such as accipiters; and iii) 1,000 feet for larger raptors such as buteos. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day and during appropriate nesting times.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: Avian Electrocution Assessment The City shall investigate methods to prevent bird nesting and perching on transmission line infrastructure leading to potential electrocution through design changes or installation of deterrents to the greatest extent feasible. All aboveground lines should be fitted with bird flight diverters or visibility enhancement devices. When lines cannot be placed underground, appropriate avian protection designs should be employed. As a minimum requirement, the electrical line system should conform with the most current edition of the APLIC guidelines to prevent electrocutions. Resources may be found on the APLIC website at https://www.aplic.org/mission. CDFW staff are available to assist in determination of measures to protect avian species.
COMMENT 2: Bats
The Project includes removal of up to 3 trees and pruning of an additional 33 trees. In order to determine the extent to which impacts may occur to bats and determine where habitat loss may occur from the removal of trees, the IS/MND should propose measures to conduct a bat habitat assessment of suitable bat roosting habitat.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: Survey Methodology Plan Bats use a variety of materials for roosting including tree hollows, rock crevices, mines, caves, and man-made structures. A qualified bat biologist shall develop a survey methodology plan for CDFW review and approval. Historic and future survey data at this location shall be submitted to the CNDDB, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB Report a Bat Colony page, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Bats/Report- Colony, and/or the North American Bat Monitoring Program, https://www.nabatmonitoring.org/. The survey plan shall include pre- and post-Project construction surveys to better understand the impacts of the Seismic Retrofit project on the colony. The qualified bat biologist shall review and consider survey protocols located at the North American Bat Monitoring Program's Collect Data page, https://www.nabatmonitoring.org/collect-data.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: Habitat Assessment and Tree Removal Plan Within 14 days of the start of Project and tree removal activities, a qualified bat biologist shall assess all trees within the construction area to determine if they contain suitable bat roosting habitat (e.g., cavities, crevices, deep bark fissures). If any trees contain such habitat, bat presence shall be presumed. Trees containing bat roosting habitat shall be removed using the method described below during the following seasonal periods of bat activity:
Comment Set A001 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (continued) A1-10
(cont'd)
A1-9
A1-11
Docusign Envelope ID: 941 EA 1 C0-1 B7 A-448D-9387-7 4D92C00CC30 I
____________ , CDFW's
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Allie Jackman
City of Santa Clara
August 29, 2024
Prior to maternity season
from approximately March 1 (or when night temperatures
are above 45°F and when rains have ceased) through April 15 (when females begin to give birth to young); and prior to winter torpor from September 1 (when young bats are self-sufficiently volant) until October 15 (before night temperatures fall below 45°F and rains begin):
On day one, in the afternoon and under the supervision of a qualified biologist, chainsaws shall only be used to remove tree limbs that do not contain suitable bat roosting habitat (e.g., cavities, crevices, deep bark fissures). The next day, the rest of the tree shall be removed.
If trees containing bat habitat cannot be removed during the above seasonal periods of bat activity, a qualified bat biologist shall survey the trees to determine if the tree contains a maternity colony or winter torpor bats. If the qualified biologist cannot make this determination with certainty, the presence of maternity colonies or winter torpor bats shall be assumed, and removal of the tree shall be delayed until the seasonal periods of bat activity specified above. If the biologist determines bats are present but a maternity colony or winter torpor bats are absent, then the tree may be removed outside of the above periods of seasonal bat activity using the above two-step tree removal process. If the qualified biologist determines that bats are absent, then the tree may be removed without bat seasonality or method restrictions.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: Compensatory Mitigation Plan The IS/MND shall include appropriate and feasible compensatory mitigation for any loss of bat habitat including any impacts to the maternity, roosting, and/or hibernating habitat documented during bat protocol-level surveys. If the Project is expected to result in any loss of such bat habitat types, the mitigation and monitoring plan (Mitigation Measure 7 Mitigation and Monitoring Plan) shall include a biologically appropriate mitigation proposal to fully offset the loss of bat habitat.
COMMENT 3:
bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) are candidate species under CESA (CEQA Guidelines, §15380, subds. (c)(1)).
documented within the vicinity of the Project area and historic observations occur elsewhere in Santa Clara County (CDFW 2023). The Project location is within the https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA) and ruderal
grassland within and adjacent to the Project area may contain potential habitat for
The Project includes construction of foundations, underground duct banks, transport and installation and removal of poles, and substations that would create ground disturbances and that may occur within ruderal grass and herbaceous vegetation that Comment Set A001 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (continued) A1-11
(cont'd)
A1-12
Docus ign Envelope ID: 941EA1C0-1B7A-448D -9387-74D92C00CC30 Crotch's bumble bee
Crotch's
Crotch's bumble bee occurrences have been
Crotch's bumble bee range .__ ______________ _
Crotch's bumble bee.
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Allie Jackman
City of Santa Clara
August 29, 2024
Potential impacts
include direct mortality through crushing or filling of active bee colonies and hibernating bee cavities, reduced reproductive success, loss of suitable breeding and foraging habitats, loss of native vegetation that may support essential foraging habitat.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 6: Habitat Assessment
A habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified entomologist knowledgeable bee. The habitat
assessment shall include all suitable nesting, overwintering, and foraging habitats within the Project area and surrounding areas. Potential nest habitat (February through October) could include that of other Bombus species such as bare ground, thatched grasses, abandoned rodent burrows or bird nests, brush piles, rock piles, and fallen logs. Overwintering habitat (November through January) could include that of other Bombus species such as soft and disturbed soil or under leaf litter or other debris. The habitat assessment shall be conducted during peak bloom period for floral resources on within Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA).
Recommended Mitigation Measure 7: Herbicide Application To minimize impacts to bumble bees, avoid the bloom periods for herbicide application and mowing activities. If this is not possible, CDFW recommends that the Project obtain take authorization under an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).
Recommended Mitigation Measure 8:
Authorization
-
bee avoidance plan shall be developed and provided to CDFW for review prior to work activities involving ground disturbance or vegetation removal. If full take avoidance is not feasible, CDFW strongly recommends that the Project proponent apply to CDFW for take authorization under an ITP.
COMMENT 4: Western Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is designated by CDFW as a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) due to population decline and breeding range retraction. The species has also experienced a severe population decline in Santa Clara County. Known populations of burrowing owl occur within and adjacent to the Project area, and other suitable habitat.
