC system, a Battery Management System, and Fire Suppression.

Large-scale BESS are commonly designed for high -powered and rapid -charge cycles that can generate heat quickly and affect the safe operation of the batteries (Conzen et al, 2022). BESS require a reliable and well-performing cooling system that either directly cools the battery cell/modules or cools the enclosure in which the battery packs are installed. Failures of the BESS cooling or fire prevention systems can result in fires and explosions within BESS containers. This can occur under a variety of scenarios (i.e., short circuit), in which the stored chemical energy is converted to thermal energy with the results of cell rupture and the release of large amounts of flammable and potentially toxic gases, which can lead to fire and explosion (Conzen et al, 2022). As of June 2021, approximately 30 global large -scale BESS have experienced failures and destructive fires.

5.9.1.4. Environmental Contamination
The Project site is located near commercial and light industrial properties. A review of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker (SWRCB, 2023a) and California Department of To xic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor databases (DTSC, 2023a) revealed there are 28 GeoTracker and 1 6 EnviroStor listed sites within 0.5 -mile radius of the proposed Project site. Of the Geotracker sites 5 are open sites with known or potential environmental contamination and 23 are completed case closed sites (SWRCB, 2023 a). Ten of the EnviroStor sites are listed as Inactive -Needs Evaluation, 1 is listed as No Further Action, 1 is listed as No Action Required, 2 are certified Closed sites, and 2 sites wer e referred to other agencies and closed with one having a Land Use/Deed Restriction (DTSC, 2023a).

The 5 open GeoTracker listings area all Cleanup Program sites, and 11 cleanup program site sites. All 17 of the LUST sites are listed as completed case closed with 4 of the sites located upgradient of the Project site. The two closest upgradient cleanup program sites to the Project site are: Owens Corning Fiberglass located approximately 900 feet south of the Project site, listed as open -verification as of 200 9 with continuing soil vapor monitoring but a with a recommendation from the RWQCB for closure in regard to VOC groundwater contamination (SWRCB, 2023b); and 715 Comstock Industrial Property (T10000018684) located approximately 1350 feet southeast of the Project, listed as open -site assessment as of 2022 with VOC and TPH contaminated soil and groundwater and an approved Assessment work plan as of January 2023 (SWRCB, 2023c). The 2 remaining upgradient Site Cleanup sites are both located approximately 2100 feet south to southeast of the Project site and are both undergoing remediation for VOC groundwater contamination and have both submitted remediation completion reports in 2021 (SWRCD, 2023d and e).

None of the case closed LUST site present a contamination hazard to the Project site, except potentially the closed LUST located on the southern Portion of the Project parcel. The Pacific Bell (T0608502404) KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

closed LUST case is located at 3205 Raymond Avenue, the same address as the Project site, however the LUST was located in the southern half of the parcel adjacent to the other building, approximately 130 feet south of the Project site and was case closed in 2001 (SWRCB, 2023f) . Soil and groundwater sampling conducted at the time of the gasoline tank removal indicated no TPH, VOCs, or MTBE detected in soil, however TPH, VOCs, and MTBE were detected in the underlying groundwater (SWRCB, 2023f). The site underwent remediation and groundwater monitoring and was granted case closure in 2001, with the note that residual petroleum hydrocarbons still existed in the groundwater but at levels below regulatory concern (SWRCB, 2023f).

Five of the EnviroStor sites are located upgradient of the Project site and none have exist ing contamina- tion issues that present a contamination hazard to the Project site (DTSC, 2023a).

The proposed Project is not located at or near sites identified on a list of hazardous materials waste and substances sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, including the Cortese List (DTSC, 2021b).

5.9.1.5. Schools
There are no schools or daycare facilities located within a 0.25-mile radius of the Project site. The closest school to the site is the Montague Elementary School of the Santa Clara Unified Sc hool District, located approximately 0.85 miles northeast of the Project site.

5.9.1.6. Airports and Airstrips
The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (Airport) is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Project site. A review of the Santa Clara Cou nty Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Airport indicates that the Project site is beneath a mapped flight path and is located between the 65 dB and 70 dB Aircraft Noise Contours (SCCALUC, 2016). Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes imaginary surfaces for airports and runways as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation. Each surface is defined as a slope ratio or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation. The Project site is located between the 162 fand 212 feet above Mean Sea Level FAR Part 77 Surface zone of maximum structure height (SCCALUC, 2016). The Project site is at the northwestern edge of the designated Airport Turning Safety Zone (TSZ) and within the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) for the Airport. The TSZ represents the approach and departure areas that have the third highest level of exposure to potential aircraft accidents. The TPZ is that portion of the airport area routinely overflown by aircraft oper ating in the airport traffic pattern and the potential for aircraft accidents is relatively low and the need for land use restrictions is minimal in the TPZ (SCCLAUC, 2016).

5.9.1.7. Wildfire Hazards
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies, and maps areas of signifi- cant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, and other relevant factors. The maps identify this information as a series of Fire Hazard Severity Zones, which are progressively ranked in severity as un -zoned, moderate, high, and very high. Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the State, local, or federal government. State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) includes those areas where the financial respon - sibility of preventing and suppressing f ires falls primarily on the State. Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) include incorporated cities, unincorporated county areas, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert. LRA FHSZ are mapped as either Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) or as Non-VHFHSZs.

LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CALFIRE under contract to local governments (OSFM 2023). Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA) are those located on federal lands not otherwise included in SRAs and LRAs.

The Project would be located within the City of Santa Clara County in the County of Santa Clara. The Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map for Santa Clara County (OFSM 2022) indicates that the Project site is locat ed KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

in an LRA. The proposed Project is located in a fully urbanized developed area with no wildlands at or near the Project site. The Project site is serviced by the Santa Clara Fire Department. For more information on wildfire hazards, see Section 5.20 Wildfire.

5.9.1.8. Electromagnetic Fields
Electric voltage and electric current from transmission lines create electromagnetic fields (EMF). Possible health effects associated with exposure to EMF have been the subject of scientific investigation since the 1970s, and there continues to be public concern about the health effects of EMF exposure. However, EMF is not addressed here as an environmental impact under CEQA. SVP has repeatedly recognized that EMF is not an environmental impact to be analyzed in the context of CEQA because (1) there is no agreement among scientists that EMF does create a potential health risk, and (2) there are no defined or adopted CEQA standards for defining health risks from EMF.

5.9.1.9. Regulatory Background
Hazardous substances are defined by fe deral and State regulations that aim to protect public health and the environment. Hazardous materials have certain chemical, physical, or infectious properties that cause them to be considered hazardous. Hazardous substances are defined in the federal Com prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 101(14), and also in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261, which provides the following definition:

A hazardous materia l is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irre- versible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.

Soil excavated from a site containing hazardous materials would be considered a hazardous waste if it exceeded specific CCR Title 22 criteria or criteria defined in CERCLA or other relevant federal regulations.

Remediation (cleanup and safe removal/disposal) of hazardous wastes fou nd at a site is required if exca- vation of these materials occurs; it may also be required if certain other activities occur. Even if soils or groundwater at a contaminated site do not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous wastes, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority.

Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency taking lead jurisdiction.

Federal
Toxic Substances Control Act. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act (HSWA), which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. The use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was specifically prohibited by HSWA.  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for the regulation of the generation, trans - portation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

hazardous wastes. The use of certain techniques for the disp osal of some hazardous wastes was specifically prohibited by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act.  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Congress enacted the federal CERCLA, including the Superfund program, on December 11, 198 0. This law provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA established requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons respon sible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contin gency Plan. The National Contingency Plan provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan also established the National Pri orities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.

Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the principal federal statute protecting navigable waters and adjoining shorelines from pollution. The law was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. Since its enactment, the CWA has formed the foundation for regulations detailing specific requirements for poll ution prevention and response measures. The U.S. EPA implements provisions of the CWA through a variety of regulations, including the NCP, as described above, and the Oil Pollution and Prevention Regulations. Implementation of the CWA is the responsibility of each state.

As part of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. EPA oversees and enforces the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (Title 40 CFR Part 112), which is often referred to as the “SPCC rule” because the regulations describe the requirements for faci lities to prepare, amend, and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and Counter - measure (SPCC) Plans. A facility is subject to SPCC regulations if the total above ground oil storage capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons, or the underground oil storage capacity exc eeds 42,000 gallons, and if, due to its location, the facility could reasonably be expected to discharge oil into or upon the “navigable waters” of the United States. The rule specifies that proactive, and not passive, measures be used to respond to oil discharges.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, created in 1972 by the CWA, helps address water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. The permit provides two levels of control:
technology-based limits and water quality -based limits (if technology -based limits are not sufficient to provide protection of the water body). Under the CWA, U.S. EPA may authorize state, tribal, and territorial governments to administer the NPDES permit program, enabling them to perform many of the permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the NPDES program. In states authorized to implement CWA programs, U.S. EPA retains oversight responsibilities. Within the State of California, the SWRCB issues both general permits and individual permits under the NPDES permit program.

Federal Aviation Administration. Title 14, Part 77.9 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notification for any construction or alteration of navigable airspace exceeding 200 feet above ground level (AGL). It also requires notification for construction or alterations within 20,000 feet of an airport with a runway more than 3,200 feet in length if the height of the construction or alteration exceeds a slope of 100 to 1 extending outward and upward from the nearest point of the nearest runway of the airport. If a project’s height exceeds 200 feet or exceeds the 100:1 surface, the Project applicant must submit a copy of FAA Form 7460 -1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to the FAA.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

State
The California Fire Code. Chapter 12 of the CFC provides provisions related to the installation, operation and maintenance of energy systems used for generating or storing energy to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations . Section 120 7 of the 20 22 CFC provides requirements for Electrical ESS and provides information on permits, construction, hazard mitigation, and operational requirements.

California Environmental Protection Agency. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was created in 1991, which unified California’s environmental authority in a single cabinet -level agency and brought the Air Resources Board (ARB), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB), DTSC, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) under one agency. These agencies were placed within the Cal/EPA “umbrella” for the protection of human health and the environment and to ensure the coordinated deployment of State resources. Their mission is to restore, protect and enhance the environment, to ensure public healt h, environmental quality, and economic vitality.

California Hazardous Waste Control Law. The California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) is admin- istered by Cal/EPA to regulate hazardous wastes. While the HWCL is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the EPA approves the California program, both the State and federal laws apply in California. The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and about 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans -up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administra- tion. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. The employer is required to monitor worker expo - sure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure (8 CCR Sections 337 -340). The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident-preven- tion programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings.

California Fire Plan. The Strategic California Fire Plan was finalized in June 2010 and directs each California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Unit to prepare a locally specific Fire Management Plan. In compliance with the California Fire Plan, individual CAL FIRE units are required to develop Fire Management Plans for their areas of responsibility. These documents assess the fire situation within each of CAL FIRE’s 21 units and six contract counties. The plans include stakeholder contributions and priorities and identify strategic areas for pre -fire planning and fuel treatment, as defined by the people who live and work with the local fire problem. The plans are required to be updated annually.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Local
Santa Clara Fire Department Community Risk Reduction Division. Senate Bill 1082 (Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.11) established the Unified Program (a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory program). The Unified Program is implemented at the local level by local govern- ment agencies certified by Cal EPA, known as CUPA. CUPA agencies implem ent all the Unified Program elements and serve as a local contact for area businesses. The CUPA for the Project area is the Santa Clara Fire Department Community Risk Reduction Division (CRRD). As CUPA for City of Santa Clara, the CRRD administers the following California programs:
 Hazardous Waste Generator Program - This program applies to businesses and facilities that gener ate hazardous waste in any quantity, consolidates hazardous waste generated at a remote site, or recycles more than 100 kilograms/mo nth of excluded or exempted recyclable materials. The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division maintains records and conducts inspections of hazardous waste generators within the City of Santa Clara. Businesses that generate hazardous waste are required to submit a "Hazardous Waste Generator Permit Application" when they move into the city or begin generating hazardous waste. (A properly filled out and submitted Hazardous Waste Materials Business Plan may be used in lieu of the Hazardous Waste Generator Permit Application.)  Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment - The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division maintains records and conducts inspections of hazardous waste generators who treat wastes on-site in a Fixed Treatment Unit under Permit by Rule, Conditional Authorization, and Conditional Exemption.

The Division currently does not inspect Transportable Treatment Units, full permit facilities, or standardized permit facilities.
 Underground Storage Tank (UST) - SCCRRD implements this program to prevent discharges and releases of hazardous substances from USTs. The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division maintains records of and inspects underground storage tanks. All underground storage tanks are required t o meet current state regulations. Permits are required for the installation or removal of underground storage tanks.
 Aboveground Storage Tank SPCC Plan - As the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division is authorized to implement the California Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act. The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Mater- ials Division inspects facilities that store petroleum products in aboveground tanks with a tot al petrol- eum storage quantity at or above 1,320 gallons for compliance with the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act and referenced sections of the federal Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule.
 Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) - Facilities that store any hazardous material at or above the State-defined thresholds, generally 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of a gas, and 500 pounds of a solid, are subject to a HMBP. The CRRD oversees the preparation and submittal of the HMBP. The HMBP must be kept on site in a readily accessible area. The company must also review the HMBP at least once every two years. Copies of the inventory statement, site map, and facility information included in the HMBP must be submitted to the Santa Clara Fire Department annually.  California Accidental Release Prevention Program - Businesses that handle more than the State thresh- old quantity of a regulated substance must develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP); an RMP is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division implements the California Accidental Release Prevent ion Program (CalARP) within the City of Santa Clara. The program requires an assessment of the offsite hazard potential, and the implementation of a program to minimize the risk of release. Companies which are KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

required to prepare a Risk Management Plan for the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 68, are also required to submit a copy of their Risk Management Plan to the Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division.

Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD). The HMCD administers the Site Mitigation Program which oversees the Local Oversight Program and the Site Cleanup Program. The Local Oversight Program (LOP) oversees the cleanup of sites contami- nated by petroleum from UST releases throughout Santa Clara County. The Site Cleanup Program (SCP) oversees the cleanup of properties contaminated by hazardous materials not exclusively associated with petroleum USTs. California Health & Safety Code Sections 101480 through 101490 state that a responsible party for a contaminated site may request local agency oversight of site assessment and remediation activities. In addition, the HMCD administers the Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance (County Ordi- nance No. NS-517.31) and the Toxic Gas Ordinance (County Ordinance No. NS-517.44).

Santa Clara Emergency Operations Plan. In June 2016, the City of Santa Clara adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to address the planned response of the City of Santa Clara to emergency situations associated with natural disasters and technological incidents, as well as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive emergencies. The EOP establishes the emergency organization, assign tasks, speci- fies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts for emergency events such as earthquake, flooding, dam failure, and hazardous materials responses.

City of Santa Clara General Plan. The purpose of the City’s safety polic ies is to identify potential hazards and measures that can lessen risks for the City’s population and property. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.10.5‐P22. Regulate dev elopment on sites with known or suspected contamination of soil and/or groundwater to ensure that construction workers, the public, future occupants and the envi - ronment are adequately protected.
 Policy 5.10.5‐P23. Require appropriate clean‐up and remediation of contaminated sites.  Policy 5.10.5‐P24. Protect City residents from the risks inherent in the transport, distribution, use and storage of hazardous materials.
 Policy 5.10.5‐P27. Locate hazardous waste management facilities in areas designated as Heavy Indus- trial on the Land Use Diagram if compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

5.9.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED – CONSTRUCTION. The use of hazardous materials during Project construction would be minimal. Hazardous materials may include gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic oils, equipment coolants, and any generated wastes that may include these materials.

These materials are considered hazardous because they are flammable and/or contain toxic compounds, such as volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Wastes considered hazardous by the State of California would be transported and disposed of according to applicable federal, State, and local regula - tions, as described above under applicable Regulations. Fueling and routine maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles would be performed off site to the greatest extent feasible. However, minor spills or releases of hazardous materials could occur due upset or improper handli ng and/or storage practices during construction activities.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-9 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Therefore, implementation of mitigation measure MM HM -1 (Hazardous Substance Control and Emer- gency Response) would reduce potential impacts associated with hazardous material transport, use, and disposal during construction, which would ensure that Project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, SVP would also implement i ts existing hazardous substance control and emergency response procedures.

Mitigation Measure for Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials MM HM-1 Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response. SVP shall implement its hazard- ous substance control and emergency response. procedures as needed. These procedures identify methods and techniques to minimize the exposure of the public and site workers to potentially hazardous materials during all phases of Project construction through oper- ation. They address worker training appropriate to the site worker’s role in hazardous substance control and emergency response. The procedures also require implementing appropriate control methods and approved containment and spill -control practices for construction and materials stored on site. If it is necessary to store chemicals on site, they shall be managed in accordance with all applicable regulations. Material safety data sheets shall be maintained and kept available on site, as applicable.

No know n soil contamination was identified within the Project area, however historic groundwater contamination has occurred at the site and at upgradient sites (SWRCB, 2023b though f). In the event that soils, or groundwater suspected of being contaminated (on the basis of visual, olfactory, or other evidence) are removed/encountered during site grading or excavation activities or dewatering activities, the excavated soil and/or extracted groundwater shall be tested and, if contaminated above hazardous waste levels, shall be contained and either treated or disposed of at a licensed waste facility.

The presence of known or suspected contaminated soil or groundwater shall require test- ing and investigation procedures to be supervised by a qualified person, as appro priate, to meet state and federal regulations.

Work will be resumed at this location after any necessary consultation and approval by the Hazardous Materials Division.

SVP shall complete its Emergency Action Plan Form as part of Project tailboard meetings.

The purpose of the form is to gather emergency contact numbers, identify first aid locations and provide other tailboard safety information.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Other than substances associated with motor vehicles that would be used for inspections, no hazardous materials are associated with maintenance and operation of the Project. SVP would implement existing operation and maintenance KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-10 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

policies to address hazardous materials use after the Project construction is complete. Impacts associated with the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED – CONSTRUCTION. Accidental spills of motor vehicles fluids associated with construction vehicles could occur during construction of the proposed Project as discussed in Item (a) above. The minimal amounts of hazardous materials anticipated for use in the Project coupled with implementation of mitigation measure MM HM -1 requirements would reduce potential impacts by requiring the development and implementation of hazardous substance control and health and safety measures.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. No hazardous materials are associated with maintenance and operation of the Project. SVP would implement existing operation and maintenance policies to address hazardous materials use after the Project construction is complete.

The Project would include operation of a BESS. The BESS would be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with applicable prudent operating industry bes t practices an d regulatory requirements, including fire safety standards. The BESS would comply with the current California Fire Code (CFC), which governs the code requirements to minimize the risk of fire and life safety hazards specific to battery energy storage systems used for load shedding, load sharing, and other grid services (Chapter 12 Section 1206 of the 2019 CFC). If applicable, the system would be certified to UL 9540, the standard associated with control, protection, power conversion, communication, controll ing the system environment, air, fire detection and suppression system related to the functioning of the energy storage system. The batteries would be tested to UL 9540A, a test method intended to document the fire characteristics associated with thermal e vent or fire and would confirm that the system would self - extinguish without active fire -fighting measures. The system would be designed, such that, during a fire event, the results of the UL 9540A test would show that any internal fire is contained within the enclosure and not spread to the other parts of the facility. The results of this test are used to inform facility safety system design and emergency response plans which would be shared with first responders. The BESS would use dry agent fire suppressant-system to detect and suppress fires. If smoke or heat were detected, or if the system were manually triggered, an alarm would sound, horn strobes would flash, and the system would release suppressant, typically FM 200, NOVEC 1230 or similar agent from pressurized storage cylinders. Final safety design would follow applicable standards and would be specific to the technology chosen. Compliance with applicable regulations, guidelines, and standards would reduce the potential for fire related damage to the BESS that may release hazardous materials from damaged batteries to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure for Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials MM HM-1 Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response. [see full text under Item (a) above]
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous mater ials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project site is not located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.

Small amounts of hazardous materials will be used and may be stored during Project construction and operation; however, no acutely hazardous materials are anticipated to be used during Project construction or operation. Therefore, there would be no impact to schools related to hazardous materials use.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-11 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites com - piled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED -– CONSTRUCTION. The proposed Project site is not located on or adjacent to any active hazardous materials sites as identified pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore, no significant hazard the public or the environment would be created.

However, the Project would be located on the northern portion of a larger parcel on which the southern portion had a former LUST case that is now case closed. As well, several active Cleanup Program sites are located upgradient of the Project site that may have resulted in groundwater contamination at the Project site. Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during Project grading and excavation activities.

Contaminated soil or groundwater encountered during construction and considered to be hazardous by the State of California would be handled, stored, transported and disposed of according to applicable federal, State, and local regulations, as described above under applicable Regulations. Implementation of mitigation measure MM HM -1 (Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response) would reduce potential impacts associated with encountering unknown hazardous soil or groundwater ensuring that Project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the encountering contaminated soil or groundwater at or near current and former hazardous materials sites.

Further, SVP would also implement its existing hazardous substance control and emergency response procedures.

Pre-construction activities for the Project inclu de removal of the existing building which is over 50 years old and may contain ACM or LBP on or with its building materials. Demolition of the existing building on the Project site could expose construction workers or residents in the vicinity of the Project site to harmful levels of ACMs or LBP. Compliance with appropriate federal, State, and local regula tions regarding the handling, storage, removal, and disposal of ACM and LBP would reduce potential impacts. Implementation of mitigation measure HM -2 (Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Testing and Removal ) would ensure that ACM and LBP are identified and properly removed/remediated prior to building demolition resulting in a less than significant impact to worker or the public related to ACM or LBP exposure.