Comment Set A001 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (continued) A1-12
(cont'd)
A1-13
Docusign Envelope ID: 941EA1C0-1B7A-448D-9387-74D92C00CC30 may be potential Crotch's bumble bee nesting and foraging habitat. with the life history and ecological requirements of Crotch's bumble which Crotch's bumble bee feed. Further guidance on habitat surveys can be found Crotch's Bumble Bee Avoidance or Take
If Crotch's bumble bee are detected during pre construction surveys, a Crotch's bumble including Levi's Stadium,
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Allie Jackman
City of Santa Clara
August 29, 2024
The Project includes construction of foundations, underground duct banks, transport and installation and removal of poles, and substations that would create ground disturbances and that may occur within ruderal grass and herbaceous vegetation that may be potential burrowing owl habitat. Direct mortality could occur through crushing of adults or young within burrows, loss of nesting burrows, loss of nesting habitat, loss of foraging habitat resulting in reduced nesting success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young), nest abandonment, and reduced frequency or duration of care for young resulting in reduced health or vigor of young.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 9: Habitat Assessment and Surveys The IS/MND should include a thorough habitat assessment of potential burrowing owl habitat within and adjacent to the Project area. A professional biologist experienced with burrowing owl and their habitat should conduct a field assessment that includes all areas that could be directly or indirectly impacted by the Project and include data such as vegetation type, vegetation structure and presence of burrows. Specific information on habitat assessment, burrowing owl survey methods, buffer distances and mitigation is provided in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, dated March 7, 2012, and available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey- Protocols#377281284-birds.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 10: Burrowing Owl Avoidance The IS/MND should state that if burrowing owls are detected during surveys within or near the Project area, a protective buffer in which construction activities will be avoided will be established. Appropriate buffers typically have a 50 to 500-meter radius and vary depending on the level of disturbance and timing of construction. If the burrowing owls show signs of distress (e.g., defensive vocalizations and/or flying away from the nest), the buffer distance should be increased.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a data base which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNDDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
Comment Set A001 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (continued) A1-13
(cont'd)
Docusign Envelope ID: 941 EA 1 C0-1 B7 A-448D-9387-7 4D92C00CC30 NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Allie Jackman
City of Santa Clara
August 29, 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (See Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Marcus Griswold, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist), at (707) 815-6451 or [email protected] or Jason Faridi, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
Attachment 1: Special-Status Species and Commercially/Recreationally Important Species
ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2024080009) Craig Weightman, Bay Delta Region [email protected]
REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.
Accessed April 25, 2024.
Comment Set A001 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (continued) Docusign Envelope ID: 941EA1C0-1B7A-448D-9387-74D92C00CC30 r Signed by:
L~~s ~~
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Allie Jackman
City of Santa Clara
August 29, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1: Special-Status Species
Species Status
Fish and Invertebrates
Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) State candidate (SC) Birds
Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia
pusillula)
Species of Special Concern
(SSC)
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) State Watch List
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) SSC
golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
State Fully Protected
(FP)
northern harrier (Circus hudsonius) SSC
tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) State Listed - Threatened, SSC white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) FP
Mammals
pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) SSC
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma
fuscipes annectens) SSC
Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus
townsendii) SSC
Reptiles and Amphibians
western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) Proposed Federally Listed - Threatened, SSC Plants
Congdon's tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii) S2, 1B.1
Comment Set A001 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (continued) Docusign Envelope ID: 941EA1C0-1B7A-448D-9387-74D92C00CC30 NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Wu, Elton H <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:55 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project
Cc: Wilson, Joanne; Read, Emily; Leung, Tracy; Feng, Stacie; Natesan, Ellen; Rando, Casey; RES; NRLM Public Notices; Russell, Rosanna S
Subject: NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project- Public Notification Response Attachments: FINAL Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Policy.pdf; 2015 Real Estate Guidelines.pdf; FINAL-Amended Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy.pdf
Hello,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City and County of San Francisco owns right of way property for high pressure water pipelines that traverse Santa Clara County. These pipelines (Bay Division Pipeline Nos. 3 and 4) are operated and maintained by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Sections of the SFPUC Right of Way (ROW) are located within the proposed project site generally south of Levi Stadium:
• SFPUC Parcel No. 128-A. ( A portion of APN 097-05-002) • SFPUC Parcel No. 130. (A portion of APN 104-06-020)
• SFPUC Parcel No. 132. ( A portion of APN 104-06-041)
• The SFPUC also has a permit for its pipelines on land owned by Santa Clara County and an easement from the railroad
Background
The SFPUC manages approximately 60,000 acres of watershed land and 150 miles of pipeline ROW in three Bay Area counties. These lands are part of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System providing water to approximately 2.7 million customers. The SFPUC monitors and protects its lands by reviewing proposed projects and activities that may affect SFPUC lands and infrastructure for consistency with SFPUC policies and plans.
San Francisco, through the SFPUC, operates several active water transmission pipelines including within the proposed project site in Santa Clara. These pipelines serve millions of water customers and include the Bay Division Pipeline (BDPL) Nos. 3 and 4. The ROW's primary purpose is to serve as utility corridors for water transmission. The primary use of the ROW land is for the delivery, operation, maintenance, and protection of its drinking water supply system. Secondary uses of ROW lands devoted to these purposes may be permitted only if those uses do not in any way interfere with, endanger or damage existing or future operations or the security of those systems.
Comments Regarding the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
Please work with Real Estate Services regarding the land rights as the project progresses. Since the SFPUC has a land right within the project site that gives it discretionary authority, the SFPUC should be listed as a responsible agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If staging or other construction activities are proposed on SFPUC fee owned property, then the SFPUC would be a responsible agency under CEQA. This should be stated in the environmental review document. As the project progresses, the project will need to come to SFPUC Project Review (which is further explained below).
In addition, the attached SFPUC land use policies should be included in the land use analysis and general analysis of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration. Land use and planning analyses H-13
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
under CEQA generally consider the compatibility of a project with neighboring areas, change to or displacement of existing uses, and consistency of a project with relevant local land use policies. The magnitude of land use conflicts or compatibility issues depends on the extent to which a project physically divides an established community or conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect such that an adverse impact on the environment occurs.
The SFPUC maintains policies to help inform how and in which instances its ROW can serve the needs of public agencies, private parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers while maintaining the safety and security of the pipelines that run underneath the ROW. SFPUC policies pertain to land use and structures, recreational use, utilities, vegetation, and water efficiency. Construction of structures on the ROW is generally prohibited, with prohibitions on structures or improvements that require excavation, bored footings, or concrete pads that are greater than 6 inches deep. No structures may be placed directly on top of a pipeline or within 20 feet of the edge of a pipeline. No utilities may be installed on the ROW running parallel to SFPUC’s pipelines; utilities may run perpendicular to pipelines with SFPUC approval. According to the SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines (copy attached), this includes the prohibition of aerial utility crossing or overhead transmission lines within the ROW. As the project progresses, SFPUC retains the right to disallow any use that, at the SFPUC’s sole discretion, may interfere with, endanger or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities.
If the proposed project or associated elements (ie: staging and overhead transmission lines) is located on or over SFPUC fee owned property, then certain SFPUC policies would apply. According to SFPUC’s Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties (copy attached), the SFPUC typically issues 5-year licenses for use of its property, with a form of rent and insurance required upon signing. These licenses are revocable, meaning that SFPUC can revoke them prior to the 5-year expiration. The licensee (user of SFPUC property) is to maintain landscaping and equipment to ensure that water is used efficiently. Water runoff leaving a landscaped area due to low head drainage, overspray, broken irrigation hardware, or other similar conditions is prohibited. Structures on the ROW are generally prohibited under SFPUC’s policies.
The SFPUC prohibits any use on its ROW property that:
1. Includes aerial utility crossing or overhead transmission lines within the ROW;
2. Cannot be removed promptly, to allow SFPUC construction, maintenance, or emergency repairs of its facilities.
3. Would conflict with SFPUC legal obligations to adjoining property owners or tenants. Some SFPUC parcels in the City of Milpitas could be subject to easements or other agreements held by adjoining landowners or third parties which may present conflicts with the proposed trail. Further research by the SFPUC’s Real Estate Services is needed, but it is possible that certain SFPUC parcels may not be available for trail use.
4. Would conflict with the resolution of unauthorized third-party encroachments that currently exist on some SFPUC ROW parcels.
5. Would create an unreasonable burden for the SFPUC (or its ratepayers) in the use of its property for utility purposes. The SFPUC reasonably anticipates that its property in the City of Milpitas will be available for future utility infrastructure and capital projects. Revocable licenses and leases issued by the SFPUC contain standard language requiring any lessee or licensee of SFPUC lands to mitigate the effects for the disruption of its recreational use on SFPUC lands, even if the SFPUC is causing the disruption of the recreational use. This includes required mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
6. Is otherwise inconsistent with SFPUC plans and policies.
H-14
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
This list is not exhaustive. The SFPUC retains the right to disallow any use that, at the SFPUC's sole discretion, may interfere with, endanger or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities.
In the case that landscaping is included in the proposal, then the SFPUC’s policies regarding vegetation on its Right of Way would apply. The SFPUC’s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (copy attached) was established to manage vegetation on the transmission, distribution, and collection systems within SFPUC’s ROW so that it does not pose a threat or hazard to the system’s integrity and infrastructure or impede utility maintenance and operations. These policies include regulations on the types of plantings that are permitted to occur within each zone of the ROW, regulations on annual grass and weed management, and policies pertaining to vegetation removal. If the proposed project were to include landscaping on SFPUC fee owned property, then these policies would apply.
SFPUC Project Review Process
Temporary staging areas and impacts from construction activities affecting the SFPUC right of way require extensive evaluation. This includes aerial utility crossing or overhead transmission lines.
Proposed projects and other activities on any SFPUC property or easement must undergo the Project Review Process if the project will include construction; digging or earth moving; clearing; installation; the use of hazardous materials; other disturbance to ROW resources; or the issuance of new or revised leases, licenses and permits. Even if the SFPUC pipelines are within a public right of way or area where the SFPUC does not have a land right, Project Review is recommended to avoid adverse impacts to critical water infrastructure. This review is done by the SFPUC's Project Review Committee (Committee).
The Committee is a multidisciplinary team with expertise in natural resources management, environmental regulatory compliance, engineering, water quality and real estate. Projects and activities are vetted by the Committee for consistency with SFPUC plans and policies.
In reviewing a proposed project, the Committee may conclude that modifications or avoidance and minimization measures are necessary. Large and/or complex projects may require several project review sessions to review the project at significant planning and design stages.
To initiate the Project Review process, please download and fill out a Project Review application at Project Review and Land Use - Bay Area (sfpuc.gov). Please submit the completed application to [email protected] and it will be scheduled for the next available Project Review meeting.
If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me or my supervisor, Casey Rando, Senior Environmental Compliance Planner, at [email protected].
Thanks,
Elton Wu
Pronouns: He/ Him
Environmental Compliance and Land Planner
SFPUC Water Enterprise
Natural Resources and Lands Management Division
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
cell: (415) 971-7657
[email protected]
H-15
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission
Real Estate Guidelines
Real Estate Services Division
January 13, 201 5
H-16
San Francisco
Water e"'
Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Comm ission NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
This page is intentionally left blank.
H-17
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE iii
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Real Estate Services Division ................................................................................... 1
1.2 The SFPUC Right of Way ......................................................................................... 1
1.3 RES’ Responsibilities ................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Permits Issued by Other SFPUC Divisions ............................................................... 2
1.5 Coordination with t he City Real Estate Division ........................................................ 2
1.6 Other Divisions Manage SFPUC Facilities ............................................................... 2 2 LAND USE ............................................................................................... 3 3 LEASE AND LICENSE PR E-REQUISITES ............................................. 4
3.1 Forms and the City Attorney’s Office ........................................................................ 4
3.2 Tenant and Licensee Selection Guidelines .............................................................. 4
3.3 Economic Terms ....................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Guidelines for Determining Rent for Leases and Licenses ....................................... 5
3.5 Project Review .......................................................................................................... 7
3.6 Insurance .................................................................................................................. 7
3.7 CEQA Clearance ...................................................................................................... 8 4 LEASING POLICIES (CI TY AS LANDLORD) ......................................... 9
4.1 Lease Approvals, Fees, and Security Deposits ........................................................ 9
4.2 Lease Execution ....................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Approval of Lease Amendments and Assignments .................................................. 9
4.4 Special Cases ........................................................................................................... 9 5 LICENSING POLICIES (CITY AS LICENSOR) ..................................... 11
5.1 General ................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 License Approvals, Fees, and Security Deposits ................................................... 11
5.3 Special Cases ......................................................................................................... 11 6 AGREEMENT APPROVALS ................................................................. 17
6.1 General Agreement Approval Authority .................................................................. 17
6.2 Approval Authority for Agreements Issued to Public Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations with a Charitable Purpose ............................................................... 18
6.3 General Manager’s Discretion ................................................................................ 19
6.4 Lease and License Reporting ................................................................................. 19 7 SFPUC AS TENANT OR LICENSEE ..................................................... 20 H-18
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE iv
7.1 Approval and Execution Authority ........................................................................... 20
7.2 Lease and License Types ....................................................................................... 20 8 RENTAL ACCOUNTING ........................................................................ 22
8.1 Processing Fees ..................................................................................................... 22
8.2 Late Fees and Grace Periods ................................................................................. 22
8.3 Employee Housing Rent Credits ............................................................................. 22
8.4 Southeast Community Facility Rent Offsets ........................................................... 23
8.5 Capital Project-Induced Rent Credits ..................................................................... 23
8.6 Grazing Tenant Long -Term Maintenance Rent Credits .......................................... 23 9 EASEMENT AGREEMENTS ................................................................. 24 10 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 24
H-19
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE v
ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS
Acting General Manager Deputy General Manager or Assistant General Manager specifically authorized to issue approvals and sign documents in the General Manager’s absence
AGM Assistant General Manager
BEM Bureau of Environmental Management
CAO City Attorney’s Office
CDD City Distribution Division
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NRLM Natural Resources and Lands Management Division RES Real Estate Services Division
Restricted Use Defined in Section 5.3.1
ROW Right of Way
SECF Southeast Community Facility
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SSIP Sewer System Improvement Program
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
WST Water Supply and Treatment Division
H-20
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Real Estate Services Division
The Real Estate Services Division (RES) of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) oversees SFPUC real property with income -producing potential. It also coordinates with SFPUC enterprises to oversee SFPUC real estate used by a third party pursuant to a lease, license, memorandum of understanding (MOU), or other agreement. To this end, RES performs asset management, leasing, licensing, sales and acquisition s, and development services for these lands. RES analysts spend the majority of their time ne gotiating licenses and leases.