Mitigation Measures for Unknown Contamination
MM HM-1 Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response. [see full text under Item (a) above]
MM HM-2 Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Testing and Removal. The Project would implement the following measures to reduce impacts due to the presence of unknown ACMs and/or LBP in the structure to be demolished:
 In conformance with State and local laws, a visual inspection/predemolition survey, and sampling and testing , shall be conducted prior to the demolition of the on-site building to determine the presence of asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint, and to determine appropriate handling and disposal requirements.  Prior to demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR) 1523.1. Employee training, employee air mon itoring, and dust control shall be conducted during demolition also in accordance with this Standard. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-12 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESGAP guidelines prior to any building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demo- lition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8 of CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos.  A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dis pose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above.
 Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also s ubject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Removal of materials con taining more than one percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements.

NO IMPACT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. The Proposed Project will not use large quantities of haz- ardous materials or acutely hazardous materials and is therefore unlikely to be identified during operation on a list of active hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; therefore, no significant hazard the public or the environment would be created. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (Airport) is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is: beneath a mapped flight path; located between the 65 dB and 70 dB Aircraft Noise Contours; located between the 162 fand 212 feet above Mean Sea Level FAR Part 77 Surface zone of maximum structure height ; and at the northwestern edge of the designated Airport Turning Saf ety Zone (TSZ) and within the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) for the Airport (SCCALUC, 2016). However, the Project would not include on-site staff that would be at increased hazards due aviation hazards nor would the Project structures be of greater size or he ight than existing industrial or commercial buildings around the site. The height of the BESS structures and tie line would not be tall enough to exceed FAR Part 77 Surface zone of maximum structure height . Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact due to aviation hazards from the Project. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED – CONSTRUCTION. Construction-related tem- porary short-term lane closures or disruptions may be necessary during the 16 -month construction period. In June 2016, the Santa Clara City Council adopted a new comprehensive emergency response plan to replace the prior plan adopted in 2008. The plan provides a legal framework for the management of emergencies and guidance for the conduct of business in the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), including collaboration and coordination between different responsible agencies. The Emergency Opera- tions Plan (EOP) establishes responsibilities and procedures for addressing potential emergencies related to disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and dam failure; technological incidents; hazardous materials spills or releases; and incidents of domestic terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, such as Chemical, Biological, Rad iological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) devices. The EOP conforms to the requirements of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) mandated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Santa Clara EOP also builds on and coordinates with the Sta te’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the California State Emergency Plan.

The EOP does not identify specific emergency shelters or evacuation routes in Santa Clara, though schools are identified as preferred facilities for lodging large numbers of people, with churches, hotels, and motels KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JULY 2023 5.9-13 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

also likely to function as mass care facilities during large -scale disasters. The proposed Project would not interfere with operation of any emergency shelters and would not permanently close off or ot herwise alter any existing streets, and therefore would not create any obstructions to potential evacuation routes that might be used in the event of an emergency.

During construction any temporary lane closures would be coordinated with local agencies and as speci- fied in Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measure T-1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan) (see Section

5.16, Traffic and Transportation). Additionally, any temporary road closures would follow applicable reg- ulations and would not impede e mergency response. Adherence to the City’s EOP, coupled with imple- mentation of mitigation measure MM T -1 during construction would ensure that the Project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; therefore, the impact that would occur related to emergency response during construction would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure for Interference with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacu - ation Plan
MM T-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan [See Section 5.17.2 (Transportation) for complete text of the mitigation measure.]
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
NO IMPACT - CONSTRUCTION. The proposed Project is in an urban setting with no risk of wildland fire owing to the lack of extensive vegetation in the area. The Project site and surrounding areas are located in an LRA area and are not in mapped VHFHSZ as designated on CAL FIRE wildland fire hazard maps (OSFM, 2022). To reduce the potential of construction triggered fires, fire protection during construction would include minimizing flammable materials in the BESS yard, such as vegetation and fire extinguishers and other portable fire‐fighting equipment would be available onsite. Locations of portable fire extinguishers would include, but not be limited to hot work areas, flammable storage areas, and mobile equipment such as work trucks and other co nstruction vehicles. Fire‐fighting equipment would be marked conspicuously and be accessible. Portable equipment would be routinely inspected, as required by local and federal laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards, and replaced immediately if defect ive or needing charge.

Therefore, the Project construction would have no direct or indirect impacts related to exposure of people or workers to wildland fires (see also Section 5.20, Wildfire).

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE . Ope ration and maintenance activities would be incorporated into SVP’s and Ameresco’s existing O&M schedule for the existing substations and associated facilities. As with current operation and maintenance, SVP and Ameresco would comply with all current federal and State laws related to vegetation clearance and fire prevention.

Additionally, fire preven tion for the BESS will comply with federal and State laws, including the CFC.

Thermal runway or other system failures could lead to fire or explosion of the BES S. In order to minimize hazards related to fire and explosion, t he BESS would be equipped with a dry agent fire suppression system, and i f smoke or heat were to be detected, or if the system were manually triggered, an alarm would sound, horn strobes would flash, and the system would release suppressant, typically FM -200, NOVEC 1230 or a similar clean agent from pressurized storage cylinders. The local Fire Department would be notified. The battery enclosure and the site installation design are all required to be approved by the State Fire Marshal. Therefore, the Project construction would have a less than significant direct or indirect impacts related to exposure of people or workers to wildland fires (see also Section 5.20, Wildfire).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.10-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.10. Hydrology and Water Quality

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -
or offsite;

(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drain-
age systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff; or

(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.10.1. Setting

5.10.1.1. Surface Waters and Drainage
Surface water drainage in the City of Santa Clara is primarily to the Guadalupe River (east of the Project site); San Tomas Aquino Creek, also sometimes mapped as the southern extension of Saratog a Creek; (west of the Project site); Saratoga Creek (southwest of the Project site), and Calabazas Creek (west of the Project site) (City of Santa Clara, 201 0). The Project site is located approximately equidistantly between San Thomas Aquino Creek to the west and Guadalupe River to the east. The Project site drains to the San Thomas Aquinas Creek within the San Jose International Airport -Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries Watershed. Saratoga Creek (and San Tomas Aquino Creek) is listed as an impaired water body by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) 303 (d) list for diazinon (a pesticide) and trash; the diazinon TMDL listing is from 2007 and is being addressed by the USEPA approved San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon TMDL and the trash is being addressed by implementing the trash control provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (SWRCB, 2023).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.10-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

All of the streams and rivers crossing the City of Santa Clara originate in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which are largely undeveloped. These streams drain northward across Santa Clara Valley to discharge into San Francisco Bay. Within the City of Santa Clara, these regionally important streams have been substantially channelized and modified to reduce flood hazards. The City of Santa Clara has a storm drainage system that consists of curb inlets that collect and channel surface water, such as rainwater, into a series of storm sewers beneath City’s roadways. The stormwater is transported through the underground pipe to the 4 streams within the City. These streams then directly flow into the San Francisco Bay (City of Santa Clara, 2010).

5.10.1.2. Groundwater Resources
The Santa Clara Valley is primarily underlain by the Santa Clara Valley groundwater basin, which is divided into three subbasins: the San Mateo Plain, the Niles Cone, and the Santa Clara subbasins (DWR, 2022).

The proposed Project site, in the north-central section of the City of Santa Clara, is within the Santa Clara Subbasin (DWR, 2023). The Santa Clara Subbasin is approximately 240 square miles, covering the middle and southern end of the Santa Clara Basin. The water bearing formations of the Santa Clara subbasin include Plio -Pleistocene age Santa Clara Formation of and Pleistocene to Holocene younger alluvium (DWR, 2003). Water production well depths in the Santa Clara Valley average about 278 feet below the ground surface and yield an average of 425 gallons per minute (City of Santa Clara, 2010).

In contrast to other areas adjacent to San Francisco Bay, where saltwater intrusion has been an issue, total dissolved solids in the groundwater have not been a concern for the City of Santa Clara. Nitrates have also not been a problem and are below one‐half of allowable levels in water extracted from the City’s wells. However, manganese, a naturally occurring metal in groundwater, has been detected at one well, resulting in the City installing a manganese removal system for that well before putting it into production (City of Santa Clara, 2010). Water quality in the major producing aquifers in the subbasin is generally sodium and calcium bicarbonate and, although hard, is of good to excellent quality and suitable for most uses (DWR, 2003).

5.10.1.3. Flood Hazard Areas
On Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps (FEMA, 20092023), the Project site is primarily mapped as Zone X - Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee, however there is a small area mapped as Special Flood Hazard Zone AH subject to the 1% annual flood (i.e., the 100-year flood) running approximately along Raymond Street and the east end of Space Park Dr adjacent to the Project site and potentially lapping over onto the west edge of the Project site. The substation site is outside of this zone.

Special Flood Hazard Zone AH has base flood elevations determined and estimated flood depth of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding) (FEMA, 2023). At the site, the area designated Special Flood Hazard Zone AH has a base flood elevation of 32 feet, per the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Ma p (FIRM) 06085C0064H, effective May 18, 2009 the local FEMA flood map (FEMA, 20092023).

According to the City of Santa Clara General Plan from 2010, Figure 5.10 -2, the proposed Project site is within the Lexington Dam inundation areas and is immediately adj acent to a small Special Flood Hazard Area, as identified above as Zone AH, however the Project site is not vulnerable to sea level rise.

5.10.1.4. Water Supply
Potable water for the City of Santa Clara comes from a combination of sources: City of San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy aqueduct system, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and groundwater from City‐owned wells. Groundwater comprises almost 70 percent of the City’s water supply. Recycled wastewater is also KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.10-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

used in the City for certain landscape irrigation, industrial, and construction purposes (City of Santa Clara, 2010).

5.10.1.5. Regulatory Background
Federal
Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and certain non -point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, California’s nine Regi onal Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates the NPDES stormwater program. The proposed Project is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2) and the SWRCB.

Projects that disturb one or more acres are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the California Gen- eral Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. The Construction Gen - eral Permit requires the dev elopment and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP describes Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to protect storm- water runoff. The SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical mo nitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs.

Section 401 of the CWA requires that any activity, including river or stream crossing during road, pipeline, or transmission line construction, which may result in discharges into a State waterbody, must be certified by the RWQCB through the issuance of a Waste Disch arge Requirement. This certification ensures that the proposed activity does not violate State or federal water quality standards. The limits of nontidal waters extend to the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), defined as the line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as natural line impressed on the bank, changes in the character of the soil, and presence of debris.

Section 404 of the CWA requires a permit for construction activities involving placement of any kind of fill material into waters of the U.S. or wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may issue either individual, site-specific permits or general, nationwide permits for discharge into U.S. waters. A Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions. If applicable, construction would also require a request for Water Quality Certification (or waiver thereof) from the Central Valley RWQCB and/or the Lahontan RWQCB.

Section 303(d) of the CWA (CWA, 33 USC 1250, et seq., at 1313(d)) requires states to identify impaired waterbodies as those which do not meet water quality standards. States are required to compile this information in a list and submit the list to the USEPA fo r review and approval. This list is known as the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. As part of this listing process, states are required to prioritize waters and watersheds for future development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a particular waterbody can receive while still meeting water quality standards, or an allocation of that water pollutant deemed acceptable to receiving waters. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have ongoing efforts to monitor and assess water quality, to prepare the Section 303(d) list, and to develop TMDL requirements.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.10-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1967, Water Code Section 13000 et seq., requires the SWRCB and t he nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria to protect State waters. These criteria include the identification of beneficial uses, narrative and numerical water quality standards, and implementation procedures. The criteria for the Project area are contained in the Water Quality Control Plan (also referred to as a Basin Plan) for the San Francisco RWQCB. Constraints in the water quality control plans relative to the proposed Project relate primarily to the avoidance of altering the sediment discharge rate of surface waters, and the avoidance of introducing toxic pollutants to the water resource. A primary focus of water quality control plans is to protect designated beneficial uses of waters. In addition, anyone proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the state must make a report of the waste discharge to the Regional Water Board or State Water Board as appropriate, in compliance with Porter-Cologne.

California Water Code Section 13260. California Water Code Section 1326 0 requires that any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, must submit a report of waste discharge to the applicable RWQCB. Any actions related to the proposed Project that would be applicable to Section 13260 would be reported to the San Francisco RWQCB, as applicable.

Local
Water Policies. The purpose of the City’s water policies is off -set increased demand associated w ith the implementation of the City General Plan. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.10.4‐P1. Promote water conservation through development standards, building requirements, landscape design guidelines, education, compliance with the State Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance, incentives, and other applicable City‐wide policies and programs.  Policy 5.10.4‐P4. Require an adequate water supply and water quality for all new development.  Policy 5.10.4‐P5. Prohibit new development that would reduce water quality below acceptable State and local standards.
 Policy 5.10.4‐P10. Work with Santa Clara Valley Water District to minimize undesirable compaction of aquifers and subsidence of soils.

Safety Policies. The purpose of the City’s safety policies is to identify potential hazards and measures that can lessen risks for the City’s population and property. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.10.5‐P11. Require that new development meet stormwater and water management require - ments in conformance with State and regional regulations.  Policy 5.10.5‐P13. Require that development complies with the Flood Damage Protection Code.  Policy 5.10.5‐P14. Coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure appropriate designation and mapping of floodplains.
 Policy 5.10.5‐P16. Require new development to implement erosion and sedimentation control m ea- sures to maintain an operational drainage system, preserve drainage capacity and protect water quality.  Policy 5.10.5‐P21. Require that storm drain infrastructure is adequate to serve all new development and is in place prior to occupancy.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.10-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 Policy 5.10.5‐P22. Regulate development on sites with known or suspected contamination of soil and/or groundwater to ensure that construction workers, the public, future occupants and the envi - ronment are adequately protected.

5.10.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or other - wise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Disturbance of soil during construction could result in soil erosion and lowered water quality through increased turbidity and sediment trans port into the storm drain system. There are no watercourses or other water bodies within or adjacent to the Project site. Drainage from the site i s directed to the municipal storm drain system which likely flows to San Thomas Aquinas Creek and then eventually flows into San Francisco Bay. The City of Santa Clara parti - cipates in the regional program for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). Santa Clara is committed to improving water quality in the Bay and streams reduc ing urban runoff pollution through the implementation of the City’s Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City’s URMP, along with other local Urban Runoff Management Plans, collectively constitute the regional plan that conforms to the federal requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (City of Santa Clara, 2010).

During construction, there is also the potential for violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements to occur as a result of accidental leaks, spills, or releases of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials. There also is a potential for violations if existing contamination is encountered during construction.

The Project site is approximately 1.2 acres. It is assumed that most of the site would be disturbed during construction, triggering the need for a SWPPP. Implementation of mitigation measure MM HYD-1 would ensure that erosion c ontrol best management practices (BMPs) would be in place to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level whether or not a SWPPP is triggered by State law. In addition to mitigation measure MM HYD-1, complying with applicable water quality standards, including obtaining and adhering to any required water quality permits, would offer suf ficient protection to avoid significant adverse impacts to water quality from erosion and sed imentation. Applicable water quality standards and regulations are described above, in Section 5.10.1.

In the event of an accidental spill, adherence to regulatory standards and regulations, as well as imple - mentation of mitigation measure MM HM-1 (Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response) (see Section 5.9), would collectively ensure that a suite of BMPs would be applied to min imize the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials to occur, to quickly and effectively address any such leak, and to quickly and effectively respo nd to any existing contamination produced or encountered during construction. The intent of regulatory standards is to prevent degradation of water quality to the point where beneficial uses would be impaired. Therefore, potential impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or other substantial degradation of surface or groundwater quality during construction would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1 and HM-1 and compliance with regulatory standards. With these com pliances, no violations would result from operation of the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures for Water Quality
MM HYD-1 SWPPP or Erosion Control Plan Development and Implementation. Following Project approval, SVP will prepare and implement a SWPPP, if required by State law, or erosion control plan to minimize construction impacts on surface water and groundwater quality.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.10-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Implementation of the SWPPP or erosion control plan will help stabilize graded areas and reduce erosion and sedimentation. The plan will designate BMPs that will be adhered to during construction activities. Erosion and sediment control measures, such as straw wattles, covers, and silt fences, will be installed before the onset of winter rains or an y anticipated storm events. Suitable stabilization measures will be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities, as necessary. During construction activities, mea - sures will be in place to prevent contaminant discharge.

The Project SWPPP o r erosion control plan will include erosion control and sediment transport BMPs to be used during construction. BMPs, where applicable, will be designed by using specific criteria from recognized BMP design guidance manuals. Ero sion- minimizing efforts may include measures such as properly containing stockpiled soils.

Erosion control measures identified will be installed in an area before construction begins during the wet season and before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events. Temporary measures such as silt fences or wattles, intended to min imize sedi- ment transport from temporarily disturbed areas, will remain in place until dis turbed areas have stabilized. The plan will be updated during construction as required by the SWRCB.

A worker education program shall be established for all field personnel prior to initi ating fieldwork to provide training in the appropriate application and construction of erosion and sediment control measures contained in the SWPPP. This education program will also discuss appropriate hazardous materials management and spill response. Compliance with these requirements will be ensured by the on-site construction contractor.

MM HM-1 Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response (see full text in Secti on 5. 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials)
b. Would the project s ubstantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Groundwater supplies could be adversely affected through direct consump tion of groundwater resources or indirect depletion of groundwater supplies such as through con ducting dewatering activities where the water is not returned to the subsurface. In the case of the proposed Project there would be minimal demand for water. Water would be supplied from existing hydrants and/or trucked to the site. During BESS operation, little water would be required. A water truck or hose will be used on-site to suppo rt dust suppression during ground disturbing work and to supply water to construction activities. This would not result in a significant demand for water resources from the City of Santa Clara, where groundwater makes up 70 percent of the City’s water supp ly. The existing supply is adequate for use during the 16-month duration of construction activities. Due to very shallow ground - water levels, dewatering may be necessary if groundwater is encountered . However, given the depth to the groundwater table, wate r encountered during Project excavation would be shallow and local and dewatering would be for a limited temporary period of time. The small amount of dewatering would therefore not result in a substantial decrease of the groundwater supply or interfere su bstantially with groundwater recharge or sustainable groundwater management. The site is currently mostly impervious due to the presence of a building and significant paving . The proposed Project would also include mostly impervious or semipervious surface s. The Project would have minimal effect on groundwater recharge.

Overall, any impacts to groundwater would be less than significant.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.10-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

c. Would the project s ubstantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project has no potential to alter the course of a stream or river, nor to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The site has been previously graded and paved , with some planting areas with exposed soil . The Project would regrade t he site and pave it. This would result in slightly more impervious ground cover compared to existing conditions. There would be only a slight change compared to the impervious area of the site currently and of the surrounding building roofs, streets, sidew alks, and parking lots. The proposed Project would therefore have a less than significant impact on drainage patterns or runoff generation and would not create on- or off-site erosion or siltation.
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. As described under Item (c)(i) above, the Project site is covered primarily with impervious surfaces except for a few planting beds with trees and exposed soil . The Project would pave the site. This would have a less than significant impact on drainage patterns or runoff generation. The site would drain to the existing stormwater drainage system , similar to existing practice. Impacts on flooding would therefore be less than significant.
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. As discussed above, the Project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff. Existing or planned stormwater drainage systems would therefore not be adversely affected.

Except as described under Item (a) above, the Project has no features that would generate substantial polluted runoff. This impact would be less than significant. iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The western edge of the P roject is adjacent to and just barely within a FEMA - designated Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A H, a 100-yer flood zone with estimated flood depth of 1 to 3 feet and a base flood elevation of 32 feet ). Construction of a wall along the north and west side of the Project site would be primarily within Zone X - Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee and would not pose a substantial obstruction to flood flows such that flood flows would be impeded or redirected in any substantial way; therefore, the impact would be less than significant. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project site is not subject to the effects of a tsunami and is not near a waterbody that would create seiche effects. The site is located within a n area of reduced flooding due to levee (Zone X) and adjacent to a 100-year flood zone with estimate depth of flooding of 1 to 3 feet and a base flood elevation of 32 feet . The BESS system components would all be located within the mapped Zone X area of reduced flooding due to levee and, therefore, would not pose a risk of pollutant release due to inundation. This impact is less than significant. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable ground - water management plan?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. As described in Item (a) above, the Project effect on water quality would be less than significant with mitigation. Although the nearby San Tomas Aquinio/ Saratoga Creek is listed as an KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

JULY 2023 5.10-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

impaired water body, there are no features of the Project that would adversely impact the diazinon or trash load of the creek. There are no features of the Project that would otherwise generate water quality impairments, nor are there any components of the Project construction or use that could otherwise conflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan. The Project would have minimal water use, mainly during construction, which would be obtained from local water pur veyors. There are no features of the Project that would otherwise have any effect on groundwa ter management. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING

JULY 2023 5.11-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.11. Land Use and Planning

LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.11.1. Setting
The proposed Project would be located in a developed area in the central east part of the City of Santa Clara. The proposed Project area and parcels to the north, west, and south are zoned as ML – Light Industrial, and the parcel to the east of the Project area is zoned as Public/Quasi Public. ( City of Santa Clara 2014, Figure 5.2 -2). The land use in the area is primarily a mix of light industrial and low intensity office/R&D, which includes data centers.

The Light Industrial classification is intended to accommodate a range of light industrial u ses, including general service, warehousing, storage, distribution, and manufacturing. It includes flexible space, such as buildings that allow combinations of single and multiple users, warehouses, mini‐storage, wholesale, bulk retail, gas stations, data centers, indoor auto‐related uses and other uses that require large, warehouse‐ style buildings. Because uses in this designation may be noxious or include hazardous materials, places of assembly, such as religious institutions and schools, and uses caterin g to sensitive receptors, such as children and the elderly, as well as entertainment uses such as clubs, theaters , and sports venues south of U.S. Highway 101, are prohibited.

Low Intensity Office/R&D designations are intended for campus‐like office develo pment that includes office and R&D, as well as free standing data centers. It includes landscaped areas for employee activities and parking that may be surface, structured or below‐grade. Accessory, or secondary, small scale sup - porting retail uses that serve local employees and visitors are also permitted.

Public or Quasi Public designations allow a variety of public and quasi -public uses, including government offices, fire and police facilities, transit stations, commercial adult care and childcare cente rs, religious institutions, schools, cemeteries, hospitals and convalescent care facilities, places of assembly, and other facilities that have a unique public character as their primary use. (City of Santa Clara, 2014)

5.11.1.1. Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the land use and planning regulatory framework. No federal or State regulations or policies related to land use and planning are applicable to the Project.

Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The City’s land use policies consider the effects of development to public facilities and infrastructure. The following policies in the General Plan are generally related to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.3.1‐P10. Provide opportunities for increased landscaping and trees in the community, including requirements for new development to provide street trees and a minimum 2:1 on‐ or off‐site replace- KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING

JULY 2023 5.11-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

ment for trees removed as part of the proposal to help increase the urban forest and minimize the heat island effect.
 Policy 5.3.1-P11. Allow new public/quasi -public uses under any General Plan Land Use classification, provided that the use is compatible with planned uses on neighboring properties, consistent with other applicable General Plan policies, and has primary access from a Collector or larger roadway. Such uses not associated with government operations are prohibited in areas designated as Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial, and in areas designated High or Low Intensity Office/Research and Development outside the Exception Area.
 Policy 5.3.1‐P15. Require new developments and major public infrastructure projects to include ade - quate rights-of‐way to accommodate all modes of transportation.  Policy 5.3.1‐P17. Promote economic vitality by maintaining the City’s level of service for public facilities and infrastructure, including affordable utilities and high-quality telecommunications.  Policy 5.3.1‐P28. Encourage undergrounding of new utility lines and utility equipment throughout the City.

5.11.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The Project would be within an existing SVP property. The site is located off a lightly travelled surface street. The closest residential community to the Project is approximately 0.5 miles to the northeast. The Project would not physically divide an established community. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b. Would the project c ause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigat ing an environmental effect?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would be consistent with the policies of the City of Santa Clara General Plan, as listed above in Section 5.11.1, Setting. As discussed in Sections 5.1, Aesthetics, and 5.1 3, Noise, the Project would have less than significant visual and noise impacts. SVP shall obtain all applicable ministerial permits prior to commencing Project activities. The existing building on the site would be demolished prior to construction, after Ameresco obtains a Demo lition Permit from the City of Santa Clara. The removal of the existing vegetation would be undertaken in consultation with the City Arborist.

The proposed Project does not cause an environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plans, policy, or regulation.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.12-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.12. Mineral Resources

MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.12.1. Setting
Mineral resources of significance found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggre - gate deposits and salts derived from evaporation ponds at the edge of San Francisco Bay (City of Santa Clara, 2014). A review of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data indicate that the proposed Project would not be in a classified mineral resource zone (MRZ) and there are no known important mineral resources or active mining operations in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project (DOC, 2023a; USGS, 2023).

5.12.1.1. Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the regulatory framework for mineral resources. There are no federal or local regulations associated with mineral resources that are relevant to the proposed Project.

State
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). SMARA requires that the State Geol - ogist classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) according to the known or inferred mineral poten- tial of the land. The California Department of Conservation’s Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) and the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) are jointly charged with administration of the Act’s requirements.

The OMR provides technical assistance to lead agencies and operators, maintains a statewide database of mine locations and operational information, and is responsible for matters involving SMARA compliance.

The SMGB promulgates regulations to clarify and interpret SMARA requirements in addition to serving as a policy and appeals board (DOC, 2023b). The SMGB has the authority to further regulate the authority of the local agencies if it finds that the agencies are not in compliance with the provisions of SMARA.

Mineral resources have been mapped using the California Mineral Land Classification System, which include the following four MRZs:
 MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence;  MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence;  MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated; and  MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other zone.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.12-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.12.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project and the surrounding vicinity are not located within a classified Mineral Resource Zone and there are n o known important mineral resources that would be impacted by the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or State.
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? NO IMPACT. As stated above, there are no designated Mineral Resource Zones in the proposed Project vicinity and t here are no known important mineral resources that would be impacted by the Project .

Therefore, the Project would have no impact on any locally important mineral resource recovery sites.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.13. NOISE

JULY 2023 5.13-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.13. Noise
NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground - borne noise levels?

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.13.1. Setting

5.13.1.1. Existing Conditions
Community Noise. To describe environmental noise and to assess Project impacts on areas that are sen- sitive to community noise, a measurement scale that simulates human perception is used. The A-weighted scale of frequency sensitivity accounts for the sensitivity of the hu man ear, which is less sensitive to low frequencies, and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) is cited in most noise criteria. Decibels are logarithmic units that can be used to con - veniently compare wide ranges of sound intensities.

Community noise levels can be highly variable from day to day as well as between day and night. For simplicity, sound levels are usually best represented by an equivalent level over a given time period (Leq) or by an average level occurring over a 24-hour day-night period (Ldn). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is a single value (in dBA) for any desired duration, which includes all of the time-varying sound energy in the measurement period, usually one hour. The L50, is the median noise level that is exceeded fifty per cent of the time during any measuring interval. The Ldn, or day -night average sound level, is equal to the 24-hour A -weighted equivalent sound level with a 10 -decibel penalty applied to night time sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another metric that is the average equivalent A -weighted sound level during a 24 -hour day, obtained after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. To easily estimate the day -night level caused by any noise source emitting steadily and continuously over 24 -hours, the Ldn is 6.4 dBA higher than the source’s Leq. For example, if the expected continuous noise level from equipment is 50.0 dBA Leq for every hour, the day-night noise level would be 56.4 dBA Ldn.

Community noise levels are usually closely related to the intensity of hu man activity. Noise levels are generally considered low when below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. In wilderness areas, the Ldn noise levels can be below 35 dBA. In small towns or wooded and lightly used residential areas, the Ldn is more likely to be around 50 or 60 dBA. Levels around 75 dBA are more common in busy urban areas, and levels up to 85 dBA occur near major freeways and airports. Although people often accept the higher levels associated with very noisy urban re sidential and residential -com- mercial zones, they nevertheless are considered to be adverse to public health.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.13. NOISE

JULY 2023 5.13-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Surrounding land uses dictate what noise levels would be considered acceptable or unacceptable. Lower levels are expected in rural or suburban areas than what would be expected for commercial or industrial zones. Nighttime ambient levels in urban environments are about seven decibels lower than the corre - sponding daytime levels. In rural areas away from roads and other human activity, the day -to-night dif- ference can be considerably less. Areas with full -time human occupation and residency are often con - sidered incompatible with substantial nighttime noise because of the likelihood of disrupting sleep. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can result in the onset of sleep interference. At 70 dBA, sleep interference effects become considerable (U.S. EPA, 1974).

Noise Environment in the Project Area. The Project area includes land uses that are primarily commercial and industrial. The major arteries, such as Central Expressway and U.S. 101 near the Project site, cause traffic noise levels that exceed 75 dBA CNEL along the edges of the roads, and noise levels that exceed 70 dBA CNEL at the Project site (City of Santa Clara, 2014; General Plan Figure 5.10-4). The Project site is also within the 65 dB CNEL airport noise contour (City of Santa Clara, 2014; General Plan Figure 5.10-5).

Noise Sensitive Areas. The area immediately around the Project includes heavy industrial, light industrial, and low intensity off ice/R&D designated areas. The closest residential community to the Project is approximately 0.55 miles to the northeast. This community is designated as a very low-density residential area. There is another residential community located approximately 0.9 miles to the west, which is designated as a high -density residential area. There are no residences, churches, or schools within 0.5 miles of the Project site. Project-related work areas would not be within 100 feet of land uses containing sensitive receptors, since there are no sensitive receptors within 100 feet.

5.13.1.2. Regulatory Background
Regulating environmental noise is gen erally the responsibility of local governments. The U.S. EPA once published guidelines on recommended maximum noise levels to protect public health and welfare (U.S.

EPA, 1974), and the State of California maintains recommendations for local jurisdictions in the General Plan Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR, 2017). The following summarizes the local requirements.

The City of Santa Clara City Code. The City Code generally prohibits “loud and unreasonable noise” as a nuisance if it may disturb the peace “between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.” including specifically noise that is “made within two hundred fifty (250) feet of any building or place regularly used for sleeping purposes” (Section 9.05.010). However, Section 9.10.070(d) of the City Code exempts operation of City - owned electric utility system facilities, including substation equipment, from the Noise Ordinance.

The City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.10) includes exterior noise limits that must not be ex ceeded at receiving land uses, for noise generated by any fixed source of noise. Construction activities that occur during allowed hours and noise from city-owned electric facilities are exempt from the noise and vibration standards of the Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.070).

City of Santa Clara General Plan. The Environmental Quality chapter of the General Plan (City of Santa Clara, 2014) includes policies to encourage land uses that are compatible with areas of higher noise levels and to protect noise sensitive land uses in areas where existing ambient noise levels are high, as follows:
 Policy 5.10.6‐P1. Review all land use and development proposals for consistency with the General Plan compatibility standards and acceptable noise exposure levels defined on Table 5.10‐1.  Policy 5.10.6‐P2. Incorporate noise attenuation measures for all projects that have noise exposure levels greater than General Plan “normally acceptable” levels, as defined on Table 5.10‐1.  Policy 5.10.6‐P3. New development should include noise control techniques to reduce noise to accept- able levels, including site layout (setbacks, separation and shielding), building treatments (mechanical KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.13. NOISE

JULY 2023 5.13-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

ventilation system, sound‐rated windows, solid core doors and baffling) and structural measures (earthen berms and sound walls).
 Policy 5.10.6‐P4. Encourage the control of noise at the source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation and other techniques.
 Policy 5.10.6‐P5. Require noise‐generating uses near residential neighbor hoods to include solid walls and heavy landscaping along common property lines, and to place compressors and mechanical equip- ment in sound‐proof enclosures.
 Policy 5.10.6‐P6. Discourage noise sensitive uses, such as residences, hospitals, schools, librari es and rest homes, from areas with high noise levels, and discourage high noise generating uses from areas adjacent to sensitive uses.

5.13.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – CONSTRUCTION. The proposed Project would require a 16-month duration of con - struction activities that include mobilizing construction equipment, crews, and m aterials, grading, excavating holes for poles, installing concrete foundations, paving, and installing poles and equipment. The construction activities would require use of vehicles and heavy -duty equipment capable of generating noise within and around the Project site and along the roads used to access the site. Along with on - highway vehicles including trucks, the following types of construction equipment could be used at the site: auger, backhoe or loader, crane, compactor, small welder, pump and generator. Outsid e of the site, traffic noise would be caused by vehicles transporting equipment and materials to the site, trucks removing demolition and construction-related debris, and workers commuting to and from the work site.

For the Project site, which is zoned as ML-Light Industrial, construction noise would be allowed at any time (Chapter 9.10.040).

Construction would temporarily increase the noise levels near the Project site. Construction would be similar to other construction in an urban environment and, to the extent feasible, would occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Limited work, such as tying in new lines, may be required at night to avoid disrupting daytime electric service. The land uses surrounding the site are primarily commercial and industrial. There are no residences within 0.5 miles of the Project site.

Table 5.13-1 summarizes the typical noise levels for individual pieces of construction equipment.

Table 5.13-1. Typical Noise Levels for Individual Construction Equipment Equipment
Typical Lmax
(dBA, at 50 ft)
Typical Leq
(dBA, at 50 ft)
Auger, drill rig 84 77
Backhoe 78 74
Crane 81 73
Compactor 83 76
Excavator 81 77
Generator 81 78
Pump 81 78
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.13. NOISE

JULY 2023 5.13-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 5.13-1. Typical Noise Levels for Individual Construction Equipment Equipment
Typical Lmax
(dBA, at 50 ft)
Typical Leq
(dBA, at 50 ft)
Dump truck, haul truck, concrete
mixer truck
76-79 73-76
Pickup truck, crew truck 75 62-71
Source: FHWA, 2006.

Lmax: Maximum noise level from Actual Measured in Roadway Construction Noise Model.

Leq: Equivalent noise level for one hour incorporating the Acoustical Usage Factor.

Construction activities would create both intermit tent and continuous noises during the workday. Inter - mittent noise would be caused by periodic, short -term equipment operation. For example, th e auger or excavator would be used cyclically during the limited phases of creating foundations or below grade trenching. Continuous noise would emanate from equipment operation over longer periods, such as steady use of a pump or generator.

Typical equipment noise levels and equipment usage factors are published in the federal Roadway Construction Noise Model, User's Guide (FHWA, 2006). For a collected group of equipment at the construc- tion site, the maximum intermittent noise levels would typically range from 84 to 90 dBA at 50 feet. These would be the highest levels expected, and these could occur during installation of foundations or the below grade excavation. At 50 feet, continuous noise levels could range up to about 83 dBA. Because sound fades over distance, these levels would diminish over additional distance and could be reduced further by intervening structures. At 100 feet from the equipment, continuous noise levels could range up to 77 dBA and at 200 feet, up to 71 dBA.

Construction would also cause noise away from work areas, primarily from commuting workers and from trucks needed to bring materials to the site. Haul trucks would make trips to bring materials to the construction site and remove excavated soil and waste. The noise l evels associated with passing trucks and commuting worker vehicles would be approximately 71 to 76 dBA at 50 feet, and vehicular noise would be concentrated at the Raymond Street entrance to the substation.

Construction noise would affect the locations clo sest to the Project site and work areas and along the routes used by haul trucks and other construction traffic. The surrounding land uses would experience a temporary increase in noise above the conditions that exist without the Project. However, the inte rmit- tent and variable nature of construction noise limits the potential for adverse effects such as annoyance to be experienced by off-site receptors, and sleep interference would not be a concern because activities would occur during daylight hours and t here are no residences within 0.5 miles. Incremental noise from construction vehicles and traffic noise would not represent a substantial increase in the context of the Project’s surrounding land uses and the existing noise levels.

Ameresco would take rout ine precautions to avoid creating unnecessary noise. Construction traffic and material delivery would not need to be routed near residential areas, due to the distance of the site from the nearest sensitive receptors. The construct ion noise levels would be compatible with the setting of existing land uses and ambient noise levels and would pose no conflict with City of Santa Clara policies regarding compatibility of land uses with noise levels. Project construction noise during daytime hours would be exempt from the standards established in City Noise Ordinance. The construction noise impact under this criterion would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Upon completing construction, the occasional nature of maintenance noise due to implementation of the proposed Project would not result noise levels in excess of standards established in the l ocal general plan or noise ordinance. The proposed Project would construct and operate a BESS facility and 60 kV interconnection line. There are no e xisting noise sources KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.13. NOISE

JULY 2023 5.13-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

onsite. Components of the Project that could create noise include HVAC units and power transformers.

Additionally, a ten-foot high CMU wall is proposed around part of the Project, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan policies for noise generating land uses (Policy 5.10.6‐P4 and Policy 5.10.6‐P5). The Project would be over 0.5 miles from the nearest residential community and sensitive receptor. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Groundborne vibration levels from construction equipment and activities might be perceptible to receptors in the immediate vicinity of the work area. The activity that would be most likely to cause groundborne vibration would be the passing of heavy trucks on uneven su rfaces. The impact from construction‐related groundborne vibration would be short‐term and confined to only the immedi- ate area around activities (within about 25 feet). There are no residents within 25 feet of the Project. No homes would be exposed to ex cessive vibration, and the impact during construction would be less than significant.

Equipment associated with operation and maintenance of the proposed Project would not produce any groundborne noise or vibration; therefore, operation and maintenance of the Project would result in no impact under this criterion.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would be located approximately 0.5 miles west of the San Jose Inter - national Airport and 5.26 miles southeast of Moffett Field. The Project site is within the 65 dB CNEL airport noise contour for the San Jose Airport (City of Santa Clara, 2014; General Plan Figure 5.10 -5). However, the proposed Project would be unstaffed, and the Project would not expose people to noise from the airports. The Project would be within 2 miles of the San Jose International Airport and is within the Airport Influence Area, as defined in the Airport Land Use Plan (County of Santa Clara 2016). The airport land use plan states that all areas within the Airport Influence Area are susceptible to aircraft overflights, but this is primarily relevant to residential land uses. However, since the Project would be unmanned and is not within or near residential land uses, the Project would not expose people to excessive noise from aircraft, and there would be no impact.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING

JULY 2023 5.14-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.14. Population and Housing

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.14.1. Setting
The Project site is surrounded by a mix of commercial and industrial land uses. Overall, this area of the City of Santa Clara is substantially built out and land use density has increased over time. Substantial increases in population can be achieved only by development of higher density housing, either on vacant land or through redevelopment of existing land uses. The City is planning on increasing the density of land uses along selected major thoroughfares in the City. Table 5.14 -1 provides existing conditions for th e County of Santa Clara and the City of Santa Clara.

Table 5.14-1. Year 2020 Existing Conditions – Population, Housing, and Employment: City of Santa Clara and County of Santa Clara
Housing Units Employment
Location Population Total Units Vacancy Rate Total Employed* Unemployment Rate City of Santa Clara 130,172 52,000 6.9% 74,000 2.1%
County Santa Clara 1,894,781 696,489 5.0% 1,055,200 2.4% *Accounts for population greater than 16 years of age and in Labor Force.

Source: CA DOF, 2022; CA EDD, 2022

5.14.1.1. Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the population and housing regulatory framework. There are no federal or state regulations, plans, and standards for population and housing that apply to the proposed Project.

City of Santa Clara General Plan. The purpose of the City’s housing policies is to plan for an adequate variety of safe, appropriate, and well-built housing for all residents of Santa Clara (City of Santa Clara, 2014b). The following policy from the City of Santa Clara General Plan and the Housing Element of the General Plan, respectively, generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014a and 2014b):
 Policy 5.3.1‐P5. Implement a range of development densities and intensities within General Plan land use classification requirements to provide diversity, use land efficiently and meet population and employment growth.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING

JULY 2023 5.14-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.14.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project is in an urban area that is substantially developed. There would be no direct population growth induced by the Project, as it would not provide new housing and would not require an expansion of the SVP or Ameresco workforce to servi ce and maintain the BESS facility.

Ameresco is expected to provide staffing for the Project. During the 16 -month construction period, the proposed Project would provide short -term jobs for a small workforce. Construction needs are not anticipated to result in workers relocating to the area. The proposed Project would generate neither a permanent increase in population levels nor a decrease in available housing.

The construction and operation of the BESS facility would facilitate future planned growth by ens uring reliable electricity to the area served by SVP and would result in an indirect effect of facilitating the development of the surrounding area of the City of Santa Clara. Greater electrical reliability would provide developmental and employment opportunities to the regional workforce. While the further development or redevelopment in the City of Santa Clara may induce some population growth, this has already been accounted for through the City’s General Plan. Therefore, there would be a less than significant effect as a result of the proposed Project.
b. Would the project displace substan tial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would be within an existing SVP property and would not displace any housing or people and, therefore, would not nec essitate the construction of replacement housing.

Construction of the BESS facility would occur over approximately 16 months and would not require the relocation of workers to the region. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES

JULY 2023 5.15-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.15. Public Services

PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical im - pacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain accep table servic e ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.15.1. Setting
For the area where the proposed Project would be located, public services, including fire and police services, as well as public and private schools, parks and recreational areas, and other public services, are provided by the City of Santa Clara, special districts, and private entities.

5.15.1.1. Fire Protection
The Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) serves the City of Santa Clara and provides fire protection to the Project site and the surrounding area (City of Santa Clara, 2014). There are 10 fire stations throughout the City, with 179.5 paid personnel and 65 reserve employees. Each fire station has at least one 3‐person engine or ladder -truck company (City of Santa Clara, 2014 ). The nearest fire station to the site is Fire Station 2, located 0.6 miles southwest of the Project site, at 1900 Walsh Ave. The current SCFD response time standard is a three-minute average for all areas of the City (City of Santa Clara, 2014).

5.15.1.2. Police Protection
The Santa Clara Police Department (SCPD) serves the City of Santa Clara and provides police protection to the Project site (City of Santa Clara, 2014). SCPD headquarters is located at 601 El Camino Real and is about 1.8 miles southeast of the Project site. SCPD has 23 2 full-time employees, including 15 3 sworn officers and 79 civilians (City of Santa Clara, 2022), divided into 4 divisions (City of Santa Clara, 2019). The average response time after dispatch is 2 minutes and 59 seconds (City of Santa Clara, 2022).