The property under RES administration varies widely, ranging from golf courses to parking lots, quarries, employee housing, utility crossings, and agricultural lands.
1.2 The SFPUC Right of Way
As part of its utility system, the SFPUC operates and maintains approximately 1600 miles of water pipelines and tunnels, 160 miles of electrical transmission lines, and 900 miles of sewer lines and other related appurtenances that run through real property ( Right of Way or ROW) located in S an Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Tuolumne, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties. The City and County of San Francisco (City) owns most of the ROW in fee, although in some instances the SFPUC holds only an easement instead.
1.3 RES’ Responsibilities
RES:
• issues leases and long -term licenses for SFPUC property; • issues leases for employee housing;
• develops and implements policies to support the efficient operation of the SFPUC’s income-producing real estate;
• performs asset and certain asset administration functions for the SFPUC’s income - producing real estate;
• consults with other SFPUC divisions regarding real estate matters; • acts as a liaison to other SFPUC divisions to support pipeline improvement programs with respect to ROW real estate issues, suc h as the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) and the Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP); • manages the following real estate matters:
o p urchase and sale of real property interests, easements, and ancillary transactions for SFPUC lands, including tra nsfers between the SFPUC and other City departments;
o l ease of real property where the SFPUC is a tenant; and o c onsultation with the City Real Estate Division regarding other real estate matters as required by the City Charter and Administrative Code; and • seeks to develop and implement procedures to acquire permanent rights where the SFPUC only has revocable or conditional rights within the existing ROW.
H-21
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 2
1.4 Permits Issued by Other SFPUC Divisions
Five SFPUC divisions regularly issue access or use permits for SFPUC lands: RES, NRLM , the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power System (Hetch Hetchy), CDD and the Wastewater Enterprise .
The Land Engineering Division issues consent letters for potholing to locate pipeline depth and drafts consent letters in consultation with RE S and the CAO.
NRLM, CDD and the Wastewater Enterprise issue temporary access permits for short-term use of watershed and other SFPUC land and certain pipeline ROW uses with minimal revenue - generating potential, e.g., access for biological surveys and envi ronmental studies, photography, weddings, equestrian use, etc., as provided under Resolution No. 01 -0090.
Similar to the permits described above , Hetch Hetchy issues various non -revenue generating permits and consents for access and other uses of the SFPUC lands under its jurisdiction.
Because some of these categories overlap, interdivision consultation occurs regularly.
1.5 Coordination with the City Real Estate Division
Pursuant to Section 8B.121 of the City Charter, the SFPUC has exclusive charge of certain assets, including without limitation, the City's real property under the SFPUC's jurisdiction, subject to applicable law.
Separately, the City Real Estate Division has the delegated authority to negotiate leases , purchases, sales , and exchanges of real property interests on behalf of City departments and agencies, subject to any and all necessary governmental approvals. Consistent with the Administrative Code, RES may seek assistance from the City Real Estate Division on various real estate matters. Such matters include leasing privately owned property , negotiating the purchase, sale, and exchange of any interest in real property, and determining fair market value and fair market rental rates . This collaboration with the City Real Estate Division shall not be deemed to limit the SFPUC’s exclusive jurisdiction over its assets under the City Charter.
When working with the City Real Estate Division, RES acts primarily as a liaison between the City Real Estate Division and the SFPUC. In such instances, the Ci ty Real Estate Division prepares documents and recommendations necessary for SFPUC and Board of Supervisor s review and approval, as applicable, related to such real property matters.
1.6 Other Divisions Manage SFPUC Facilities
RES does not manage SFPUC office s, facilities, or field stations under the jurisdiction of NRLM, CDD, the Water Supply and Treatment Division, Hetch Hetchy, or the Wastewater or Power Enterprises. Typically, each enterprise manages its own facilities, sometimes in coordination with the City Real Estate Division.
H-22
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 3
2 Land Use
Through its Watershed Management Plans, the SFPUC has adopted specific land use policies for watershed lands. Other specific land use policies also apply to certain other lands under SFPUC jurisdiction, such as the Lak e Merced Tract. See Exhibit 2. In 2012, the SFPUC adopted the Land Use Framework , available at http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=586 .
The priority uses of SFPUC land are protecting the watershed and maintaining and operating utility infrast ructure for the SFPUC’s water, power, and sewer enterprises. Certain secondary uses by third parties on watershed land , ROW and other SFPUC property are allowed under lease or license agreements. Such secondary use may occur if RES, in consultation with the SFPUC ent erprise having jurisdiction, determines that such use benefits the SFPUC and if such secondary use does not in any way interfere with, endanger, or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security , or facilities.
The SFPUC disallows any use that:
• risks contamination of our land or water with hazardous materials; • provides aerial utility crossing or overhead transmission lines within the ROW or watershed;
• cannot be removed promptly, to allow SFPUC construction, maintenance or emergency repairs of its facilities;
• fulfills another jurisdiction's open space, setback, parking, or third -party development requirements;
• makes the ROW the sole emergency access to a neighboring property; • creates a regulatory compliance issue;
• includes installation of structures , trees or large shrubs on the ROW; • would increase the SFPUC’s potential liability or diminish the security of the SFPUC’s utility infrastructure;
• includes installation of utilities, roads, fences, or other improvements parallel to, rather than across, SFPUC pipelines or electric transmission lines; • includes the ROW as part of a transit -oriented development plan, dedicated rapid transit lane, or transit corridor; or
• is inconsistent with any existing or future SFPUC policies, as they may be amended or modified from time to time.
This list is not exhaustive. The SFPUC retains the right to disallow any use that, at the SFPUC’s sole discretion, may interfere with, endanger or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities.
H-23
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 4
3 Lease and License Pre-Requisites
3.1 Forms and the City Attorney’s Office
RES uses lease and license forms authorized by the Commission and approved by the City Attorney’s Office (CAO), as amended from time to time. All leases and licenses use the appropriate form or ancillary form with modifications for special circumstances, as authorized by the Commission and approved by the CAO . Lease and license forms may have alternative clauses which RES analysts may negotiate. RES also uses consent letters and other real estate forms prepared by the CAO. The CAO must approve every agreement as to form before the SFPUC executes it . The General Manager, after CAO consultation, may negotiate and approve modifications to the forms, provided the modifications do not materially increase the City’s liability or obligations or materially decrease the City’s rights. RES consult s with the CAO and the City Risk Manager, when appropriate, regarding material deviations from the lease and license forms.
See Exhibit 1 for a list of current forms.
3.2 Tenant and Licensee Selection Guidelines
Consistent with the City's policy reflected in Chapter 23 of the City Administrative Code, all leases and licenses expected to produce more than $2,500 per month in revenue shall be awarded in accordance with compet itive bidding requirements unless impractical or impossible, except as otherwise specifically approved by the Commission. Chapter 23 does not provide guidance on the circumstances that would make competitive bidding impossible or impractical, so that the General Manager or Acting General Manager in his or her reasonable judgment, must make that impossible or impractical determination, in light of City’s policy in favor of receiving fair market rents. By adopting these Guidelines, the Commission has determ ined that the following are examples, but not an exhaustive list, of circumstances where competitive bidding is impractical or impossible: (i) where the location of a ROW parcel is such that it can only be used by an adjacent owner, operator, or tenant, so that it is reasonable to expect that a competitive bidding process would not attract multiple bidders ; (ii) where many tenants lease space at one facility or site, such as a telecommunications tower ; and (iii) when it is not cost-effective to engage in co mpetitive bidding solicitations. The determination that competitive bidding would be impossible or impractical should be memorialized in a file memorandum .