5.15.1.3. Schools
The Santa Clara Unified School District operates public schools within the City of Santa Clara (City of Santa Clara, 2014). There are numerous private and parochia l schools in the City as well. There are no schools within a 0.25 -mile radius of the Project site. Educational institutions in the general vicinity of the substation site and the distance from the substation to the school are:
 Montague Elementary School, 750 Laurie Ave, 0.9 miles northeast  Scott Lane Elementary School, 1925 Scott Boulevard, 1.3 miles south  Don Callejon Middle School, 4176 Lick Mill Boulevard, 1.5 miles northeast KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES

JULY 2023 5.15-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.15.1.4. Parks
There are 40 parks and pools in the City of Santa Clara (City of Santa Clara, 2023). The parks nearest the Project are:
 Montague Park, 3595 MacGregor Lane, 0.8 miles northeast  Montague Swim Center, 3750 De La Cruz Boulevard, 1 mile northeast  San Tomas Aquino/San Tomas Creek Trail, 0.9 miles west

5.15.1.5. Hospitals
The following hospitals are closest to the substation site:
 O’Connor Hospital, 2105 Forest Avenue, San Jose, 3.4 miles south  Valley Health Center Sunnyvale, 660 S Fair Oaks Avenue, Sunnyvale, 4 miles west  Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center, 700 Lawrence Expressway, 3.8 miles southwest

5.15.1.6. Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the public services regulatory framework. There are no federal reg - ulations associated with public services that are relevant to the proposed Project.

State
2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California. The 2010 Strategic Fire Plan for California was develop ed in coor- dination with the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and CAL FIRE to reduce and prevent the impacts of fire in California. Goal 6 of the Plan sets objectives to determine the level of suppression resources (staffing and equipment) neede d to protect private and public resources. Specific objectives include, but are not limited to, maintaining an initial attack policy which prioritizes life, property, and natural resources; determining suppression resources allocation criteria; analyzing a ppropriate staffing levels and equipment needs in relation to the current and future conditions; increasing the number of CAL FIRE crews for fighting wildfires and other emergency response activities; maintaining cooperative agree- ments with local, state, and federal partners; and implementing new technologies to improve firefighter safety, where available (State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection). The standards outlined are applicable to the SCFD serving the City of Santa Clara.

Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The purpose of the City’s public services policies is to maintain the safety and security that is essential and integral to the quality of life in the City’s community. The following policy in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.9.3‐P1. Encourage design techniques that promote public and property safety in new devel - opment and public spaces.

5.15.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maint ain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would not require fire protection services during construction or operation and maintenance unless there were an emergency. The Project site would be served by the KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES

JULY 2023 5.15-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Santa Clara Fire Department (SCFD) , which maintains a three -minute response time for all areas of the City. The BESS would be equipped with a dry agent fire suppression system, the design of which follow applicable standards and would be specific to the battery technology chosen, including, but not limited to, National Fire Protection Association 855 (standard for the Installation of Stationary En ergy Storage Systems) and Section 1206 of the California Fire Code. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in a need for additional fire protection facilities or affect response times or other service performance. The result would be a less than significant impact. b. Police Protection?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would not require police services during construction or operation and maintenance beyond routine patrols and response. As with fire services, discussed in Item (a) above, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in a need for additional police facilities or affect response times or other service performance. The majority of con struction- related activities would be locate d away from major emergency access routes and not be expected to significantly interfere with emergency response times. The result would be a less than significant impact. c. Schools?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would not be expected to result in an increase in population within the area. Construction of the Project would occur over approximately 16 months and would not require the relocation of workers’ families to the City of Santa Clara. An increase in families or in school - age children would not be expected as a result of the temporary construction activities and any workers who might temporarily migrate to the area. After construction, Ameresco’s existing operations and main- tenance division would assign two team members who would assume inspection, patrol, and maintenance duties as needed. There would be no additional workers as a result of this Project. Therefore, the Project would not increase the population in a way that would cause the need for expanded schools. The result would be a less than significant impact.
d. Parks?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not increase the region’s population. Construction of the Project would take place over 16 months and would require only a small construction workforce on any given day. While it is possible that workers traveling to the area may use existing public services or amenities such as parks, the potential increase in use and demand would be minimal and temporary and would not contribute substantially to the physical deterioration of existing facilities. Consequently, the Project would not increase any long-term demands on existing parks in the Project area, and no new or expanded park facilities would be required because of the proposed Project. e. Other Public Facilities?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not increase population and would not affect other governmental services or public facilities that would lead to the requirement of new or expanded facilities to be developed. Therefore, no impact on other public facilities is expected.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.16. RECREATION

JULY 2023 5.16-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.16. Recreation
RECREATION Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.16.1. Setting
There are 40 parks and pools in the City of Santa Clara (City of Santa Clara, 2023). Three parks are located within approximately one mile of the Project:
 Montague Park, 3595 MacGregor Lane, 0.8 miles northeast  Montague Swim Center, 3750 De La Cruz Boulevard, 1 mile northeast  San Tomas Aquino/San Tomas Creek Trail, 0.9 miles west The closest residents live approximately 0.5 miles from the Project . In general, each 1‐square mile of residential area in the City of Santa Clara contains a neighborhood or community park located close to the center to ensure that almost all residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park (City of Santa Clara, 2014).

According to Figure 5.7 -4 in the General Plan, the Project area is not in a location that is within walking distance to any existing or planned future parks, recreation, or open space locatio ns (City of Santa Clara General Plan).

5.16.1.1. Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the recreation regulatory framework. There are no federal or State regulations associated with recreation that are relevant to the proposed Project.

Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan . The objective of the City’s public facilities and services policies is to maintain a high quality of life and livability in the City. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.3.5‐P3. Encourage industrial development to participate in the identification and funding of 25 acres for park and recreational facilities to serve employment centers north of the Caltrain railroad tracks.
 Policy 5.9.1‐P16. Encourage non‐residential development to contribute toward new park facilities to serve the needs of their employees.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.16. RECREATION

JULY 2023 5.16-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.16.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project does not include development of new residential or commercial devel - opments that would increase population and increase the demand for parks. The Project would remove an existing unused building, and use the site for a BESS within an SVP property. Construction would take place over 16 months and would require only a small workforce on any given day. While some workers may use nearby park facilities during Project construction, increased use would be minimal and temporary and would not contribute substantially to the physical deterioration of existing facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recrea - tional facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities, nor does it require the construction of new or expanded parks or recreational facilities that could create an adverse physical effect on the envi- ronment. There would be no impact.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.17. TRANSPORTATION

JULY 2023 5.17-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.17. Transportation

TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.17.1. Setting
The proposed Project would use local roadways for accessing the site during construction. Baseline con- ditions of regional and local roadways likely used to access the proposed Project area and work locations and those temporarily affected by proposed Project construction activities are discussed below.

5.17.1.1. Highways
Highway U.S. 101 provides regional access to the Project vicinity (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 U.S. Highway (U.S.) 101 , specifically the section of U.S. 101 known as Bayshore Freeway, is an 8 -lane (4 lanes per direction) divided south-north highway that travels the length of the West Coast. U.S. 101 is located 0.15 miles north of the Project site . The Trimble Road/De La Cruz Boulevard exit or the San Tomas Expressway/Montague Expressway exit would likely be used to acce ss the Project area. At the Trimble Road/De La Cruz Boulevard exit, the year 2020 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on U.S. 101 were 160,000 vehicles per day. At the San Tomas Expressway/Montague Expressway exit the year 2020 average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on U.S. 101 were 169,000 vehi cles per day (Caltrans, 2020). Year 2020 ADT volumes represent the most recently published data.

5.17.1.2. Local Roads
The Project is directly accessed from Raymond Street, a two-lane local surface road with a 25-mph speed limit. Raymond Street turns into Space Park Drive as the street turns from north/south to east/west. Space Park Drive is also a two-lane street with a 25-mph speed limit. Space Park Drive continues to the west and connects to Scott Boulevard. The north end of Raymond Street intersects with Duane Avenue, a two-lane street with a 35-mph speed limit, which interconnects with Lafayette Street to the east.

Access Routes
Table 5.17 -1 provides information on some primarily local travel routes that would likely be used by project-related vehicles to access the Project site. Details on access routes that would also be disrupted by Project construction are discussed below under “Roadways Disrupted by Project Construction” and are not repeated in Table 5.17-1. While the average daily traffic data provided in Table 5.17-1 are from 2011, it remains the most currently available ADT volume data for these roadways.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.17. TRANSPORTATION

JULY 2023 5.17-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 5.17-1. Existing Local Roadway Conditions
Street Lanes ADT Volume
U.S. 101 – De La Cruz to Montague Expressway 8 240,100
De La Cruz Boulevard between U.S. 101-Central Expressway (highway exit to access project)
6 55,990
Central Expressway between Scott Boulevard and Lafayette Street 8 47,550 Lafayette Street between U.S. 101-Central Expressway 6 18,190 San Tomas Expressway between U.S. 101-Scott Boulevard 10 66,510 Scott Boulevard between San Tomas Expressway-Central
Expressway
2 16,160
Source: City of Santa Clara, 2011.

Local travel routes used to access the Project include Expressways and Minor and Major Arterial Streets.

The San Tomas, Montague, and Central Expressways could be used to access the Project vicinity.

Expressways are typically designed to serve regional traffic with speeds of 45 miles per hour and limited access. These facilities are under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and include transit service and stops. Wide shoulders or parallel routes are generally provided.

The Major and Minor Arterial Streets that would be used to access the Project include Scott Boulevard and Lafayette Street. These primarily serve through traffic not served by expressways or freeways, and typically include transit vehicles. These streets have travel speeds between 35 and 45 miles per hour.

Transit service is also emphasized, particularly on major arterials.

Roadways Disrupted by Project Construction
Construction of the proposed Project could result in a temporary disruption to local road ways during delivery of large equipment or materials. The main roads that may require temporary lane closures and/or escort vehicles include San Tomas Expressway, Scott Boulevard, De La Cruz Boulevard, and Central Expressway, a combination of which could be used to access the smaller local roads, Duane Avenue, Space Park Drive, and Raymond Street, which are used to access the Project area.

5.17.1.3. Mass Transit
Bus. Existing public transit service within the City is primarily provided by Santa Clara Valley Transporta- tion Authority (VTA) and consists of bus, light rail transit, and paratransit services. VTA bus route number 59 is located near the Project, with two bus stops within approximately one-half miles (VTA, 2023, 2021).  Route 59 travels on Scott Boulevard, east of the Project site. The following two bus stops are near the Project and could be affected:
• North of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Space Park Drive. • South of the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Central Expressway.

Passenger Rail . Existing commuter rail lines include Caltrain, operated by the Peninsula Joint Powers Board (JPB), and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), operated by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission.

Both stop at the Santa Clara Transit Station located approximately 1.86 miles southeast of the Project site.

The Capitol Corridor commuter rail line, operated by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), stops at the Great America Station, approximately 2.25 miles north of the Project site, and provides transit services from Sacramento to San Jose.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.17. TRANSPORTATION

JULY 2023 5.17-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.17.1.4. Rail (Freight)
A limited number of freight trains and regularly scheduled passenger service use the railroad track daily within the City. Outside peak commuter rail periods, the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) provide s freight operations within the Caltrain right‐of‐way (RO W). The Caltrain ROW traverses through the middle and downtown areas of the City of Santa Clara. A portion of the Caltrain ROW passes approximately 0.25 miles east and approximately 1.2 miles south of the Project site. The rail network includes grade‐separated and at‐grade railroad crossings. (City of Santa Clara, 2014)

5.17.1.5. Bicycle
Existing bicycle facilities are part of City of Santa Clara Bicycle and Trail Network. Bicycle and Trail Network provides connections between residential neighborhoods, employment, recreation, education, and transit centers within the City (City of Santa Clara, 2014). Bikeways are typically classified as Class I, II, or III facilities. Bike paths or trails (also known as Class I bikeways) operate within a right -of-way that is separated from vehicular traffic. Bike lanes (also known as Class II bikeways) are located within roadways but are delineated by warning symbols and striping. Bike routes (also known as Class III bikeways) operate in the shoulder lane of roadways but are not delineated by striping.

One Class II intermediate bike lane is located along Scott Boulevard. Central Expressway is an undesig- nated, advanced rated street for bicycles (City of Santa Clara, 2013). Lafayette Street is identified as a “high caution” route for bicycles (VTA, 2020).

5.17.1.6. Air Transportation
The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (Airport) is located to the east of, and adjacent to, the City of Santa Clara. The Airport is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the proposed Project site. A private heliport, McCandless heliport is located approximately 1.3 mil es northwest of the proposed Project area.

5.17.1.7. Regulatory Background
State
California Vehicle Code (CVC). The CVC includes regulations pertaining to licensing, size, weight, and load of vehicles operated on highways; safe operation of vehicles; and the transportation of hazardous materials.

State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts. In response to Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), this provision states that “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts in the CEQA process. For transportation impacts under CEQA, VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the Project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except for roadway capacity projects, a project’s effect on automobile delay would not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. For instances where existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the particular Project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the Project’s VMT qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projec ts, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate [14 CCR 15064.3(b)(3)].

Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The objectives of the City’s mobility and transportation policies are to a safe, efficient, convenient, and integrated system to move people and goods and promote a reduction in KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.17. TRANSPORTATION

JULY 2023 5.17-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

the use of personal vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.8.2‐P3. Encourage undergrounding of utilities and utility equipment within the public right‐of‐ way and site these facilities to provide opportunities for street trees and adequate sidewalks.  Policy 5.8.5‐P1. Require new development and City employees to implement transportation demand management programs that can include site‐design measures, including preferred carpool and vanpool parking, enhanced pedestrian access, bicycle storage and recreational facilities.

5.17.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED – CONSTRUCTION. Project construction would occur in a highly urbanized setting and could therefore create impacts to the circulation system in the Project area.

Some lane closures and/or traffic controls may be required to allow for certain construction activities such as delivery of oversized equ ipment and material. Construction itself would occur entirely within the proposed Project site and would not affect modes of transport.

The bicycle facilities near the proposed Project would not be affected except during occasional land closures, if neede d. The proposed Project would not permanently remove bicycle lanes or conflict with alternative transportation routes.

While construction traffic would create impacts, these impacts would be localized, temporary in nature, and would not change long -term traffic loads or patterns. Mitigation measure MM T-1 is proposed to provide specificity regarding the requirements of a Construction Traffic Control Plan. The purpose of this plan would be to reduce potential impacts to the circulation system from the closure/disruption of travel lanes. With the incorporation of this mitigation, construction would not conflict with programs, policies, plans, or ordinances regarding public roadway, transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

NO IMPACT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. SVP’s and Ameresco’s respective existing maintenance and opera- tions groups would assume inspection and maintenance duties as needed on their respective parts of the Project. Typical maintenance activities involve both routine inspections and preventive main tenance to ensure service reliability, as well as emergency work to maintain or restore service continuity. No additional staff would be required after Project construction work is completed. No substantial increase in traffic or traffic-related impacts would occur due to operation and maintenance activities.

5.17.2.1. Mitigation Measures for Transportation Impacts MM T-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction, Ameresco shall prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan for review and approval to the City of Santa Clara (City) Planning Department for public roads and transportation facilities that would be directly affected by the construction activities and/or would require permits and approvals. Ameresco shall submit the Construction Traffic Control Plan to the City prior to conducting activities covered in the traffic control permits. The Construction Traffic Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
 Identification of any routes that would require lane closures or detours to accommo- date material and equipment deliveries and methods to ensure safety.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.17. TRANSPORTATION

JULY 2023 5.17-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

 Avoidance of peak travel hours (8:00 -10:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m.) to the maxi mum extent feasible.
 Plans to coordinate in advance with emergency service providers to avoid restricting the movements of emergency vehicles. Police departments and fire departments shall be notified in advance by Ameresco of the p roposed locations, nature, timing, and duration of any roadway disruptions, and shall be advised of any access restrictions that could impact their effectiveness. At locations where roads will be blocked, provi- sions shall be ready at all times to accommodate emergency vehicles.  Plans to coordinate in advance with property owners, if any, that may have limited access to properties.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – CONSTRUCTION. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) concerns vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the measure of transportation impacts. As of July 1, 2020, CEQA requires use of VMT in the traffic analysis.

Construction of the proposed Project would occur over a pproximately 16 months and project –related traffic would consist of worker commutes and the movement of materials and equipment to and from the site. Once the Project is completed, the vehicle trips associated with construction would end. The total peak number of vehicle trips during construction is estimated to be up to 30 roundtrips daily. Construction personnel would commute to the work site at the beginning of the day and leave at the end of the day, and few people would travel to and from the site through the middle of the day.

Vehicle miles traveled by personal vehicle trips and truck trips during construction would vary in their origins and destinations, but they are assumed to come primarily from the local Bay Area and they would be periodic and temporary. At this time, no known applicable VMT thresholds of significance for tempo- rary construction trips that may indicate a significant impact is known. Therefore, while the proposed Project would include construction -related trips, they would be tempora ry and the Project would not affect existing transit uses or transportation corridors and is presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. The Project would be unmanned, but the proposed Project would require routine inspection and periodic maintenance visits by existing SVP and Ameresco personnel. These activities would generate a negligible number of new vehicle trips with no notable growth in VMT. The transportation impact under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) would be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED – CONSTRUCTION. Heavy equipment operating adjacent to or within a road right -of-way could increase the risk of accidents. The Project involves movement of heavy equipment to and fro m the site but does not include work adjacent to or in roadways. Some instances of temporary lane or roadway closures may be required for delivery of oversized equipment or materials. Construction-related trucks would interact with other vehicles on the af fected city streets and potentially create hazards. Potential conflicts also could occur between construction traffic and bicyclists and pedestrians, and potential short -term hazards could be associated with temporary lane closures, if required. Constructi on traffic –related impacts would be reduced with implementation of mitigation measure MM T-1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan) to ensure temporary lane closures and construction activities do not result in increased traffic hazards. The Project would not create a new access point but KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.17. TRANSPORTATION

JULY 2023 5.17-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

would use existing driveways to the site. These driveways provide ingress and egress at a low speed (25 mph) roadway. With the incorporation of mitigation measure MM T-1, temporary impacts during con - struction would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. The Project facilities would not increase transportation hazards or be an incompatible use for the site. The Project is similar in function to the existing site and similar ingress and egress would be provided. Maintenance of the proposed Project would require routine inspection and periodic maintenance visits. Access would be via existing driveways. Therefore, the Project would not cause hazards or incompatible uses due to maintenance a ctivities proximate to public roadways; no mitigation is required.

5.17.2.2. Mitigation Measures for Transportation Hazards MM T-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. [see full text under Item (a) above] d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Construction of the proposed Project would cause a minor short-term delay in the local traffic movement in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project if there were a temporary lane closure. During construction, the proposed Project would not increase traffic substantially as compared to the existing traffic volume and the capacity of the street system in the area.

If oversize equipment or materials are delivered, at least one lane of travel would remain open to accommodate roadway users (including emergency vehicles). To ensure temporary lane closures do not result in inadequate emergency vehicle movements or impede access to property, mitigation measure MM T-1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan) would requir e review and approval of a Project specific Con- struction Traffic Control Plan, which would include specific measures to address temporary closures/ disruptions to travel lanes and plans to coordinate in advance with emergency service providers. With the incorporation of MM T-1, temporary impacts during construction would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Once operational, the Project would have no impact on access or movement to emergency service providers. Occasi onal maintenance activities would be short-term in duration. Therefore, maintenance of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on emergency vehicle access and movements.

5.17.2.3. Mitigation Measures for Emergency Access
MM T-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. [see full text under Item (a) above]

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.18-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.18. Tribal Cultural Resources

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

(i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or

(ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.18.1. Setting
Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are defined under Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) as resources that include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, and sacred places or objects that have cultural value or significance to a California Native American tribe. Tribal representatives are considered experts appro priate for providing substantial evidence regarding the locations, types, and significance of TCRs within their tradi - tional and cultural affiliated geographic areas, and therefore the identification and analysis of TCRs should involve government -to-government tribal consultation between the CEQA lead agency and interested tribal groups and/or tribal persons (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21080.3.1(a)).

Additionally, best practices show that a lead agency should make a good faith effort to identify TCRs that may be impacted by a Project even if a Native American tribe does not identify any during consultation.

This includes requesting a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands file, conducting ethnographic research, and using information that has been previously provided during tribal consultation for other projects in the area.

5.18.1.1. Records Search
As documented in Section 5.5 (Cultural Resources), the records search indicates that no prehistoric cul - tural resources have been previously identified in the Project area.

5.18.1.2. Ethnographic Research
The Project area is located within the tribal territory of the “Costanoan,” a term derived from the Spanish word Costanos, meaning “coast people” or “coastal dwellers.” At the time of European ethnic groups’ arrival, the Costanoan occupied the central California coast from the northern tip of the San Francisco Peninsula to Big Sur in the south and as far east as the Diablo Range. An estimated 1,400 or more persons KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.18-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

of partial Costanoan descent currently reside in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. These individuals now generally prefer the term Ohlone to identify themselves (Margolin, 1978).

The Costanoan language is part of the Penutian language family spoken by other California Indian groups known as the Wintun, Maidu, Miwok, and Yokuts. The Costanoan (Ohlone) language family consists of six dialect clusters, of which three were recorded during the ethnohistoric period, including the San Francisco Bay Costanoan, Mutsun along the Pajaro River, and Rumsen near Monterey and Carmel (Golla, 2011:162 163). Linguistic analysis suggests that the Costanoans moved into the Bay Area from the San Joaquin and Sacramento River regions around 1,500 years BP and replaced the original Hokan speaking population of the Bay Area. This appears to coincide with the appearance of Late Horizon artifact assemblages. Using Spanish mission records and archaeological data, researchers have estimated a Costanoan population of 1,000 to 1,200 individuals for the Santa Clara Valley in 1770 (Levy, 1978:485; King, 1977:54).

The Costanoan practiced a hunting and collecting economy focusing on the collec tion of seasonal plant and animal resources, including tidal and marine resources from San Francisco Bay. They traded with neighboring groups and exported shells, salt, and cinnabar among other items. At the time of contact with Europeans, the Costanoan pe ople were living in approximately 50 separate and politically auto nomous tribelets, with each group having one or more permanent villages surrounded by a number of temporary camps used to exploit seasonally available floral and faunal resources (Levy, 1978:485, 487).

Mission Santa Clara and Mission San José were established in the South Bay in the late 1770s. The aboriginal lifeway disappeared by 1810 due diseases, a declining birth rate, and the impact of the mission system. Missionization not only decim ated local populations but also relocated native peoples from throughout north-central California to the San José area. The Costanoan/Ohlone were trans formed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers (and in some cases, craft artisans) who liv ed at the missions and worked with former neighboring Native American groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok (Levy, 1978:486).

With secularization of the missions by Mexico in 1834, most of the aboriginal population gradually moved to ranchos to work as manual laborers (Levy, 1978:486). During the Mexican Period several ranchos were granted to Native Americans. Rancho Ulistac, located on the west bank of the Guadalupe River in the City of Santa Clara, was granted to “emancipated” Mission Indians Marcello, Pio, and Cristobal in 1845 (Hendry and Bowman, 1940:872 873). Rancho Posolmi, located along the Guadalupe River at the northeastern boundary of the City of Mountain View, was granted to Lopez Indigo (or Yndigo) in 1881 (City of San Jose, 2011).

Contemporary descendants of the Costanoan (Ohlone) Native Americans are not members of federally recognized tribes. Ohlone recognition and assertion began to move to the forefront during the early twentieth century, enforced by legal suits brought against the U nited States government by Indians of California (1928–1964) for reparations due them for the loss of traditional lands. The Ohlone/Costanoan Muwekma Tribe, consisting of surviving Native American lineages who trace their ancestry through Missions Dolores, Santa Clara and San José. The State of California has recognized the validity of unrecognized tribal groups of local Native Americans and has afforded both the groups and Native American individuals status in regard to consultation for planning and CEQA compliance.

5.18.1.3. Regulatory Setting
State
California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA requires that impacts to TCRs be identified and, if impacts would be significant, that mitigation measures be implemented to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible (PRC §21081). In the protection and management of the cultural environment, both the statute KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.18-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

and the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.) provide definitions and standards for management of TCRs.

PRC Section 21074 defines a TCR as “a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.” TCRs also include “non -unique archaeological resources” that may not be scientifically significant, but still hold sacred or cultural value to a consulting tribe.

A resource shall be considered significant if it is: (1) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Secti on 5020.1(k); or “(2) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency must consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.”
Therefore, a project may have substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR if a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a triba l cultural resource (PRC §21084.2) or the resource is listed, or eligible for listing, in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources, and it is demolished (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(2)).

The fact that a TCR is not listed in the CRHR, determined to be ineligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources, or is not identified in a historical resources survey does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) explains that effects on historical resources (or TCRs, if so deter- mined by the lead agency) would be considered adverse if it involves physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or i ts immediate surroundings such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired. Adverse effects on historical resources may result in a project having a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(3) requires that TCRs receive treatment under PRC Section 21083.2, which requires that these resources be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. If these treatments are not possible, then mitigation for significant effects is required, as outlined in PRC Section 21082.2(c).

5.18.1.4. AB 52 Tribal Consultation
The proposed Project’s effects on potentially buried and therefore presently unidentified TCRs were eval- uated using the significance criteria set forth in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and with consideration to AB 52 and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Technical Advisory: AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA” (OPR, 2017).

Representatives of the Tamien Nation had previously requested to be contacted regarding projects within the City of Santa Clara. Two representatives of the Tamien Nation requesting to be contacted under AB 52 for possible tribal consultation were notified of the proposed Project and invited to engage in consultation. The invitation was extended to each representative by registered mail (February 28, 2023).

No responses were received to the emails or letters during the 30 -day response period. This concluded AB 52 compliance under CEQA.

5.18.1.5. Sacred Lands File Search
Aspen requested a search of the NAHC’s Sacred L ands file to determine the presence or likelihood of encountering TCRs within the Project area. On December 8, 2022, the NAHC responded that the search was completed with negative results (i.e., no sacred sites are located within the Project area).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.18-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.18.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. There are no TCRs that are listed in, or are known to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR or local register of historical resources within the proposed Project area.

Although there is no evidence that TCRs exist within the proposed Project site or immediate vicinity, it is possible that previously unidentified TCRs that may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or local registers could be discovered and damaged, or destroyed, during project -related ground disturbance, which would constitute a significant impact absent mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM TCR-1 would evaluate and protec t unanticipated TCR discoveries, thereby reducing this impact to a less than significant level after mitigation.

5.18.2.1. Mitigation Measure for Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources MM TCR-1 Management of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources. During project-level construc- tion, should subsurface tribal cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist and an authorized tribal representative shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Sec- tion 15064.5 and Section 21074. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeol- ogist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropri- ate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, Project reroute or redesign, Project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expr essing interest in the tribal cultural resource.
(ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. No known TCRs were identified during a search of the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File, or during ethnographic research. Nevertheless, it is possible that previously unidentified TCRs that may qualify as a significant resource according to lead agency determination could be discovered and damaged or destroyed during ground disturbance. Such a discovery or inadvertent damage/destruction to a previously unknown TCR would constitute a significant impact absent mitigation.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

JULY 2023 5.18-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Implementation of mitigation measure MM TCR-1, which is discussed under Item (a), would evaluate and protect unanticipated TCR discoveries, thereby reducing this impact to a less than significant level.

5.18.2.2. Mitigation Measure for Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources MM TCR-1 Management of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources [see full text under Item (a) above]

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

JULY 2023 5.19-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.19. Utilities and Service Systems

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunica - tions facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the pro - ject and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c. Result in a determination by the wastewate r treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.19.1. Setting
Utility and services system facilities associated with electricity, domestic (potable) water, storm water, solid waste, communications, and natural gas are provided and maintained by a variety of local purveyors, including cities, counties, special districts, water agencies, and private companies. Table 5.19-1 lists utility providers in the city.

Table 5.19-1. Utility Providers
 Natural gas – Pacific Gas & Electric Company
 Electricity – Silicon Valley Power
 Water – City of San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy aqueduct, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara City-owned wells
 Wastewater – San José‐Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant  Telephone – AT&T, Xfinity (Comcast)
 Solid Waste – Mission Trail Waste Systems, Allied Waste, Green Waste Recovery, and Los Gatos Garbage Company
Sources: City of Santa Clara, 2014; Allconnect, 2022

5.19.1.1. Utilities
Water Supply
Potable water for the City of Santa Clara comes from a combination of sources: the City of San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy aqueduct system, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and groundwater from City‐owned KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

JULY 2023 5.19-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

wells. Groundwater comprises almost 70 percent o f the City’s water supply. Recycled wastewater is also used in the City for certain landscape irrigation, industrial, and construction purposes (City of Santa Clara, 2014).

Electricity and Natural Gas
Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is owned and operated by th e City of Santa Clara as a municipal electric utility and as a department of the City. SVP maintains over 375 miles of underground distribution lines, nearly 200 miles of overhead distribution lines and over 50 miles of transmission lines. Electricity for the City is provided from natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric generation resources in California and other western states (City of Santa Clara, 2021).

The City’s natural gas is provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Transmission mains deliver gas from basins in California, Canada, and the Western United States (City of Santa Clara, 2014).

5.19.1.2. Service System
Sewage/Wastewater
Sewer systems collect wastewater in the City Santa Clara and transport it via pipelines to the San Jose – Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF) in San Jose, CA. The RWF treats approximately 110 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater from cities in Santa Clara County and is able to treat up to 167 mgd. (City of San Jose, 2023).

About 10 percent of the tota l treated wastewater from the RWF is directed into the South Bay Water Recycling system. The treated wastewater is used for landscaping irrigation, dual plumbing, industrial uses, and other approved uses around the southern Bay Area. Recycled water distrib ution pipelines are located throughout the City of Santa Clara. Treated wastewater that is not directed into the recycled water pipelines is discharged into San Francisco Bay (City of Santa Clara, 2014).

Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste and recycling collection services in the City of Santa Clara is primarily provided by 4 companies:

Mission Trail Waste Systems, Allied Waste, Green Waste Recovery, and Los Gatos Garbage Company.

Newby Island Sanitary Landfill is the main landfill that serves the City, though solid wastes are also sent to landfills outside of Santa Clara County (City of Santa Clara, 2014). Newby Island Sanitary Landfill is located at 1601 Dixon Landing Road, Milpitas, CA 95035. Table 5.19-2 lists the capacities of the landfills used.

Table 5.19-2. Landfill Capacities
Landfill Name
Total Capacity
(cu.yd.)
Remaining
Capacity
(cu.yd.)
Remaining
Capacity
(percent)
Maximum
Throughput
(tons/day)
Newby Island Sanitary Landfill
(Cease operation estimated 2041)
57,500,000 16,400,000 36.9 4,000
Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill
(Cease operation estimated 2048)
28,600,000 11,055,000 38.7 1,300
Corinda Los Trancos Landfill
(Cease operation estimated 2034)
60,500,000 22,180,000 36.7 3,598
Sources: CalRecycle, 2023a; CalRecycle, 2023b; CalRecycle, 2023c KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

JULY 2023 5.19-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.19.1.3. Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the utilities and public service systems regulatory framework.

Federal
Clean Water Act Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Section 202 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit pro - gram to regulate point source discharges of pollutants of Waters of the United States. Discharges or con- struction activities that disturb one or more acres, which includes the proposed Project, are regulated under the NPDES stormwater program and are required to obtain coverage permit under a NPDES Con - struction General Permit. The Construction General Permit establishes limits and other requirements such as the implementation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which would further specify best management practices to avoid or eliminate pollution discharge into the nation’s waters. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWR CB) issues both general and individual permits under this program. The SWRCB delegates much of its NPDES authority to nine regional water quality control boards. The proposed Project’s NPDES permits would be under jurisdiction of Region 2, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board.

State
California Government Code – Protection of Underground Infrastructure. The responsibilities of California utility operators working in the vicinity of utilities are detailed in Section 1, Chapter 3.1, “Protecti on of Underground Infrastructure” (Article 2 of California Government Code §§4216-4216.9). This law requires that an excavator must contact a regional notification center at least two days prior to excavation of any subsurface installation. Any utility pro vider seeking to begin a project that may damage underground infrastructure can call Underground Service Alert, the regional notification center. Underground Service Alert will notify the utilities that may have buried lines within 1,000 feet of the Project. Representatives of the utilities are required to mark the specific location of their facilities within the work area prior to the start of project activities in the area. The code also requires excavators to probe and expose underground facilities by hand prior to using power equipment.

California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. Assembly Bill 939 codified the California Inte - grated Waste Management Act of 1989 in the Public Resources Code and established a hierarchy to help the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and local agencies implement three major priorities under the Integrated Waste Management Act: source reductions; recycling and composting; and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. Waste diversion manda tes are included under these priorities. The duties and responsibilities of the CIWMB have since been transferred to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) after the abolishment of the CIWMB in 2010, but all other aspects of the Act remain unchanged.

The Act requires all local and county governments to adopt a waste reduction measure designed to manage and reduce the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. This Act established reduction goals of 25 percent by the year 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. Senate Bill 1016 (2007) streamlines the process of goal measurement related to Assembly Bill 939 by using a disposal -based indicator: the per capita disposal rate. The per capita disposal rate uses only two factors: the jurisdiction’s population (employment can be considered in place of population in certain circumstances) and the jurisdiction’s disposal as reported by disposal facilities. CalRecycle encourages reduction measures through the continued implementation of reduction measures, legislation, infrastructure, and support of local requirements for new developments to include areas for waste disposal and recycling on-site.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

JULY 2023 5.19-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

California Code of Regulations (Title 27). Title 27 (Environmental Protection) of the Californi a Code of Regulations defines regulations and minimum standards for the treatment, storage, processing, and dis - posal of solid waste at disposal sites. The State Water Resources Control Board maintains and regulates compliance with Title 27 (Environmental Protection) of the California Code of Regulations by establishing waste and site classifications and waste management requirements for solid waste treatment, storage, or disposal in landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment units. The compliance of the proposed Project would be enforced by the San Francisco RWQCB Region 2 and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board). Compost facilities are regulated under CCR Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3.1 Section 17850 through 17895, by CalRecycle. Permit requests, Reports of Waste Discharge, and Reports and Disposal Site Infor - mation are submitted to the RWQCB and CalRecycle, and are used by the two agencies to review, permit, and monitor these facilities.

Local
Energy Policies. The purpose of the City’s energy policies is to encourage reduced energy use. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.10.3‐P10. Maintain the City’s level of service for high quality utilities and telecommuni cations infrastructure.
 Policy 5.10.3‐P12. Work with Silicon Valley Power to implement adequate energy distribution facilities to meet the demand generated by new development.

Water Policies. The purpose of the City’s water policies is off -set increased demand associated with the implementation of the City General Plan. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.10.4‐P1. Promote water conservation through development standards, building requirements, landscape design guidelines, education, compliance with the State Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance, incentives, and other applicable City‐wide policies and programs.  Policy 5.10.4‐P4. Require an adequate water supply and water quality for all new development.  Policy 5.10.4‐P5. Prohibit new development that would reduce water quality below acceptable State and local standards.
 Policy 5.10.4‐P10. Work with Santa Clara Valley Water District to minimize undesirable compaction of aquifers and subsidence of soils.

Conservation. The City’s conservation policies consider the regulation of wastewater to protect biological resources in the City. The following policy in the General Plan generally relates to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.10.1‐P6. Require adequate wastewater treatment and sewer conveyance capacity for all new development.

Land Use. The City’s land use policies consider the effects of development to public facilities and infra - structure. The following policy in the General Plan generally relates to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.3.1‐P17 Promote economic vitality by maintaining the City’s level of service for public facilities and infrastructure, including affordable utilities and high quality telecommunications.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

JULY 2023 5.19-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.19.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would involve construction of a new BESS facility and removal of an existing SVP building. Construction activities would generate a minimal demand for water or waste- water treatment and no demand for natural gas facilities. The Project would not require the relocation, expansion, or development of new utility systems beyond the Project itself. The Project would require protection and control panel upgrades or reconfigurations at the Kenneth and Oaks Junction Substations.

These upgrades would not expand any existing facilities or require additional facilities. During routine operation and maintenance of the proposed Project , the Project would be unmanned and would not create any need for new or expanded utilities or service systems.

Water, Wastewater Treatment or Storm Water Facilities. The proposed Project would generate minimal demand for water or wastewater treatment. A water truck or hose may be on -site to support dust suppression during ground disturbing work. Any water used for dust control would be dispersed onsite and would either evaporate or be absorbed into the ground; therefore, no wastewater generation is anticipated from this use.

Concrete would be required for foundations and pole installation. Excess concrete from construction as well as removed concrete foundations would be disposed of at an approved site away from the work area.

Dewatering may be necessary if groundwater is encountered. Portable toilets would be provided for construction work crews and would be removed after construction is completed and these toilets will be maintained by a licensed sanitation contractor.

The proposed Project would not result in any increased stormwater flow entering stormwater drainage systems and therefore would not require, or result in the construction of, new stormwater drainage facil- ities or the expansion of existing facilities.

Upon completion of construction, the proposed Project would not generate any demand for water or waste- water treatment. There would be no sanitary sewer hookup at the site. Existing wastewater and water treatment facilities are adequate to accommodate the demand generated by the proposed Project. Thus, the Project would have less than significant impact that would not cause the need for the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities or storm water drainage.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, or Telecommunicati ons Facilities. No new natural gas or telecommuni ca- tions facilities would be required in support of the Project. The existing electric power system, including the existing substation, would remain in service during construction and commissioning of the Project.

The Project would contribute to the stability of the City’s power grid, by storing energy. These activities would not cause significant environmental effects.
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reaso nably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Limited amounts of water would be used for dust control and to make concrete for foundations. This would be a short -term need associated with constructio n and would end with the completion of construction. The volume of water required for dust control is not known. However, the amount of water for dust suppression during construction is considered to be nominal in comparison to available municipal water supply.

Water trucks or existing hydrants would provide water for dust control as needed. Construction of the Project would include the installation of two new fire hydrants on site. These hydrants would be used KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

JULY 2023 5.19-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

during operation for fire suppression, in cas e of an emergency. Upon completion, the proposed Project would not generate any demand for water, unless there was a fire. Therefore, the proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would generate minimal wastewater during construction. The proposed Project would provide portable toilets for construction workers and the waste would be disposed of through a treatment facility with adequate capacity . As discussed in Item (a) above, existing wastewater facilities would adequately accommodate the minor demand caused by Project construction while serving existing commitments. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Construction debris and waste generated during construction of the Project would be transported to staging areas or to an SVP Service Center for recycling or disposal.

The building that is currently on site would be demolished under a ministerial permit fro m the City of Santa Clara as part of the Project. The waste from this would be transported for disposal at a licensed Class I or Class II landfill or a composite lined portion of a solid waste landfill.

Total solid waste generated by construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to be minor compared to the capacity of local recycling infrastructure and existing landfills, as identified in Table 5.19-2, Landfill Capacities. The landfills identified in Table 5.19-2 are not expected to close for about another 20 years.

During operation, the proposed Project would be unmanned and would not generate notable quanti ties of solid waste. Therefore, the impact of solid waste disposal on local infrastructure and landfill capacity would be less than significant.
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
NO IMPACT. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which emphasizes resource conser- vation through the reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste guide solid waste management requires that localities conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) and develop a Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE). The proposed Project would operate in accordance w ith these applicable Solid Waste Management Policy Plans by recycling materials where feasible. As identified in Table 5.19 -2, Landfill Capacities, the landfills serving the site would have sufficient capacity to accommodate Project construction solid waste disposal needs, and Project solid waste disposal would not result in the need for new or expanded landfill facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal limits and landfill capacities. No impact would occur.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.20. WILDFIRE

JULY 2023 5.20-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.20. Wildfire

WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infra - structure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.20.1. Setting
Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the State, local, or federal government, depending on the location. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other rele- vant factors. These zones, which are referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. FHSZ maps identify the likelihood that an ar ea will burn over a 30 to 50 -year period without considering that modifications may occur, such as fuel reduction efforts. Risk is not indicated by the maps. Risk is the potential damage that can be done by a fire, based on existing conditions. Risk can be reduced by various strategies, such as creation of defensible space, fuel load reduction, and, in the case of structures, the use of sprinklers and ignition-resistant building materials and construction. The City of Santa Clara area is not located in a FH SZ in the CAL FIRE wildland fire hazard maps, primarily due to its urban conditions, flat terrain, and low fuel load. Fire protection within the City is discussed in Section 5.15 (Public Services).

5.20.1.1. Regulatory Background
Federal
A variety of line and tower clearance standards are used throughout the electric transmission indus try.

These address distances between energized lines and support structures and potential obstruc tions, including vegetation, structures, and the ground. Nationally, most transmissio n line owners follow the National Electric Safety Code (NESC) rules or American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guidelines, or both, when managing vegetation around transmission system equipment . The NESC deals with electric safety rules, including transmission wire clearance standards, whereas the applicable ANSI code deals with the practice of pruning and removal of vegetation.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.20. WILDFIRE

JULY 2023 5.20-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

State and Local
SVP operates and maintains the distribution and transmission grid inside the City of Santa Clara, yet the larger transmission grid that brings most of SVP’s energy into the City is integrated throughout the State.

Therefore, if large transmission lines are de-energized or constrained, SVP may need to reduce load quickly to help the greater transmission grid. Depending on the severity of the event, it may mean power shutoffs or rolling outages in the City of Santa Clara.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order (GO) 95. CPUC’s GO 95 is the key standard governing the design, construction, operat ion, and maintenance of overhead electric lines in the State.

The CPUC has promulgated various Rules to implement the fire safety requirements of General Order 95, including:
 GO 95 Rule 31.2 requires that lines be inspected frequently and thoroughly to en sure that they are in good condition, and that lines temporarily out of service be inspected and maintained in such condition so as not to create a hazard.
 GO 95 Rule 35 governs requirements that vegetation management activities be performed in order to establish necessary and reasonable clearances.
 GO 95 Rule 38 establishes minimum vertical, horizontal, and radial clearances of wires from other wires.