Except in special circumstances as discussed in Section s 4 and 5, the SFPUC’s goal is to obtain Fair Market Rent, as defined in Section 3.4.1. Any lease or license awarded without competitive bidding must be in an amount not less than the fair market value of the leased or licensed premises. If the SFPUC wishes to award a lease or license for less than Fair Market Rent, the SFPUC is required to make a finding of the public purpose to be served by such lease or license .
Such finding and the license or lease is subject to the prior approval of the Commission, the General Manager, and any other applica ble governing body.
RES also evaluates applicant s based on the proposed use of the SFPUC parcel. Uses must be compatible with the SFPUC’s municipal utility mission and not interfere with, endanger, or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities. Proposed uses must be consistent with the SFPUC’s land use policies discussed in Section 2, including those policies expressed in the SFPUC’s Watershed Management Plans, Interim SFPUC Water Pipeline Right H-24
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 5
of Way Use Policy for San Mateo, Sa nta Clara and Alameda Counties , Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy, and Land Use Framework. RES also evaluates and verifies each applicant’s financial qualifications and other information. RES’ criteria for due diligence, applicant financial qualifications , and entity approval are stated in the internal RES Operating Manual. RES must approve such applicant information prior to making any commitment to commence negotiations for a lease or license, the final form of which remains subject to applicable governmental approvals.
3.3 Economic Terms
RES calculates processing and use fees, rent, and security deposits as stated below:
SUMMARY OF BASIC BUSINESS TERMS FOR AGREEMENTS
Lease Processing Fee Minimum of $3,000 , subject to adjustment (Section 8.1) License Processing Fee
Minimum of $2,000 , subject to adjustment (Section 8.1) Minimum of $750 if issued to a Public Agency or Non profit Organization with a Charitable Purpose
Processing Fee for Lease
Amendments, Assignments or
Renewals
Minimum of $1,000
Rent or Use Fee Fair Market Rent, except in special cases (see Sections 3.4.2,
4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 5.3)
Adjustments to Rent Four percent (4%) annual increase, unless nominal rent or special case exception (Sections 4.1 and 5.2)
Security Deposit Minimum of two months’ rent /use fee, subject to adjustment (Section 5.2)
Property Taxes
Tenant or Licensee reimburses the SFPUC for 100% of the property taxes and assessments applicable to the leased or licensed premises
The Real Estate Director may waive or reduce a processing fee in certain limited circumstances:
(a) for a renewing tenant or licensee or (b) upon a showing of benefit to SFPUC and written approval by the General Manager or Acting General Manager . In addition to a processing fee, RES may charge for staff and attorney time involved in preparation and approval of real estate agreements.
3.4 Guidelines for Determining Rent for Leases and Licenses
3.4.1 Fair Market Rent Determination
RES determines fair market rent for the leases it issues (and fair mar ket use fees in the case of H-25
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 6
licenses) (Fair Market Rent ), except in certain specified cases as explained below. a. Market Approach to Value
RES uses the market approach to value to determine Fair Market Rent for income -producing property where appropriate.
RES determines Fair Market Rent by analyzing rental rates in comparable transactions or other available market data through the use of real estate databases or by consulting with commercial real estate brokers , appraisers, or other experts.
b. Income Approach to Value
In the case of any lease or license on the pipeline ROW or for other SFPUC property where finding comparable transactions is difficult, RES establishes Fair Market Rent by using the income approach to value.
This method translates land values into a lease or license rate:
Lease/License Area X Fee Value of the Land X Expected Rate -of-Return (for the market area) = Lease or License Rate
c. Discount for Pipeline Right of Way
The SFPUC sometimes may discount the rental rate to compensate for limited use of the leased or licensed property due to the presence of underground or other facilities that impede use.
Some properties are not discounted if the presence of SFPUC infrastructure does not impact the highest and best use of the property.
d. Reserved Rights Adjustment to Value
SFPUC property is sometimes encumbered by an easement, or by rights reserved in the deed by which the SFPUC originally acquired title. In any such case, a rental rate may be further adjusted after reviewing the proposed use and existing deed rights, as appropriate. Use rights such as agriculture, roadways, and utility crossings that were expressly reserved to the original grantor and its successors or assigns and that are exercised in a manner consistent in purpose, scope , and intensi ty of use with the express language of the deed may result in a Fair Market Rent discount in connection with the valuation process.
e. MAI Appraisal
An applicant, at its sole cost, may also obtain an appraisal by an MAI appraiser to determine Fair Market Rent for a property. The SFPUC is not bound by the appraisal and in many cases, may order an MAI appraisal, at its sole cost or with the applicant’s participation, to confirm the true rental value of a property.
f. Consultation with the City Director of Property
In keeping with the City's policy of achieving greater consistency and coordination in the City's leasing practices, RES submits any proposed license or lease having a term (including any extension option(s)) of five years or longer, or anticipated revenu e of more than $500,000 over such term, to the City's Director of Property for review and advisory recommendations before final approval of the lease or license. In such cases, RES also requests that the Director of Property evaluate Fair Market Rental rates to aid and assist in negotiating, extending , or renewing the lease or license.
H-26
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 7
3.4.2 Nominal Value Rentals
It is often difficult to determine the Fair Market Rental rate of some SFPUC parcels due to their zoning, irregular size or shape, location, or limited potential use. Nominal rent is the SFPUC’s designated estimate of fair market value for these very specific instances. Properties determined to have nominal value are typically used by tenants or licensees for temporary access, driveway access, landscap ing, agricultural, or temporary construction staging purposes (for SFPUC construction projects only) .
Many vacant parcels that have little or no income -producing potential require annual expenditures by the SFPUC for weed abatement and trash removal. These maintenance obligations can be passed on to tenants or licensees under nominal rent leases or licenses, relieving the SFPUC of such costs. Land uses under nominal rent lease or license agreements must be strictly limited to preclude uses that could negatively affect the value of the land, or result in a regulatory enforcement action against SFPUC as landowner. The Real Estate Director determines if a proposed lease or license meets the criteria for a nominal rent agreement and approves all nominal renta l rate determinations. Nominal rent is presently defined as a $2,400 per year or $200 per month. The General Manager or Acting General Manager is authorized to approve nominal rent leases and licenses for agreements having a term up to five years.
3.5 Project Review
The SFPUC reviews most proposed uses of SFPUC land through project review committees.
The In- City Project Review Committee, which usually meets twice monthly, reviews all in-City proposals. The Project Review Committee, which typically meets twi ce month ly, reviews all proposals for use of SFPUC lands outside of San Francisco in the Bay Area . Representatives of several internal divisions attend the meetings to review projects through this process, vetting proposals for environmental compliance, infrastructure conflicts, and real estate issues.
3.6 Insurance
3.6.1 Insurance and Indemnity Requirements
The City Risk Manager, after CAO consultation, determines the insurance and indemnity requirements in the standard lease and license forms approved by the CAO. Accordingly, RES makes any material variations from these requirements only after consulting the CAO and obtaining City Risk Manager approval. RES should also consult with the SFPUC Risk Manager to determine if additional insurance is needed in a lease o r license in light of the particular proposed use and location, or if waiver of a particular insurance requirement is warranted .
With the exception of employee housing, prior to taking occupancy , each tenant and licensee must show a certificate of insuranc e and endorsements evidencing the insurance required by its lease or license.
Each tenant and licensee must be insured during the entire term of occupancy , subject to Section
3.6.2. 3.6.2 S elf-Insurance by Tenants and Licensees
Some large corporations and public entities regularly self -insure. If an applicant asks to meet the City insurance requirements by self -insuring, RES requests documentation from the applicant H-27
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 8
showing that the applicant regularly self -insures and has adequate assets. If such requirements are satisfied, RES obtains written concurrence from the City Risk Manager. The insurance section of the lease or license may be amended as appropriate, subject to review and approval by the City Risk Manager, after CAO consultation.
3.7 CEQA Clearance
Before deciding to issue a lease or license agreement, the SFPUC must determine if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to the proposed agreement, and if so, verify compliance. RES coordinates with the SFPUC’s Bureau of Environmental Managemen t (BEM) to confirm that all appropriate environmental analysis and approvals have occurred .
H-28
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 9
4 Leasing Policies (City as Landlord)
4.1 Lease Approvals, Fees, and Security Deposits
The Commission has the sole authority to approve all leases for use of SFPUC lan ds, subject however, to any additional approvals by the City Board of Supervisors and Mayor required by the City Charter. The Commission has delegated certain approval authority to the General Manager, and in certain instances, authorized the General Manager to act through an Acting General Manager. See Section 6 for more information on lease approvals.
Processing f ees for leases issued by RES are stated in Section 3.3. The Real Estate Director is responsible for reviewing the fee schedule annually and adjusting the fees, as appropriate , subject to Commission approval. Generally, security deposits equal two months’ rent or the fair market value of two months’ use of the property. The Real Estate Director may increase the amount required in a specific lease, depending on the proposed use of the property.
Rent generally increases four percent annually during the term.
4.2 Lease Execution
Generally, t he General Manager or Acting General Manager executes all income- producing leases on the SFPUC’s behalf, except for employee housing.
The SFPUC leases residential housing to certain Watershed and Water Supply and Treatment Division employees. The Real Estate Director executes all employee residential leases.
4.3 Approval of Lease Amendments and Assignments
The requisite approval for lease amendments and assignments is determined on a case -by-case basis, evaluated on the terms of the original lease and the terms of the proposed lease amendment or assignment. If the original lease required Commission and/or Board of Supervisors approval, the lease amendment or assignment will likely require the same.
4.4 Special Cases
4.4.1 The Southeast Community Facility
To balance the effects of the legally required expansion of the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant in the mid -1970s, the City provided mitigation in the form of a commercial greenhouse and skills-training center. Drawing on the support of the citizens of the Bayview -Hunters Point area, the City elected to construct a greenhouse and a multipurpose “Skills Center” facility p roviding skills-training, education, child and senior daycare programs , and community meeting facilities to offset the adverse impacts of the sewage treatment plant on the neighborhood. Thus, the Southeast Community Facility (SECF), located at 1800 Oakdal e Avenue, San Francisco, and the greenhouses, located at 1150 Phelps Street, San Francisco, were built in or about 1986. The SFPUC operates the SECF and the adjacent greenhouse, regardless of revenues generated or expenses incurred, to mitigate effects on the surrounding community arising from the construction and operation of the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant.
H-29
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 10
4.4.2 Cottage Leases
Certain provisions of cottage leases to W atershed Keepers and Watershed Keeper Supervisors are governed by the SEIU Local 1021 MOU, as amended from time to time .
H-30
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 11
5 Licensing Policies (City as Licensor)
5.1 General
In general, RES issues licenses allowing improvements on SFPUC property for uses such as roads, public parks, surface utility installations, long -term subsurface utilit y installations , parking, landscaping and agriculture. RES also issues licenses for temporary surface uses such as construction staging. All licenses are revocable, and most are revenue -generating.
In the past, the Commission has allowed discounted rent to public agencies and nonprofit organizations in certain circumstances , subject however to any applicable governmental approvals. Due to the increased development pressures in the Bay Area, SFPUC lands have become increasingly attractive to public agencies , private developers and others for recreation, parking, landscaping and other uses. Discounted use fees are not available when an applicant seeks to use SFPUC property to satisfy any open space or other entitlement condition of a local jurisdiction or for commercial or revenue -generating purposes . In such circumstances, the license agreement must charge Fair Market Rent .
5.2 License Approvals, Fees, and Security Deposits
Approval requirements for RES-issued licenses are stated in Section 6. Processing fees for such licenses are stated in Section 3.3. The Real Estate Director is responsible for reviewing the fee schedule annually and adjusting the processing fees, as appropriate , subject to Commission approval. In license agreements, the periodic rent is called a “use fee.” Generally, security deposits equal two months’ use fee or the fair market value of two months’ use of the property.
The Real Estate Director may increase the amount of security deposit required, depending on the proposed use of the property .
Use fees generally increase four percent annually during the term.
Some licenses may not fit neatly into one of the categories in Section 6. In such cases, the SFPUC seeks to obtain Fair Market Rent; otherwise Commission approval may be required a s stated in Section 6 . A public agency or nonprofit organization that may ordinarily qualify for a discounted use fee may opt to pay Fair Market Rent in accordance with Sections 5.3.1(b) and
5.3.2(b) below.
5.3 Special Cases
5.3.1 Licenses Issued to Public Agencies
a. Licenses Issued on a Discounted or Rent -Free Basis
RES may issue a revocable license to a public agency on a discounted or rent -free basis, subject to the criteria described below. A ny such license must meet the requirements described in Section 3, other than Fair Market Rent, and all such licenses require approval by the Commission, and if applicable, the City’s Board of Supervisors and Mayor, each in their respective sole discretion.
H-31
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 12
The SFPUC defines “public agency ” as any city, county, state or federa l entity, including water districts.
1. The licensed property must:
• have little or no revenue -generating potential;
• be located within the boundaries of the city , county or district if a city, county or district is the license applicant;
• be fully maintained a nd repaired by the licensee under the terms of the license agreement;
• not be desired by more than one applicant ; otherwise the licensee must pay full Fair Market Value; and
• not be proposed for any of the following uses, each of which is a restricted use (ea ch a Restricted Use, and collectively Restricted Uses):
o use primarily intended to satisfy any open space or entitlement condition of a local jurisdiction;
o use paid for by fee paid in lieu of dedication of open space, parks or other dedication to satisfy an entitlement condition ;
o use for transit purposes;
o use for emergency access; or
o use for any profit-generating activity .
Finally, the license must benefit the SFPUC’s primary utility purpose s.