California Public Resources Code Sections 4294 and 4293. The California Public Resources Code (CPRC) Sections 4292 and 4293 specify requirements related to fire protection and prevention in transmission line corridors. CPRC Section 4292 states that any per son that owns, controls, operates, or maintains any electrical transmission or distribution line has primary responsibility for fire pro5.20-2action of such areas, and shall maintain around and adjacent to any pole or tower which supports a switch, fuse, trans former, lightning arrester, line junction, or dead end or corner pole, a firebreak which consists of a clearing of not less than 10 feet in each direction from the outer circumference of such a pole or tower (CPRC 4292).

Power Line Fire Prevention Field Guide 2020 Edition. CAL FIRE, the state’s three investor-owned utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric [PG&E] Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric), and other California electric utilities have mutually developed a compreh ensive field guide for their personnel. Its purpose is “to provide information and guidance to the personnel of the fire service agencies and electrical operators for minimum uniform application within the areas of their respective jurisdiction and franchise responsibilities.” In addition to safety of the public, the guide details fire hazard reduction maintenance procedures for the safety of conductors and certain hardware.

PG&E’s Public Safety Power Shutoff Program. The Public Safety Power Shutoff program was developed in cooperation with state utility regulators at the CPUC. A utility shuts off electricity on transmission and distribution lines in fire-prone areas during high fire-risk periods, including:
 Red flag warning declared by the National Weather Service;  Low humidity levels – generally 20% and below; and/or  Forecasted sustained winds generally above 25 mph and wind gusts in excess of approximately 45 mph.

5.20.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a. Would the project substantially impair an a dopted emergency response plan or emergency evac - uation plan?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION – CONSTRUCTION. The Project is not near any roads in a very high FHSZ nor is it on evacuation routes. Temporary short-term lane closures of roadway lanes may be required during the 16-month construction period to accommodate delivery of oversized equipment such as BESS enclo- KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.20. WILDFIRE

JULY 2023 5.20-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

sures and other large equipment or materials. However, at least one lane of travel would remain open at all times and any closure or disruption would be of limited duration. Traffic control protocols and a project- specific traffic plan would be implemented under mitigation measure MM T -1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan). With incorporation of mitigation, impacts from Project construction would not substantially impact emergency response or evacuation plans.

NO IMPACT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Once operational, the proposed Project would have no impact on emergency response or evacuation. Occasional maintenance activities would be short-term in duration and would occur within the property. Therefore, maintenance of the proposed Project would not substan- tially impair an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

5.20.2.1. Mitigation Measures for Emergency Response
MM T-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. [see full text in Section 5.17, Transportation/Traffic] b. Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncon trolled spread of a wildfire?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – CONSTRUCTION. The Project would not create any occupied facilities. There are no residences in the vicinity of the Project. The closest residential community is located approximately 0.5 miles from the Project site.

At Project completion, the site would be devoid of vegetation, paved, and surrounded by a ten-foot con- crete block wall and a chain link fence. These conditions reduce fire risk to nearby properties. Construction activities have the potential to be a fire ignition source. For example, sparks from welding or from metal striking metal or stone could ignite flammable materials such as packing cardboard or rags. To reduce the fire risk fire suppression equipment (e.g., extinguishers) would be on site. The limited amount of flammable material on site during construction and the barren nature of the site mitigate against the spread of any accidental fire. Furthermore, the City of Santa Clara area is not located in a FHSZ in the CAL FIRE wildland fire hazard map (CAL FIRE, 2022). Impacts from wildfire risk during construction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Both components of the Project, electrical lines and BESS facilities, can start a fire. Electrical lines can start a fire if an object such as a tree limb, kite, or mylar balloon simultaneously contacts the power line conductors and a second object, such as the ground or a portion of the supporting pole. System component failures and accidents during main tenance activities can also cause faults that result in arcing. The Project would install new electrical equipment, which would comply with all current federal and State laws related to vegetation clearance and fire prevention, so as to not exacerbate wildfire risks.

Ameresco would operate and maintain the BESS, which would be designed with a safety system and in accordance with applicable laws, codes, and standards. The system would be designed so that during a fire event, any internal fire is contained within the affected BESS enclosure and would not spread to the other parts of the facility. The batteries would be tested to UL 9540A, a test method intended to document the fire characteristics associated with thermal event or fire and would confirm that the system will self - extinguish without active fire-fighting measures. The results of this test are used to inform facility safety system design and emergency response plans which would be shared with first responders. Impacts from wildfire risk during operation and maintenance would be less than si gnificant and no mitigation is required.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.20. WILDFIRE

JULY 2023 5.20-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project includes installation of a new 60 kV power line, approximately 300 feet long, as well as a BESS facility. The Project site is in an urban setting and activities associated with the proposed Project would generally occur within the Project boundaries, and would rely on existing paved roads for access. No fuel breaks would be required. Two on-site fire hydrants, which would be used for emergency water sourc es, are included as part of the Project . The two new fire hydrants will not exacerbate fire risks and would contribute to reducing the fire risk for the Project a nd surrounding area.

The new 60 kV transmission line would not be within any wildfire risk area.

Once the BESS is energized and interconnected, Ameresco’s maintenance and operations group would assume inspection and maintenance duties. Ameresco would comply with all current federal and State laws related to vegetation clearance and fire prevention . No additional fire risk impacts would occur because of operating and maintaining the Project.
d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or down - stream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project is located in an urban area with flat topography and low fuel load. During operation and maintenance, Ameresco would comply with all current regulations related to vegetation clearance and fire prevention. Given the fire risk is low and the site is flat with no known historic landslides or slope instability and the limited amount of surface disturbance proposed, the expo- sure of people or structures to risks as a result of r unoff, post fire instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.21. CORONA AND INDUCED CURRENT EFFECTS

JULY 2023 5.21-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.21. Corona and Induced Current Effects

5.21.1. Environmental Setting

5.21.1.1. Corona
Corona is one of the phenomena associated with all energized electrical devices, including high voltage transmission lines. The localized electric field near a conductor can be sufficiently concentrated to ionize air close to the conductors. This can result in a partial discharge of electrical energy called a corona discharge, or corona. The corona effect is the physical manifestation of discharged electrical energy into very small amounts of sound, radio noise, heat, and chemical reactions with air com ponents. It is a phenomenon associated with all energized electrical devices but is especially common with high-voltage power lines.

The amount of corona produced by a power line is a function of several factors, including line voltage, conductor diameter, conductor locations in relation to each other, condition of conductors and hardware, and local weather conditions including power line elevation above sea level. Corona typically becomes a design concern for 230 kV and higher power lines that are overhead (i.e., transmission lines on poles or towers). It is less noticeable for lines that are operated at lower voltages (i.e., subtransmission and distribution- sized lines).

The Proposed Project includes a new 60 kV line, and t he distribution lines that are a part of the BESS facility would be low and medium voltage. The electric field gradient is greatest at the conductor surface.

Larger-diameter conductors have lower electric field gradients at the conductor surface and, therefore, lower corona noise than smaller-diameter conductors. The corona effect would not be a design concer n for underground portions of power lines within the BESS facility, regardless of voltage level, because the energized conductors are fully enclosed in a semi -conducting layer within insulated cables that serve to equalize the electrical gradient at the surface of the components.

5.21.1.2. Induced Currents
Electric currents can be induced in metallic objects located within the electric fields created by power lines. An electric current can flow when an object has an induced charge and a path to ground is present.

The amount of induced current that can flow is important to evaluate from a safety perspec tive because of the potential for electrical shocks to people and the possibility of electric arcs that could form across small gaps between conductive surfaces. These arcs can have the secondary effect of igniting flammable materials that may be in the vicinity of the arc. In addition, induced currents are evaluated for their poten- tial to lead to corrosion of metallic objects (such as buried pipelines) from the discha rge of the induced current to ground.

From a safety perspective, the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) specifies that transmission lines be designed to limit short circuit current from vehicles or large objects near the line to no more than 5 milliampere (mA). The NESC also addresses shock hazards t o the public by providing guidelines on mini - mum clearances to be maintained for practical safeguarding of persons during the installation, operation, or maintenance of overhead transmission lines and their associated equipment.

5.21.2. Environmental Impacts and Assessment
Common concerns are with regard to electrical interference with existing and future development in the area. The CEQA Guidelines do not provide significance criteria for evaluating impacts from cor ona or KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.21. CORONA AND INDUCED CURRENT EFFECTS

JULY 2023 5.21-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

induced current effects. Corona and induced current from high voltage power lines can cause environ- mental impacts through:
 Audible noise
 Radio and television interference
 Computer interference
 Disturbance of cardiac pacemakers
 Ignition of flammable materials
 Corrosion of buried metallic objects
The proposed Project involves replacing the existing substation, by removing two existing trans formers and installing three new transformers and associated facilities, and the Project would reconfigure the existing 60 kV line within the substation property. The Project would not change the operating voltages of the existing substation, and circuits operating at 60 kV typically cause noise at levels comparable to the ambient baseline noise levels. The noise environment in the Project area is described in Section 5.13 (Noise).

At levels comparable to the ambient baseline, the impact of audible noise from the corona effect would be less than significant.

Although corona can generate high frequency energy that may interfere with broadcast signals or electronic equipment, this is generally not a problem for transmission or lower voltage power lines below 115 kV.

Electric fields from power lines do not typically pose interference problems for electronic equipment in businesses or homes since the equipment is shielded by buildings and walls. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) has published a design guide (IEEE, 1971) that is used to limit conductor surface gradients so as to avoid corona levels that would cause electronic interference. Corona or gap discharges related to high frequency radio and television interfer ence impacts are dependent upon several factors, including the strength of broadcast signals, and are anticipated to be very localized if they occur. Individual sources of adverse radio/television interference impacts can be located and corrected on the power lines.

Conversely, magnetic field interference with electronic equipment such as computer monitors can be corrected through the use of software, shielding or changes at the monitor location. As a result, impacts from corona, radio/television interference, and magnetic field interference would be less than significant.

Induced currents and voltages on conducting objects near the proposed power lines would not pose a threat in the environment if the conducting objects are properly grounded. Project construction and oper- ation would be done in accordance with SVP’s existing inspection and maintenance program and safety practices. Likewise, induced currents would not increase the risk of fuel ignition in the area.

The electric fields associated with high voltage transmission lines may be of sufficient magnitude to impact operation of a few older model pacemakers resulting in them rev erting to an asynchronous pacing (IEEE, 1979). Substantial adverse effects would not occur with prolonged asynchronous pacing; periods of oper- ation in this mode are commonly induced by cardiologists to check pacemaker performance. Therefore, while a transmission line’s electric field may impact operation of some older model pacemakers, the result of the interference would be of short duration and is not considered significant or harmful. No mitigation measures would be required or recommended.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JULY 2023 5.22-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

5.22. Mandatory Findings of Significance
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially de- grade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substan tially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endan- gered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively con- siderable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

c. Does the project have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, sub- stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed Project would be located in the central eastern area of the City of Santa Clara. This Project site is in a highly urbanized area. Vegetation at the site is sparse and all the trees and vegetation on site would be removed. As described in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, there are no special -status plants or animals in the Project area due to the lack of habitat in such a highly urbanized industrial environment. The Project is not expected to result in impacts to habitats that support sensitive species. However, some special-status birds may use the Project vicinity for forag- ing, although the habitat is marginal and the potential for occurrence of these species is very low. Imple - mentation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Similarly, Section 5.5 (Cultural Resources) and Section 5.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources) show that the Project would have a less than significant impact to important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The records search indicates that no prehistoric cultural resources have been previously identified in the Project area. However, as described in Section 5.5 (Cultural Resources) and Section 5.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), the proposed Project could have an adverse effect on previously undiscovered cultural or tribal cultural resources. With implementation of mitigation measures MM CR -1, MM CR -2, and MM TCR-1 for unanticipated discoveries of archaeological and historical resources or human remains and mitigation measure MM G-2 for paleontological resources, impacts would be less than significant and the Project would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JULY 2023 5.22-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects o f other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
CEQA defines a cumulative impact as an effect that is created as a result of the combination of the pro- posed Project together with other projects (past, present, or future) causing related impacts. Cumulative impacts of a Project need to be evaluated when the Project’s incremental effect is cumulatively consider- able and, therefore, potentially significant.

Three planned projects were identified within 0.25 miles of the KRS BESS site. The projects were reviewed to identify whether the Project could contribute to cumulatively significant impacts when evaluated in combination with these projects. The projects were identified from the Planning Department’s current project list. These are considered potential cumulative projects whose impacts could combine with those of the KRS BESS Project. They are:
 Lafayette/Bassett Bicycle Lanes Project (Central Expressway to Agnew)  960 Central Expressway Project (demolish the existing structures and site improvements to construct three Class “A” speculative buildings totaling up to 890,000 square feet for warehousing and/or data center uses, associated parking, on- and off-site improvements and landscaping)  3060 Raymond Street Project (Use Permit to convert a 24,422 s.f. industrial building to a data center with installation of five (5) 2,000 kW backup generators, six (6) cooling towers, equipment yards and on- and off-site improvements)
As discussed in preceding Sections 5.1 through 5.21 any potential impacts of the proposed Project would occur during construction, with few, if any, operational effects. Because the construction-related impacts of the Project would be temporary and localized, they would have the po tential to combine with similar impacts of other projects only if they occur at the same time and in close proximity. The cumulative tem- porary and localized impacts of the construction of the KRS BESS Project are considered by issue area below. While actu al construction periods often vary from those initially anticipated, it does not appear that the three identified projects would overlap with the anticipated 2023 beginning of construction at the KRS BESS site. However, applications for other unknown projects may occur and may overlap with the KRS BESS construction period. Because the area is built out, any projects would be reconstruction or construction of replacement land uses on already occupied site. Given the built out nature of the Project vicinity a nd the capacity of existing thoroughfares, t here would be no long -term impacts from the proposed Project that would have the potential to combine with impacts from the Projects listed.

Aesthetics. As described in Section 5.1, views to and from the Project site are limited by existing buildings and vegetation. The viewshed of the proposed Project is an urban setting and continued urbanization is the likely trend for the foreseeable future with little change in its overall visual character. The impacts from the construction of the KRS BESS Project would be minimal because the work would be temporary in nature. The proposed Project represents only a relatively minor incremental change in cumulative conditions given the urban nature of the location. Therefore, the Project’s visual effects are less than significant and are not considerable enough to represent a significant cumulative impact.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources. There is no agricultural activity at the site or any of the cumulative project sites. The Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.

Air Quality. Air emissions would occur during construction of the KRS BESS . Emissions would include criteria air pollutants that could contribute to existing or pr ojected violations of the ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM10. Other pollutants resulting from construction activities are accounted for KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JULY 2023 5.22-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

in emissions inventories for regional air quality maintenance plans and would not impede attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. Foundation excavation and other construction-related activi- ties could potentially expose sensitive receptors to construction-related emissions, including emissions of fugitive dust and DPM, which could expose the receptors to increased health risk and hazards. These would occur only during construction and would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ-1 (Implement Basic Construction Air Quality Mitigation). Any potential adverse cumula- tive air quality impacts would be short -term (lasting for the duration of construction) and would not be cumulatively considerable; therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. The operation and maintenance emissions (e.g., limited vehicle use) would be less than the emissions during construc - tion activities and also less than the significance thresholds.

Concurrent construction of other projects in close proximity to the proposed Project would result in increased local air quality impacts for the duration of simultaneous construction activities. However, simul- taneous construction projects would also need to comply with BAAQMD rules and regulations regarding criteria pollutants. Any potential adverse cumulative air quality impacts w ould be short-term (lasting for the duration of construction) and would not be cumulatively considerable; therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Biological Resources. The proposed Project and the cumulative projects are located wi thin an urbanized area and near busy roadways. Due to the highly disturbed landscape, no habitat for special -status plant or wildlife species remains on the proposed Project site. Therefore, construction and operation and maintenance of the proposed Project would have no impacts to special-status plants or their habitat. The disturbed habitat conditions in the northeast area of the City of Santa Clara have limited wildlife habitat value. There is the potential for birds to nest in nearby trees during nestin g season. Mitigation measures MM BIO-1 (Biological Monitoring), MM BIO-2 (Worker Environmental Awareness Training), and MM BIO-3 (Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Nest Protection) would ensure the impacts to nesting birds are less than significant. Some special-status birds may use the vicinity of the Project site for foraging, but the habitat is marginal and the potential for occurrence of these species is very low . Trees that are proposed to be removed as part of the Project would be replaced at the discretion of the City Arborist. The Project would not represent a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Given the built-up nature of the City, other cumulative projects in the vicinity have limited biological resources. Impacts to biological resources during operation and maintenance of the KRS BESS would less than significant, therefore, no contribution to cumulative impacts would occur.

Cultural Resources. There are no known historical or unique archaeological resources identified within the proposed Project area; however, previously unknown buried historical resources or human remains could be discovered and damaged, or destroyed, during ground disturbing work. Short-term construction activities and operation and maintenance activities would not significantly affect any unknown cultural or paleontological resources or human remains with the implementation of mitigation measures MM CR-1 (Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeo- logical Resources) and MM CR-3 (Treatment of Human Remains), as discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources. No cultural resources would be affected during Project construction or during operation of the Project, and no contribution to cumulative impacts would occur.

Energy. The objectives of the proposed Project are to increase the reliability and flexibility of SVPs electrical grid and to help solve California’s “duck curve” power production problem. The proposed Project would achieve these objectives by utilizing the BESS to store energy. Equipment used during construction would comply with mandated efficiency standards , and there wo uld be no wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The operation and maintenance activities would be mini- mal and would not involve wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption or use of energy resources.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JULY 2023 5.22-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

The energy being stored by the BESS would be delivered to the BESS from the mix of renewable and fossil fuel powered generation resources available at the time of charging. This energy would be discharged during periods of high demand, when fossil fuel resources are most likely to be called upon. As a result, the energy discharged by the BESS would be likely to displace the use of fossil fuel resources during periods of high demand. The proposed Project would not conf lict with any state or local plan for prioritizing renewable energy or energy efficiency, and there would be no considerable contribution to a cumulative impact associated with energy.

Geology and Soils. As discussed in Section 5.7, the proposed Project would be located in an area mapped as likely to experience strong ground shaking, including ground shaking that could result in liquefaction- related phenomena and erosion. Projects in the vicinity of the Kifer BESS Project would also be located in areas mapped as likely to experience strong ground shaking potentially combining to expose people or structures to potential significant cumulative impacts. All construction would be required to comply with building code standards that take into account effects of seismic events. For the proposed Project, imple- mentation of mitigation measure MM G-1 (Conduct Geotechnical Investigations), which would ensure that Project design would reduce the potential for geologic and seismic haz ards, such as liquefaction and expansive soils. The Project would not increase potential risks associated with seismic events or other geologic hazards. Short-term construction impacts to soils, including unstable soils, have the potential to occur; however, final geotechnical recommendations would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level and the proposed Project impacts are not considerable enough to represent a significant cumulative impact. Adherence to similar design and engineering standards, which are applicable to the identified cumulative projects, ensure that their cumulative impacts to geology and soils would also be less than significant.

There is a limited potential for paleontological resources to occur on the site. Mitigation measure MM G-2 (Work Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Paleontological Resources) would ensure any potential impacts are less than significant and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Because the d irect environmental effect of GHG emissions is to influence global climate change, GHG emissions are by their nature inherently a cumulative concern with a cumulatively global scope. Project-specific GHG emissions would occur from the burning of fuels required by construction equipment and vehicle s during construction activities. Primary GHG emissions during construction are associated with CO 2 from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel in equipment and vehicles. CH 4 and N 2O are also emitted from fuel combustion but at rates of less than 1 percent of the mass of CO2 combustion emissions. Construction-related emissions would be distributed over 16 months.

These estimated levels would not exceed the threshold level of 25,000 metric tons per year for annua l mandatory reporting of GHGs.

GHG emissions from operation and maintenance would be minimal, as the KRS BESS would require only infrequent maintenance. The minor quantity of GHG emissions created during construction and for oper- ation and maintenance would not be a cumulatively considerable impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The use of hazardous materials for the Project would be minimal during construction and operation. Hazardous materials would be stored and used in compliance with applicable regulations. The Project would not result in an increase in usage of hazardous materials.

Impacts from routine use, transportation, disposal, and accidental spillage of hazardous materials would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measure MM HM-1 (Hazard- ous Substance Control and Emergency Response) discussed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Mate- rials; no contribution to cumulative impacts would occur.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JULY 2023 5.22-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project would not change existing drainage patterns at the site, which is covered primarily with impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would require minimal water for dust control and concrete during construction. Dewatering during foundation excavation for po les is possible, but not anticipated. In the event that dewatering is necessary, the water would be pumped out and treated and encountered groundwater would be tested to meet requirements set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Implementat ion of Mitigation measures MM HYD -1 (SWPPP or Erosion Control Plan Develop ment and Imple mentation) and MM HM -1 (Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response) would ensure that erosion, sedimentation, or an accidently spill would not significantly a ffect water quality. With imple mentation of this mitigation, the Project’s hydrology and water quality impacts are less than significant and are not considerable enough to represent a significant cumulative impact.

Land Use. The proposed Project is consistent with local zoning. The Project would construct a compatible use within an existing utility -owned site. In addition, the proposed Project , as well as the cumulative projects, are required to minimize any impacts to state and federally listed specie s and/or habitats through compliance with CEQA, the federal ESA, the CESA, and/or applicable local habitat conservation plans. The Project would, therefore, not conflict with applicable land use policies and regulations and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to land use.