If the applicant cannot meet these criteria or plans to use SFPUC land for a Restricted Use, the standard license policy applies, and RES may consider issuing a license at the Fair Market Rate or for receipt of adequate substitute consideration .
Any such license must be conferred by way of a revocable license only on a CAO-approved standard form, and each and every license remains subject to any applicable governmental approvals.
2. License fees are as follows:
• The SFPUC must charge a minimum processing fee of $750 for all licenses issued to public agencies, subject to Section 8.1;
• The licensee must pay directly or reimburse the SFPUC for 100% of the licensee’s pro rata share of property taxes and similar assessments; • The SFPUC will not charge any use fee for non-Restricted Uses; • For other non-Restricted Uses , a discounted fee of up to 50% of the value of the land or improvement multiplied by the appropriate rate of return or adequate substitute consideration.
The SFPUC prefers p rojects that do not require SFPUC maintenance, present a low risk of liability, enhance community relations, or benefit SFPUC operations and capital improvement programs.
The discounted rate does not apply when a public agency seeks to use SFPUC property to enhance or mitigate the effects of private development or for any commercial or revenue - generating activity (other than for municipal utility purposes) .
H-32
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 13
3. Approval Authority
Licenses issued to public agencies at a discounted rate require Commission approval through the Consent Calendar. However, a public agency may request a license issued at F air Market Rent in accordance with Section 5.3.1(b) below. Any such license must meet the requirements described in Section 3.
b. Licenses Issued at Fair Market Rent
If a public agency agrees to pay Fair Market Rent, the license term is up to five years and total anticipated revenue over the term of the license is less than $300,000, the General Manager or Acting General Manager is authorized to execute the license.
5.3.2 Licenses Issued to Nonprofit Organizations Having a Charitable Purpose a. Licenses Issued on a Discounted or Rent -Free Basis
RES may issue a revocable license for property to a nonprofit organization having a charitable purpose at a discounted rate, provided that the applicant meets the criteria described below, subject however, to all applicable governmental approvals in each instance:
1. The licensed property must:
• have little or no profit -generating potential;
• be fully maintained and repaired by the licensee under the terms of the license ; • not be desired by more than one applicant, otherwise the licensee must pay full Fair Market Value; and
• not be proposed for any use designed to satisfy any local jurisdiction’s open space or entitlement requirement or for any commercial or revenue -generating activity .
Finally, the license must benefit the SFPUC’s primary u tility purposes.
Any such license must meet the requirements described in Section 3, other than Fair Market Rent, and is subject to any applicable governmental approvals.
If the applicant cannot meet these criteria, the standard license policy applies, and RES will only issue a license at Fair Market Rent, subject to any applicable competitive bidding requirements .
2. License fees are as follows:
• The SFPUC must charge a minimum processing fee of $750 for all licenses issued to nonprofit organizations , subject to Section 8. 1;
• The licensee must pay directly or reimburse the SFPUC for 100% of the licensee’s pro rata share of property taxes and similar assessments ; • A discounted use fee of up to 50% of the value of the land or improvement multiplied by the appropriate rate of return
3. Approval Authority
Any l icense issued to a nonprofit organization with a charitable purpose at a discounted rate requires Commission approval on the Consent Calendar. However, a nonprofit organization may request a license issued at F air M arket Rent in accordance with Section 5.3.2(b) below . Any such license must meet the requirements described in Section 3.
H-33
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 14
4. The nonprofit organization must fit within the eligibility requirements:
This policy is intended to grant a discount to nonprofit organizations where the proposed use and terms of any particular license provide a benefit to SFPUC’s municipal utility purposes . Not all nonprofit organizations fall within this category, and therefore the following guidelines should be used when determining whether to grant a discount.
The SFPUC prefers projects that do not require SFPUC maintenance, present a low risk of liability, enhance community relations, or benefit SFPUC operations and capital improvement programs.
This policy provides guidance, b ut cannot address every conceivable situation that may arise.
Thus, the SFPUC determines on a case- by-case basis whether an organization and its proposed use qualif y for a discounted rate, within reasonable discretion. No nonprofit organization is automatically entitled to a discounted rate, but the Commission intends that this policy be implemented in a fair and non -discriminatory manner.
When the discounted rate applies:
• The discounted rate applies only to those nonprofit organizations that advance char itable purposes for the general public and intend to use the land to further that charitable purpose; and where the use benefits the SFPUC’s primary utility purpose s. • To qualify for consideration, the organization must be certified as a nonprofit organiz ation under state and federal law and must provide evidence of such certification to RES, along with copies of any organizational documents or other documents requested by RES to demonstrate the organization's charitable purpose.
When the discounted rate d oes not apply:
• The discounted rate does not apply to any organization that discriminates against persons or groups for any reason whatsoever in violation of applicable law or City policy. • The discounted rate does not apply to any nonprofit organization tha t uses SFPUC land or adjacent land for any commercial or revenue -generating activity. In other words, a nonprofit organization that owns or leases commercial or retail property on adjacent land is not eligible for a discount.
• The discounted rate does no t apply where the nonprofit organization’s use of SFPUC land does not benefit the SFPUC’s primary utility purpose s. • In addition, no discount is given to any nonprofit organization that charges individuals for parking or other uses of SFPUC land without the prior approval of the Commission, and if applicable, the City’s Board of Supervisors and Mayor . b. Licenses Issued at Fair Market Rent
The General Manager or Acting General Manager is authorized to approve a license when a nonprofit organization having a charitable purpose agrees to pay Fair Market Rent, the license term is five years or less and total anticipated revenue over the term of the license is $300,000 or less. Any such license must meet the requirements described in Section 3.
5.3.3 Right of Way Encroac hment Permits
It is vitally important that the SFPUC protect its Water, Power and Wastewater facilities from damage and ensure immediate access to all facilities for maintenance, repair , and replacement.
Increased urbanization and development around the w ater transmission ROW in particular have led to an increase in the number of ROW encroachments. Encroachments are permitted only H-34
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 15
where the uses provide identifiable benefits to the SFPUC, as determined by the SFPUC Water Enterprise and RES. The Real Esta te Director approves uses found consistent with existing SFPUC policy and issues the requisite Encroachment Permit in accordance with the SFPUC Right of Way Encroachment Policy. The Right of Way Encroachment Policy , adopted through Resolution No. 99-0252, as amended by Resolution No. 07- 0027, may be found online at http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=183 .
a. Encroachment Permits for Bisected Parcels and Parcels Lacking Access SFPUC’s Right of Way E ncroachment Policy defines a “bisected” parcel as a private residential lot adjacent to the ROW, where the adjacency either results in an irregular parcel size or shape or adversely affects access to the parcel. A parcel lacking access cannot connect to a public road or walkway without crossing the ROW. If appropriate, RES may issue a permit to the encroaching party requiring the encroaching party to:
1. Pay a use fee of $125 per year for occupancy for a term of up to five years;
2. Indemnify the City against third-party claims related to the permittee’s negligence or misconduct;
3. Pay any applicable property taxes and assessments and provide insurance; and
4. Inform the new owner of the encroachment if the bisected parcel is sold. The new owner may be given the opp ortunity to enter into a similar permit.