Mineral Resources. No commercial mineral resources are known to exist within the proposed Project site or vicinity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The Project would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts that may result in the loss of mineral resources.

Noise. The proposed Project is not expected to contribute to a long -term cumulative impact on ambient noise levels in the area. Noise from construction activities would be audible to nearby office buildings, but construction would be limited to daytime hours and would be short-term. There are no sensitive receptors within one half mile of the Project. It is assumed that the cumulative projects would also be constructed during daytime. There would be a limited potential for the Project s to have overlapping construction schedules for an extended duration that could result in substantial levels of combined construction noise.

They are not in close proximity to the KRS BESS site such that noise from one project would combine with that of another project to create a nuisance. These projects are not likely to combine with noise generated from the construction of the KRS BESS Project to create significan t adverse effects since noise reduces rapidly with distance.

Population and Housing. The proposed Project would not result in impacts to population and housing.

During its construction, the Project would provide short -term jobs for a small workforce. Const ruction workers would be contracted workers from the region. These jobs are not anticipated to result in workers relocating to the area. The Project would not displace any existing hous ing or people. The proposed Project, combined with the cumulative projects will have the potential to increase the population in the area due to increased job or housing opportunities. The proposed Project itself can facilitate future planned growth by ensuring a reliable and flexible electr icity grid in the area. While the development of these properties may induce some population growth, this has already been accounted for through the General Plan for the City of Santa Clara. The KRS BESS Project is proposed to increase system reliability and to serve planned growth in the area. The project’s population and housing impacts would be less than significant and are not considerable enough to represent a significant cumulative impact.

Public Services. The proposed Project would not interrupt fire or police protection services, schools, access to public parks, or other public facilities nor would it require the construction of new public service facilities. The completion of the Projects in the vicinity may have the potential to also increase the demand for public services and public facilities, including schools, parks, and fire and police protection. However, KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JULY 2023 5.22-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

impacts from the KRS BESS Project on public services would be incremental and would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.

Recreation. Although some workers may use nearby park facilities during Project construction; increased use would be minimal and temporary and would not contribute substantially to the physical deterioration of existing facilities. The cumulative projects also have the potential to increase use of park facilities, but the increased use would also be minimal. The projects would have less than significant effects on recreation and would not contribute to cumulative effects associated with other projects.

Transportation and Traffic. Construction of the proposed Project would have the potential for temporary impacts to traffic volumes, road hazards, and emergency access. Use of local roads for transport of con- struction equipment and construction personnel would i ncrease traffic slightly but would be temporary and short -term and would not exceed existing capacities. Impacts due to traffic and temporary lane closures as a result of the construction of the proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measure MM T-1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan) discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation and Traffic. Impacts from the proposed Project, combined with construction of the cumulative projects would have the potent ial to cumulatively impact transportation and traffic in the surrounding area; however, the construction schedules of the Project s and that of the proposed Project would be variable. The potential for the planned and current projects in the vicinity to require lane closures simultaneously would be a remote possibility and would be limited in duration and location.

Adherence to mitigation measure MM T -1 (Construction Traffic Control Plan) would ensure that the proposed Project’s cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation would be incremental, short -term, and less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources. There are no known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) listed in, or are known to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or local register of historical resources within the proposed Project site or surrounding ar ea. However, it is possible that previously unidentified TCRs that may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR or local registers could be discovered and damaged, or destroyed, during ground disturbance, which would constitute a significant impact absent mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM TCR -1 (Management of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources), discussed in Section 5.18 (Tribal Cultural Resources), would ensure evaluation and protection of unanticipated TCR discoveries. Adherence to this mitigation measure would ensure that no tribal cultural resources would be affected during Project construction or during operation of the Project, and no contribution to cumulative impacts would occur.

Utilities and Service Systems. The constr uction of the proposed Project would temporarily require a minimal water supply and would potentially generate wastewater that would be appropriately treated.

Construction would require the disposal of a less than significant amount of all types of waste. No expanded utility facilities or services would be needed for the Project and use and disposal of all water and waste products would comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Operation and maintenance of the KRS BESS Project would not require extensive water consumption, as stated in Section 5.19. Therefore, a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems would occur.

Corona and Induced Current Effects. None of the planned or current projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project would be sensitive to corona or induced current effects . The proposed Project will not contribute to a cumulative impact to corona and induced current effects. c. Does the project have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed Project would not substantially adversely affect human beings directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identified no environmental effects that would KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JULY 2023 5.22-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Adverse effects would be mitigated by implementa- tion of mitigation measures and, in most instances, would be short-term construction impacts. Each type of impact with the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings has been evaluated, and this Initial Study concludes that all of these potential impacts are either less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of measures presented herein. (See Section 6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for a complete listing of the mitigation mea- sures.) Therefore, the proposed Project does not involve any activities, either during construction or operation, which would cause significant adverse effects on human beings that cannot be readily mitigated to a less than significant level. The proposed operation and maintenance activities would be the similar to current operation and maintenance prac tices for similar facilities, which have minimal impacts on human beings. The potential beneficial effects of the Project include improving the reliability and flexibility of the existing transmission system in the City of Santa Clara.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 5.22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JULY 2023 6-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be used by the City of Santa Clara and SVP to ensure that the mitigation measures adopted as a condition of project approval are implemented.

The MMRP is consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15074(d), 15091(d), and 15097) for the imple - mentation of mitigation.

SVP will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures presented in Table 6-1).

SVP will designate specific personnel to implement and document all aspects of the MMRP. SVP will ensure that the designated personnel have authority to enforce mitigation requirements and will be capable of terminating Project construction activities found to be inconsistent with mitigation objectives. Additionally, SVP will be responsible for ensuring that construction personnel understand their responsibility to adhere to the MMRP requirements and other contractual requirements related to the implementat ion of mitigation.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact
Category
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Requirement Timing of Action Air Quality
Construction-
Phase Air Quality
MM AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Air Quality Mitigation The Project shall ensure that basic construction emissions control measures are imple - mented as “Best Management Practices,” as follows:
▪ All exposed soil surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, and graded areas) shall be watered two times per day.
▪ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
▪ All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
▪ All areas to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Foundatio n pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading.
▪ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 1 3, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage regarding idling shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ▪ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s sp ecifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
▪ Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to con- tact at SVP regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Emissions from construction
equipment exhaust are
reduced
During construction
Biological Resources
Nesting Birds MM BIO-1. Biological Monitoring. A qualified biologist will be assigned to the Project and will monitor the Project periodically. The qualified biologist will be the point of contact for any employee or contractor who might inadver - tently kill or injure a special -status species or anyone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped individual. The qualified biologist or bio -logical moni- tor shall have the authority and responsibility to halt any project activities that are not in compliance with applicable mitigation measures, permit con- Monitor implementation of
specified biological monitor
activities
Prior to and during
construction
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
ditions, or other Project requirements, or will have an unauthorized adverse effect on biological resources.

Nesting Birds MM BIO -2. Worker Environmental Awareness Training. Prior to construc- tion, a construction employee education program will be conducted in refer- ence to all sensitive environmental resources potentially affected by site work (e.g., air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, hazardous materials) and the measures associated with their protection (i.e., mitigation measures and applicable laws and regulations).

Review and attend construc-
tion employee education
program and monitor
training implementation
Prior to construction
Nesting Birds MM BIO-3. Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Nest Protection. During the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted on the site and vicinity by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before an y work activities are performed. A Preconstruc- tion nesting bird survey shall also be required prior to any vegetation removal or trimming that occurs during the nesting season. Surveyors will search for all potential nest types (e.g., ground, cavity, shrub/tree, structural, etc.) and determine whether the nest is active. A nest will be determined to be active if eggs or young are present in the nest. Upon discovery of active nests, Silicon Valley Power’s biological monitor will determine if there is need for a buffer or shield to minimize disturbance of the nest. Upon this deter- mination and execution of any required minimization action, work may proceed. The extent of mitigation will be based upon: acclimation of the spe- cies or individual to disturban ce, nest type (cavity, tree, ground, etc.), and level and duration of construction activity. If there is a period of 7 or more days during nesting season in which construction does not occur, a new sur- vey shall be undertaken to determine if any nests have been established.

Ensure preconstruction bird
nesting surveys are con-
ducted and monitor for
significant disturbance to
birds if nests are identified
No more than 7 days
before planned
construction work
Cultural Resources
Unanticipated
Discoveries of
Historical Resources
or Unique
Archaeological
Resources
MM CR-1. Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources. SVP shall conduct a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) for Project personnel who, during the course of Project work, might encounter or alter historical resources or important/unique archaeological materials. This program may be combined with any similar required program, such as for biological resources. The WEAP may include a kickoff tailgate session that describ es Review and attend worker
environmental awareness
program; Monitor imple-
mentation of unanticipated
discovery protocols
Prior to construction
and during
construction
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
how to identify cultural resources and what to do if an unanticipated discov- ery is made during construction, presents site avoidance requirements and procedures to be followed if unanticipated cultural resources are discovered during Project construction, and includes a discussion of disciplinary and other actions that could be taken against persons violating historic preserva- tion laws and SVP policies.

If previously unidentified cultural resources are identified during construc- tion, constructi on work within 100 feet of the find shall be halted and directed away from the discovery until a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist assesses the significance of the resource. The archaeologist, in consultation with the City of Santa Clara, State Historic Preservation Officer, any interested Tribes, and any other responsible public agency, shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the evaluation and mitigation of impacts if the finds are found to be eligible to the National or California Registers, qualify as a unique archaeological resource under California Environmental Quality Act Section 21083.2, or are determined to be tribal cultural resource as defined in Section 21074.

Unanticipated
Discoveries of Human
Remains
MM CR-2. Treatment of Human Remains. Any human remains discovered are to be treated with respect and dignity. Upon discovery of human remains, all work within 50 feet of the discovery area must cease immedi- ately, nothing is to be disturbed, and the area must be secured. The Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office must be called. The Coroner has two working days to examine the remains after notification. The appropriate land manager/owner of the site is to be called and informed of the discovery. If the remains are located on federal lands, federal land managers, federal law enforcement, and the federal archaeologist must be informed as well, due to complementary jurisdiction issues. It is very important that the suspected remains, and the area around them, are und isturbed and the proper authorities called to the scene as soon as possible, as it could be a crime scene. The Coroner will determine if the remains are archaeological/ historic or of modern origin and if there are any criminal or jurisdictional questions.

After the Coroner has determined the remains are archaeological/historic - era, the Coroner will make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized r epresentative. If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Monitor implementation of
human remain discovery
protocols
During construction
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48 hours to make recom- mendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the rem ains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC.

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six (6) or m ore human burials at one (1) location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).

Geology and Soils
Geologic and Seismic
Hazards
MM G-1. Conduct Geotechnical Investigations. Because seismically induced liquefaction-related ground failure has the potential to damage or destroy Project components, design-level geotechnical investigation for the Project shall be performed by SVP and shall include investigations designed to assess the potential for geologic and seismic hazards, and specifically include evalu- ation of potential for liquefaction and expansive soils to affect the BESS system components and the 60 kV line at the Project site. Where liquefaction or expansive soils hazards are found to exist/verified, appropriate engineer- ing design and construction measures shall be incorporated into the Project designs as deemed appropriate by the Project engineer. Finalized Project design incorporating geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to Project construction.

Ensure a design-level geo-
technical investigation is
performed
At least 60 days
before final Project
design
Unanticipated
Discoveries of
Paleontological
Resources
MM G-2. Worker Training and Management of Paleontological Resources. A paleontologist must be retained who meets the professional paleontologist qualifications (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Standard Procedures, 2010) and has demonstrated experience in carrying paleontological projects to completion. The qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a Pale- ontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP), and training shall be provided for all staff who w ill be onsite during excavations. The WEAP shall show what local Pleistocene fossils look like in general, where they may appear in the Project, and how to proceed should material sus - pected to be a fossil is encountered.

The qualified paleontologist must develop and implement a Paleontological Resources Management Plan (PRMP) for the Project area that meets the Review Paleontological
Resource Monitoring
Program; Monitor
implementation of Program
Prior to construction
and during
construction
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). This PRMP shall include:
▪ A monitoring plan for ground disturbing activities that provides the mon- itor(s) with the authority to temporarily halt or divert equipment. The Paleontologist shall determine a suitable monitoring schedule based on construction activities and anticipated depth of ground disturbance.

Monitors shall b e onsite for any disturbance of sediments with high or unknown paleontological sensitivity. Monitors must have demonstrated sufficient paleontological training and field experience to have acceptable knowledge and experience of fossil identification, sal vage and collection methods, paleontological techniques, and stratigraphy.
▪ A recovery plan for significant fossils that provides for the treatment of specimens to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and verte- brates.
▪ A specimen identification, analysis, and curation plan that includes identi- fication to the lowest taxonomic level possible; taxonomic, taphonomic, and biostratigraphic analysis; and curation to the standards of the reposi- tory where they will be curated.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous
Substances Control
MM HM 1. Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response. SVP shall implement its hazardous substance control and emergency response. proce- dures as needed. These procedures identify methods and techniques to min- imize the exposure of the public and site wor kers to potentially hazardous materials during all phases of Project construction through operation. They address worker training appropriate to the site worker’s role in hazardous substance control and emergency response. The procedures also require implementing appropriate control methods and approved containment and spill-control practices for construction and materials stored on site. If it is necessary to store chemicals on site, they shall be managed in accordance with all applicable regulations. Material safety data sheets shall be main- tained and kept available on site, as applicable.

No known soil contamination was identified within the Project area, however historic groundwater contamination has occurred at the site and at upgra - dient sites (SWRCB, 2023b though f). In the event that soils, or groundwater suspected of being contaminated (on the basis of visual, olfactory, or other evidence) are removed/encountered during site grading or excavation activ- Collect and analyze soil
samples and, if contamina-
tion is discovered, ensure
that construction activities
are conducted according to
SVP’s hazardous substance
control and emergency
response procedures
Prior to construction
and during
construction
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
ities or dewatering activities, the exca vated soil and/or extracted ground- water shall be tested and, if contaminated above hazardous waste levels, shall be contained and either treated or disposed of at a licensed waste facility. The presence of known or suspected contaminated soil or ground- water shall require testing and investigation procedures to be supervised by a qualified person, as appropriate, to meet state and federal regulations.

All hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations, by personnel qualified to handle hazardous materials. The hazardous substance control and emergency response procedures include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Proper disposal of potentially contaminated soils.
▪ Establishing site-specific buffers for construction vehicles and equipment located near sensitive resources.
▪ Emergency response and reporting procedures to address hazardous material spills.
▪ Stopping work at that location and contacting the City Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division immediately if visual contamination or chemical odors are detected. Work will be resumed at this location after any necessary consultation and approval by the Hazardous Materials Division.

SVP shall complete its Emer gency Action Plan Form as part of Project tail- board meetings. The purpose of the form is to gather emergency contact numbers, identify first aid locations and provide other tailboard safety information.

Asbestos and Lead
Testing and Removal
MM HM-2. Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Testing and Removal. The Project would implement the following measures to reduce impacts due to the presence of unknown ACMs and/or LBP in the structure to be demolished:
▪ In conformance with State and local laws, a visual inspection/pre demo- lition survey, and sampling and testing, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of the on-site building to determine the presence of asbestos- containing materials and/or lead -based paint, and to determine appro - priate handling and disposal requirements.
▪ Prior to demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR) 1523.1. Employee Sample and test the on-site
building. if asbestos and/or
lead is discovered, ensure
that demolition activities are
conducted according to the
outlined procedures.

Prior to construction
and during
demolition
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
training, employee air mon itoring, and dust control shall be conducted during demolition also in accordance with this Standard. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. ▪ All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESGAP guidelines prior to any building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained i n Title 8 of CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
▪ A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above.
▪ Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.

Removal of materials containing more than one percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality MM HYD-1. SWPPP or Erosion Control Plan Development and Implementa- tion. Following Project approval, SVP will prepare and implement a SWPPP, if required by State law, or erosion control plan to minimize construction impacts on surface water and groundwater quality. Implementation of the SWPPP or erosion control plan will help stabilize graded ar eas and reduce erosion and sedimentation. The plan will designate BMPs that will be adhered to during construction activities. Erosion and sediment control mea- sures, such as straw wattles, covers, and silt fences, will be installed before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events. Suitable stabiliza- tion measures will be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities, as necessary. During construction activities, measures will be in place to prevent contaminant discharge.

The Project SWPPP or erosion control plan will include erosion control and sediment transport BMPs to be used during construction. BMPs, where applicable, will be designed by using specific criteria from recognized BMP design guidance manuals. Erosion-minimizing efforts may include measures such as properly containing stockpiled soils.

Erosion control measures identified will be installed in an area before con- struction begins during the wet season and before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events. Temporary measures such as silt fences or Ensure a SWPPP is prepared
and implemented, or if a
SWPPP is not required, en-
sure that an erosion control
plan is developed and imple-
mented to minimize con-
struction impacts on surface
water and groundwater
quality
Prior to and during
construction
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-9 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
wattles, intended to minimize sediment transport from temporarily dis- turbed areas, will remain in place until disturbed areas have stabilized. The plan will be updated during construction as required by the SWRCB.

A worker education program shall be established for all field personnel prior to initiating fieldwork to provide training in the appropriate application and construction of erosion and sediment control measures contained in the SWPPP. This education program will also discuss appropriate hazardous materials management and spill response. Compliance with these require- ments will be ensured by the on-site construction contractor.

Traffic/Transportation
Traffic Control MM T-1. Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction, Ameresco shall prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan for review and approval to the City of Santa Clara (City) Planning Department for public roads and transportation facilities that would be directly affected by the construction activities and/or would require permits and approvals.

Ameresco shall submit the Construction Traffic Control Plan to the City prior to conducting activities covered in the traffic control permits. The Construc- tion Traffic Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
▪ Identification of any routes that would require lane closures or detours to accommodate material and equipment deliveries and methods to ensure safety.
▪ Avoidance of peak travel hours (8:00 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 6:00 p.m.) to the maximum extent feasible.
▪ Plans to coordinate in advance with emergency service providers to avoid restricting the movements of emergency vehicles. Police departments and fire departments shall be noti fied in advance by Ameresco of the pro- posed locations, nature, timing, and duration of any roadway disruptions, and shall be advised of any access restrictions that could impact their effectiveness. At locations where roads will be blocked, provisions shall be ready at all times to accommodate emergency vehicles.
▪ Plans to coordinate in advance with property owners, if any, that may have limited access to properties.

Ensure that a Construction
Traffic Control Plan is sub-
mitted by Ameresco and
approved by the City of Santa
Clara
Prior to construction
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

JULY 2023 6-10 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Tribal Cultural Resources
Unanticipated Tribal
Cultural Resources
MM TCR 1. Management of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources. During project-level construction, should subsurface tribal cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist and an authorized tri bal representative shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 21074. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoid- ance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, Project reroute or redesign, Project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4( b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop addi- tional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate mea- sures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Nat ive American representatives expressing interest in the tribal cultural resource.

Confirm that all activity in the
vicinity of a found subsurface
tribal cultural resource is
ceased and that an author-
ized tribal representative is
contacted
During construction

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 7. REFERENCES

JULY 2023 7-1 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

7. REFERENCES

7.1. Aesthetics
Caltrans. 2023. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Acc essed February 17, 2023.

City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara 2010 2035 General Plan. City Council adopted on November 16, 2010. Updated December 9, 2014. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/ community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed February 6, 2023.

7.2. Agricultural Resources
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed February 17, 2023.

DOC 2017. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land Map. https://planning.lacity.org/eir/ HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Study/ Attachment%20B%20References/
California%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf.

Accessed February 17, 2023/

7.3. Air Quality
ARB (Air Resources Board). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards Chart. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2023.

Aspen (Aspen Environmental Group). 202 3. AQ and GHG Emissions Summary ; Reports generated by CalEEMod. Version: 2020.4.0. Date: February 7, 2023.

BAAQMD. 2023. Air Quality S tandards and Attainment Status. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air- quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed February 2, 2023.

BAAQMD. 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en&rev= 0d2d971e661d41f28a56953f1776bdde. Accessed February 3, 2023.

7.4. Biological Resources
City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara General Plan. City Council adopted on November 16, 2010.

Updated December 9, 2014. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/ community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed February 15, 2023.

7.5. Cultural Resources
Aspen Environmental Group (Aspen). 2023. Built Environment Evaluation Report for the Kifer Receiving Station Battery Energy Storage System Project. February 13, 2023.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 7. REFERENCES

JULY 2023 7-2 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Broek, J.O.M. 1932. The Santa Clara Valley, California: A Study in Landscape Changes. N .v.A. Oosthoek’s Utig. Maadtij, Utrecht.

Clark, M.R. 1989. Evaluative Archaeological Investigations at the San Bruno Mountain Mound Site, CA-SMA-40, South San Francisco, California. Report on file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.

Cutter, D.C. 1978. Plans for the Occupation of Upper California: A New Look at the “Dark Age” from 1602 to 1769. Journal of San Diego History 24(1):78-90.

Findlay, J.M. and D.M. Garaventa. 1983. Archaeological Resources of Downtown San Jose: A Preliminary Planning Summary of Prehist oric and Historic Sites in the Central Business District. MS on file, S-5905, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.

Fitzgerald, R.T. and J. Porcasi. 2003. The Metcalf Site (CA -SCL-178) and Its Place in Early Holocene California Prehistory. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 37(4):27-31.

Fitzgerald, R.T. 199 1. Archaic Milling Cultures of the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. Archives of California Prehistory 35. Coyote Press, Salinas.

Hart, J.D. 1987. A Companion to California (revised and expanded). Oxford University Press, New York.

Heizer, R.F . 1952. A Review of Problems in the Antiquity of Man in California. In Symposium of the Antiquity of Man in California, pp. 1 -10. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey No. 16:3-17.
_____. 1950. Observations on Early Man in California. In Papers on California Archaeology: 1 -5, pp. 5-10.

Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey No.7, Berkeley. _____. 1949. The Archaeology of Central California, L· The Early Horizon . University of California Anthropological Records. University of California Press, Berkeley. 12(1):1-84.

Heizer, R.F., and S.F. Cook. 1953. “Capay Man,” An Ancient Central California Indian Burial. In Papers on California Archaeology: 21-26, edited by Richard F. Heizer. Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 22:24-26, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Anthropology.

Hendry, G.W. and J.N. Bowman. 1940. The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San Fr ancisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850 (and associated maps). MS on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

Hildebrandt, W.R. 1983. Archaeological Research of the Southern Santa Clara Valley Project: Based on a Data Recovery Program from Sites CA-SCl-54, CA-SCl-163, CA-SCl-178, CA-SCl-237, and CA-SCl-241 Located in the Route 101 Corridor, Santa Clara County, California. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, District 4, San Francisco. Report S -6369. On file at the Northw est Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.

Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485-497. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Lillard, J.B., R.F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga. 1939. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California.

Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Board of Education of the Sacramento City Unified School District, Sacramento, California.

Meighan, C.W. 1965. Pacific Coast Archaeology. The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H.E.

Wright and D.G. Frey.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 7. REFERENCES

JULY 2023 7-3 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Winther, J.C. 1935. Archaeological Investigations at CA -SCl-128, The Holiday Inn Site. For the Oh lone People and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, California. MS on file, S -5281, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.

7.6. Energy
CEC (California Energy Commission). 202 3a. 202 1 Power Content Label for City of Santa Clara/Silicon Valley Power. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/power-source- disclosure/power-content-label/annual-power-content-2. Accessed February 15, 2023. _____. 2023b. Electricity Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx.

Accessed February 15, 2023.
_____. 2022. Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), V olume II - Ensuring Reliability in a Changing Climate . https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=241583. Accessed February 23, 2023.

CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2008. Energy Action Plan, 2008 Update. February. http:// www.cpuc.ca.gov/eaps/. Accessed February 17, 2023.

City of Santa Clara. 202 1. Utility Fact Sheet. Electric Utility: City of Santa Clara. January –December 2021. http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp-and-community/about-svp/utility-fact-sheet.. Accessed February 15, 2023
SVP (Silicon Valley Power). 2019. Revised 2018 Integrated Resource Plan for Silicon Valley Power. Adopted by the Santa Clara City Council, November 27, 2018. http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/svp- and-community/about-svp/integrated-resource-plan. Accessed February 17, 2023.

7.7. Geology and Soils
CGS (Californ ia Geological Survey). 2023a. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps. conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed February 2023. _____. 2023b. Big California Earthquakes. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/significant.

Accessed February 2023.
_____. 2018. Earthquake Fault Zones, CGS Special Publication #42. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ Documents/Publications/Special-Publications/SP_042.pdf. Accessed February 2023. _____. 2001. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Milpitas 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. City Council adopted on November 16, 2010. Updated December 9, 2014. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/ community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed December 10, 2021. _____. 2011. City of Santa Clara Draft 2010 -2035 General Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2011. http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=12900.

County of Santa Clara. 2012. “Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. ” https://stgenpln.blob.core. windows.net/document/GEO_GeohazardATLAS.pdf. Accessed February 2023.

DWR (Department of Water Resources). 2023. Water Data Library Groundwater Levels. https://wdl.water. ca.gov/WaterDataLibrary/Map.aspx. Accessed February 2023.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 7. REFERENCES

JULY 2023 7-4 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A. 2005. Geologic map of the Milpitas Quadrangle, Alameda and Santa Clara and Counties, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-1531, scale 1:24,000. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71767.htm. Accessed February 2023.

Helley, E.J., 1990, Preliminary contour map showing elevation of surface of Pleistocene alluvium under Santa Clara Valley, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 90 -633, scale 1:24,000. https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr90633. Accessed February 2023.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) . 2023. Web Soil Survey, Project Area Map and Data. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed February 2023.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. https://vertpaleo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/ 01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf. Accessed February 2023.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2023a. land Subsidence in California. https://www.usgs.gov/ centers/land-subsidence-in-california#:~:text=
The%20main%20cause%20of%20subsidence,groundwater%20aquifers%20and%20aquatic%20e cosystems. Accessed February 2023.
_____. 2023b. Earthquakes Hazard Program, Earthquake Catalog Search. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ earthquakes/search/. Accessed February 2023.
_____. 2023c. Earthquake Hazards Program, 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm. Accessed February 2023.
_____. 2023d. USGS Quaternary Map Viewer, 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps - Peak Horizontal Acceleration with 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years layer. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed February 2023.

USGS and CGS (United States Geological Survey and California Geological Survey). 2023. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States KML files. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake- hazards/faults. Downloaded February 2023.

Youd, T.L. and D.M. Perkins. 1978. Mapping Liquefaction Induced Ground Failure Potential, in the Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division.

7.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ARB (Air Resources Board). 2022. California’s Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. .https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2023.
_____. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000 -2019, by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. July. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_ scopingplan_sum_2000-19.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2023.

Aspen (Aspen Environmental Group). 202 3. AQ and GHG Emi ssions Summary ; Reports generated by CalEEMod. Version: 2020.4.0. Date: February 7, 2023.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 7. REFERENCES

JULY 2023 7-5 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Drivers, Trends, and Mitigation; and Energy Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Gro up III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency). 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May.

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 1998. Text of the Kyoto Protocol.

7.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Santa Clara. 2010. City of Santa Clara General Pla n – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. https://www. santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13934/635729106120730000. A ccessed February 2023.

Conzen et al (Jens Conzen, Sunil Lakshmipathy, Anil Kapahi, Stefan Kraft, and Matthew DiDomizio). 2022.

Lithium ion battery energy storage systems (BESS) hazards , in Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries Volume 81, February 2023, 104932. [Online]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/abs/pii/S095042302200208X?via%3Dihub. Accessed March 2023.

DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2023a. EnviroStor Database. https://www. envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=santa+clara. Accessed February 2023. _____. 2023b. EnviroStor database. “Cortese List Data Resources.” https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public/search?CMD=search&ocieerp=&HWMP=False&business_name=santa+clara&main_ street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&censustract=&case_number=&apn=&Search=Get+Report.

Accessed February 2023.

OSFM (Office of the State Fire Marshal). 2023. Frequently Asked Questions About: 2022 Fir e Hazard Severity Zones. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/elnl5nft/2022-fhsz-faqs-jan-23-2023.pdf#2022_ FHSZ_Faqs_(Jan_23_2023). Accessed February 2023.
_____. 2022. Santa Clara County, State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, dated November 21, 2022. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/ wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-map/. Accessed February 2023.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2023a. State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=arnold+ave%2C+ santa+clara#. Accessed February 2023.
_____. 2023b. GeoTracker, OWENS -CORNING (SL18243664). https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ profile_report.asp?global_id=SL18243664. Accessed February 2023. _____. 2023c. GeoTracker, 715 COMSTOCK INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY (T10000018684). https://geotracker. waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000018684. Accessed February 2023 _____. 2023d. GeoTracker, 651 WALSH PARTNERS LLC (T10000012412) https://geotracker.waterboards. ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T10000012412. Accessed February 2023. _____. 2023e. GeoTracker, MONSANTO (T0608591651). https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_ report.asp?global_id=T0608591651. Accessed February 2023 _____. 2023e. GeoTracker, PACIFIC BELL (T0608502404). https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_ report.asp?global_id=T0608502404. Accessed February 2023 KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 7. REFERENCES

JULY 2023 7-6 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

7.10. Hydrology and Water Quality
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2023. Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basin Lookup. https:// dwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=740d10eefd6148579321a3abcd065a36.

Accessed February 2023.
_____. 2003. Bulletin 118 Update 2003 – Basin Report 2_009_02. https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/ bulletin-118-update-2003-basin-reports/resource/20296ca3-a155-4285-8786-b775b89b9033 City of Santa Clara. 2010. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. https://www. santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/general- plan. Accessed February 2023.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2023. Final California 2018 Integrated Rep ort (303(d) List/305(b) Report), Supporting Information Regional Board 2 – San Francisco Bay Region, Water Body Name: Saratoga Creek. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_ quality_assessment/2018_integrated_report.html. Accessed February 2023.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2023. Online flood map 06085C0064 H, effective 05/18/2009. https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0ad b51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed February 2023.Land Use and Planning City of Santa Clara. 2014a. City of Santa Clara Zoning Map http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument? id=756. Accessed February 17, 2023.
_____. 2014b. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. https://www.santaclaraca. gov/our-city/departments-a-f/community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed February 17, 2023.

7.11. Mineral Resources
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 202 3a. C GS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map= mlc. Accessed February 15, 2023.
_____. 202 3b. SMARA Statutes and Regulations. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/lawsand regulations. Accessed February 15, 2023..

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2023. Mineral Resources Data System. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/ mrds/. Accessed February 15, 2023.

7.12. Noise
County of Santa Clara. 2016. Comprehensive Land Use Plan – Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_SJC_CLUP.pdf. Accessed Feb - ruary 15, 2023.

FHWA (Feder al Highway Administration). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model, User ’s Guide.

January. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf.

Accessed February 6, 2023.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 7. REFERENCES

JULY 2023 7-7 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2017. General Plan Guidelines: 2017 Update. Updated September 2017. http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. Accessed February 6, 2023.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 197 4. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. No. 550/ 9-74-004, Washington, D.C.

7.13. Population and Housing
CA DOF (California Department of Finance). 202 2. E -5: Population an d Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011 -2017 with 2010 Census Benchmark https://dof.ca.gov/ forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties- and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed February 15, 2023.

CA EDD (California Employment Development Department) . 2022. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places – 2016 Annual Average. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca. gov/geography/santaclara-county.html. Accessed February 15, 2023.

City of Santa Clara . 2014a. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Chapter 5: Goals and Policies. http:// santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=13934. Accessed December 16, 2017. _____. 2014b. City of Santa Clara General Plan – Appendix 8.12 Housing Element. http://santaclaraca.gov/ home/showdocument?id=13932. Accessed December 16, 2017.

7.14. Public Services
City of Santa Clara, 2023. City of Santa Clara: Parks and Pools. https://missioncity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ MapTour/index.html?appid=4c84d4f8913541cebd8a8ef3fc31a326&amp. Accessed February 17, 2023.

City of Santa Clara 2022. Santa Clara Police Department Fact Sheet. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our- city/departments-g-z/police-department/about-us/fact-sheet. Accessed February 17, 2023.

City of Santa Clara 2019. Santa Clara Police Department Divisions. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/ departments-g-z/police-department/about-us/divisions. Accessed February 17, 2023.

7.15. Recreation
City of Santa Clara, 2023. City of Santa Clara: Parks and Pools. https://missioncity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ MapTour/index.html?appid=4c84d4f8913541cebd8a8ef3fc31a326&amp. Accessed February 17, 2023.

City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara 2010 2035 General Plan. City Cou ncil adopted on November 16, 2010. Updated December 9, 2014. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/ community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed February 6, 2023.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 7. REFERENCES

JULY 2023 7-8 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

7.16. Traffic and Transportation
City of Santa Clara. 2014. City of Santa Clara 2010 2035 General Plan. City Council adopted on November 16, 2010. Updated De cember 9, 2014. https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/ community-development/planning-division/general-plan. Accessed February 6, 2023. _____. 2013. “2013 City of Santa Clara Bicycle Map .” http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id= 1326. Accessed February 6, 2023.
_____. 2011. City of Santa Clara Draft 2010 -2035 General Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2011. http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=12900. Accessed February 6, 2023
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2020. 2020 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways.” https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. Accessed February 15, 2023.

VTA (Valley Transit Authority). 202 3. Routes. https://www.vta.org/go/routes. Accessed February 16, 2023.
_____. 2021. Valley Transit Authority Transit Map. October 11, 2021. https://www.vta.org/sites/default/ files/2021-10/VTA_MainMap_101121.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2023. _____. 2020. Santa Clara Valley Bikeways Map. June 2020. https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020- 07/2020%20Bike%20Map_web_p2.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2023.

7.17. Tribal Cultural Resources
City of San Jose. 2011. Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Adopted November 1, 2011.

Golla, V. 2011. California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley.

King, C.D. 1977. Matalan Ethnohistory. In Final Report of Archaeological Test Excavations of Freewa y 04-SCl-101, Post Mile 17.2/29.4, Cochrane Road to Ford Road, edited by S.A. Dietz. MS on file, S-4395, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.

Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485-497. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Margolin, M. 1978. The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco - Monterey Bay Area. Heyday Books, Berkeley.

7.18. Utilities and Service Systems
Allconnect. 2022. Shop Plans in Santa Clara, CA for Zipcode 95051. https://www.allconnect.com/results/ providers?zip=95051. Accessed February 4, 2022.

JULY 2023 7-9 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

City of San Jose. 2023. San Jose–Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/ your-government/environment/water-utilities/regional-wastewater-facility. Accessed December 20, 2021.

CalRecycle, 202 3a. Facility/Site Summary Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41 AA 0002). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3223. Accessed February 17, 2023.

CalRecycle, 202 3b. Facility/Site Summary Details: Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43 -AN-0015). https:// www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1376?siteID=3399. Accessed February 17, 2023.

CalRecycle, 2023c. Facility/Site Summary Details: Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (43 AN 0003). https:// www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3388. Accessed February 17, 2023.

7.19. Wildfire
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones map viewer. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/ wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/#explorefhsz. Accessed February 17, 2023.

7.20. Corona and Induced Current Effects
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers). 1979. J.E. Bridges and M.J . Frazier. The Effect of 60 Hertz Fields and Currents on Cardiac Pacemakers. Page 30.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 8. COMMENTS AND COMMENT RESPONSES

JULY 2023 8-10 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

8. COMMENTS AND COMMENT RESPONSES
This section presents responses to the comment received during the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. SVP notified various State agencies, tribes, and the public of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and received one comment.

The one comment received from the Santa Clara Valley Water District is included bel ow. Minor revisions were made to the MND and supporting Initial Study based on the comments.

Comment Letter 1: Santa Clara Valley Water District
From: Colleen Haggerty <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 4:21 PM
To: Sachin Bajracharya <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Sasaki <[email protected]>
Subject: SVP Kifer Receiving Station Battery Energy Storage System Project MND -Valley Water File 34950
Hi,
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Draft Mitigation Negative Declaration (MND) and Initial Study (IS) for the Kifer Receiving Station Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) project located at 3025 Raymond Street in Santa Clara, received on April 27, 2023.

Based on our review, we have the following comments:

1. The discussion of flooding on page 5.10-2 should be updated to note that the Special Flood Hazard Zone AH has a base flood elevation of 32 feet at the site per the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06085C0064H, effective May 18, 2009. The discussion does not include the base flood elevation and only notes that the typically the flood depth is 1-3 feet.

2. Valley Water records indicate that there are known wells within the project boundary.

While Valley Water has records for most wells located in the County, it is always possible that a well exists that is not in Valley Water’s records. If previously unknown wells are found on the subject property during development, they must be properly destroyed under permit from Valley water or registered with Valley Water and protected from damage in accordance with Valley Water Ordinance 90-1.

3. Valley Water does not have any facilities or right of way within the project boundaries; therefore, in accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, a Valley Water encroachment permit is not required.

If you have any questions regarding the comments please contact Matt Sasaki at (408) 630-3776 or [email protected] and reference Valley Water File 34950.

Thank you,
Colleen Haggerty, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118
(408) 630-2322 direct | (408)265-2600 main | [email protected] | www.valleywater.org * Mailing address for FedEx, UPS, Golden State, etc.

Winfield Warehouse-5905 Winfield Blvd. San Jose, CA 95123-2428 1-A
1-B
KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT 8. COMMENTS AND COMMENT RESPONSES

JULY 2023 8-11 FINAL MND/INITIAL STUDY

The information contained in this email may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message from your computer. Thank you

8.1. Response to Santa Clara Valley Water District Comment Comment 1-A: The commentor for SCVWD notes that the discussion of flooding in the MND should be updated to include the base flood elevation of 32 feet.

The MND has been updated to reflect this comment.

Comment 1 -B: The commentor for SCVWD notes that there are no known wells within the project boundary, and provides guidelines for the discovery of a previously unknown well. The commentor also notes that a Valley Water encroachment permit is not required.

This comment has been recorded, no change to the MND is required.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT Attachment 2. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 1
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Impact
Category
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Requirement Timing of Action Air Quality
Construction-
Phase Air Quality
MM AQ-1. Implement Basic Construction Air Quality Mitigation The Project shall ensure that basic construction emissions control measures are imple - mented as “Best Management Practices,” as follows:
▪ All exposed soil surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, and graded areas) shall be watered two times per day.
▪ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
▪ All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 2
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
ditions, or other Project requirements, or will have an unauthorized adverse effect on biological resources.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 3
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
how to identify cultural resources and what to do if an unanticipated discov- ery is made during construction, presents site avoidance requirements and procedures to be followed if unanticipated cultural resources are discovered during Project construction, and includes a discussion of disciplinary and other actions that could be taken against persons violating historic preserva- tion laws and SVP policies.

After the Coroner has determined the remains are archaeological/historic - era, the Coroner will make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized r epresentative. If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Monitor implementation of
human remain discovery
protocols
During construction

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 4
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the remains. The MLD has 48 hours to make recom- mendations to the landowner for treatment or disposition of the human remains. If the descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the rem ains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. If the landowner does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendant may request mediation by NAHC.

According to the California Health and Safety Code, six (6) or m ore human burials at one (1) location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 5
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
standards set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). This PRMP shall include:
▪ A monitoring plan for ground disturbing activities that provides the mon- itor(s) with the authority to temporarily halt or divert equipment. The Paleontologist shall determine a suitable monitoring schedule based on construction activities and anticipated depth of ground disturbance.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 6
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
ities or dewatering activities, the exca vated soil and/or extracted ground- water shall be tested and, if contaminated above hazardous waste levels, shall be contained and either treated or disposed of at a licensed waste facility. The presence of known or suspected contaminated soil or ground- water shall require testing and investigation procedures to be supervised by a qualified person, as appropriate, to meet state and federal regulations.

All hazardous materials and hazardous wastes shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations, by personnel qualified to handle hazardous materials. The hazardous substance control and emergency response procedures include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Proper disposal of potentially contaminated soils.
▪ Establishing site-specific buffers for construction vehicles and equipment located near sensitive resources.
▪ Emergency response and reporting procedures to address hazardous material spills.
▪ Stopping work at that location and contacting the City Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division immediately if visual contamination or chemical odors are detected. Work will be resumed at this location after any necessary consultation and approval by the Hazardous Materials Division.

Prior to construction
and during
demolition

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 7
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
training, employee air mon itoring, and dust control shall be conducted during demolition also in accordance with this Standard. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings would be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. ▪ All potentially friable ACMs shall be removed in accordance with NESGAP guidelines prior to any building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained i n Title 8 of CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
▪ A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above.
▪ Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.

Removal of materials containing more than one percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements.

The Project SWPPP or erosion control plan will include erosion control and sediment transport BMPs to be used during construction. BMPs, where applicable, will be designed by using specific criteria from recognized BMP design guidance manuals. Erosion-minimizing efforts may include measures such as properly containing stockpiled soils.

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 8
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
wattles, intended to minimize sediment transport from temporarily dis- turbed areas, will remain in place until disturbed areas have stabilized. The plan will be updated during construction as required by the SWRCB.

A worker education program shall be established for all field personnel prior to initiating fieldwork to provide training in the appropriate application and construction of erosion and sediment control measures contained in the SWPPP. This education program will also discuss appropriate hazardous materials management and spill response. Compliance with these require- ments will be ensured by the on-site construction contractor.

Ensure that a Construction
Traffic Control Plan is sub-
mitted by Ameresco and
approved by the City of Santa
Clara
Prior to construction

KIFER RECEIVING STATION BESS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM JULY 2023 9
Attachment 2. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Tribal Cultural Resources
Unanticipated Tribal
Cultural Resources
MM TCR 1. Management of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources. During project-level construction, should subsurface tribal cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist and an authorized tri bal representative shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 21074. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoid- ance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, Project reroute or redesign, Project cancellation, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4( b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop addi- tional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate mea- sures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Nat ive American representatives expressing interest in the tribal cultural resource.

Confirm that all activity in the
vicinity of a found subsurface
tribal cultural resource is
ceased and that an author-
ized tribal representative is
contacted
During construction

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentAugust 29, 2023

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
August 29, 2023