Such encroachment permits are issued on a form of Revocable Permit developed by the CAO specifically for bisected parcels. Other requirements and s pecial administrative procedures for the negotiation of an encroach ment permit for a bisected parcel may be found in the SFPUC Right of Way Encroachment Removal Policy.
b. Municipal Uses
Unpermitted municipal uses, landscaping , or improvements may be eligible for an encroachment permit to allow continuing use. Any encroachment permit issued to a municipality will:
1. Determine which party will bear the cost of removal and replacement of municipal improvements;
2. Allow for continuing use;
3. Include provisions allowing the SFPUC to take appropriate measures to maintain erosion control and address the aesthetic appearance of its ROW ; and
4. Be issued on SFPUC’s standard form license agreement with modifications authorized as described in Section 3.1 .
c. Neighborhood Groups
Neighborhood groups sometimes landscape portions of the SFPUC ROW. Any encroachment permit issued to a neighborhood group to allow continuing use must:
1. Be signed by a preapproved financially responsible legal entity in good standing;
2. Require a use fee of $125 per year for occupancy for a term of up to five years ;
3. Require that the permittee indemnify the City against third -party claims related to the permittee’s negligence or misconduct;
4. Require that the permittee p ay any applicable property taxes and assessment s and provide insurance;
5. Determine which party will bear the co st of removal and replacement of such landscaping; in the event that SFPUC removes it or requires its removal; H-35
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 16
6. Allow ornamental landscaping compatible with the Vegetation Management Policy;
7. Require the permittee to provide insurance;
8. Place responsibility for all landscaping installation and maintenance on the permittee; and
9. Be issued on SFPUC’s standard form license agreement with modifications authorized as described in Section 3.1 .
See the SFPUC Encroachment Removal Policy , available at http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=183 , for more information regarding encroachment permits.
5.3.4 SFPUC Contractors
The General Manager or Acting General Manager may approve licenses to and waive rent for SFPUC cont ractors needing space in connection with the projects they perform for SFPUC, on a case-by-case basis.
5.3.5 Memoranda of Understanding with Other City Departments The SFPUC sometimes negotiate s MOUs with other City departments regarding the use of SFPUC propert y. Any rent-free MOU for use of SFPUC property where there is no jurisdictional transfer require s Commission approval on the Consent Calendar. For any MOU where another City department pays Fair Market Rent, see Section 6.1’s Fair Market Rent section for approval requirements.
In any case of an MOU between the SFPUC and another City department in which there is a jurisdictional transfer, Commission and Board of Supervisors approval is required.
H-36
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 17
6 Agreement Approvals
Approvals required for any particular Ci ty as landlord lease or license will be determined on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with City’s Charter, Administrative Code and applicable law.
For reference, the following charts provide guidance as to the approvals generally required for City as landlord leases and licenses.
6.1 General Agreement Approval Authority
REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT APPROVALS
City as Landlord (Leases and Licenses)
At Fair
Market
Rent
Agreement with total anticipated revenue of $1 million or more over the term (including options to renew)
Regular Calendar
and Board of
Supervisors
Agreement with term of 10 years or more (including options to renew)
Regular Calendar
and Board of
Supervisors
Agreement with total anticipated revenue under $1 million and above $300,000 over the term, and/or with a term less than 10 years and more than 5 years (including options to renew)
Consent Calendar
Agreement with total anticipated revenue of $300,000 or less over the term, and term of 5 years or less (including options to renew)
General Manager
or Acting General
Manager
Below Fair
Market
Rent
Agreement with total anticipated revenue of $1 million or more over the term (including options to renew)
Regular Calendar
and Board of
Supervisors
Agreement with term of 10 years or more (including options to renew)
Regular Calendar
and Board of
Supervisors
Agreement with total anticipated revenue less than $1 million over the term and a term less than 10 years (including
options to renew)
Consent Calendar
Special
Cases
One-time Revocable License with term of five years or less where the property valuation is impractical or impossible due to the configuration of the SFPUC property or other
circumstances, or the use is limited (e.g., construction staging for SFPUC contractors or equipment stor age) and valuation will not exceed $2,500 per month
General Manager
or Acting General
Manager
H-37
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 18
REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT APPROVALS
City as Landlord (Leases and Licenses)
Special
Cases
SFPUC Employee Housing Lease Real Estate
Director
Encroachment Perm it for Bisected Parcel, with a term of 5 years or less, including options to renew
Real Estate
Director
Other Encroachment Permits (which are issued on SFPUC’s standard license agreement form)
See the applicable
category under “At
Fair Market Rent”
or “Below Fair
Market Rent”
above
Nominal value rentals under Section 3.4.2
General Manager
or Acting General
Manager
Revocable licenses to SFPUC contractors needing space in connection with the projects they perform for the SFPUC General Manager
or Acting General
Manager
MOU with City department below Fair Market Rent where
there is no jurisdictional transfer Consent Calendar
MOU with City department at Fair Market Rent where there is no jurisdictional transfer
See the applicable
category under “At
Fair Market Rent”
6.2 Approval Authority for Agreements Issued to Public
Agencies and Non profit Organizations with a Charitable Purpose
AGREEMENTS ISSUED TO PU BLIC AGENCIES AND NON PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS WITH A CHARITABLE PURPOSE
City as Landlord
At Fair
Market
Rent
Agreement with term of 5 years or less and total anticipated revenue of $300,000 or less over the term (including options to renew)
General Manager or
Acting General
Manager
Agreement with total anticipated revenue under $1 million and above $300,000 over the term, and/or with a term less than 10 years and more than 5 years (including options to renew)
Consent Calendar
H-38
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 19
AGREEMENTS ISSUED TO PU BLIC AGENCIES AND NON PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS WITH A CHARITABLE PURPOSE
City as Landlord
Discounted
Use Fee
Revocable License issued to a public agency or nonprofit organization for park, recreation, or landscaping purposes where SFPUC property will not be used to satisfy any private property entitlement condition or for any commercial or revenue-generating activity
Consent Calendar
Revocable License issued for any other use where SFPUC
property will not be used to satisfy any private property entitlement condition or for any commercial or revenue- generating activity
Consent Calendar
6.3 General Manager’s Discretion
The General Manager retains full discretion to submit any agreement to the Commission for approval even if Commission approval may not be required under the above criteria.
6.4 Lease and License Reporting
RES shall provide notices and reports of all SFP UC leases and licenses in accordance with City Charter and Administrative Code requirements.
H-39
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 20
7 SFPUC as Tenant or Licensee
7.1 Approval and Execution Authority
The SFPUC General Manager or Acting General Manager , after CAO consultation, has the authority to approve and execute certain agreements described in Section 7.2, below. If authorized by the Commission, subject to specific criteria identified to guide the decision, the General Manager may exercise the delegated power through the Acting General Manager.
The SFPUC also negotiates MOUs with other City departments regarding SFPUC use of other City properties. Where no jurisdictional transfer occurs and expected expenditures are $5,000 or less per month, with a term of five years or less, the General Manag er, or Acting General Manager, may approve such MOUs. Also, the General Manager or Acting General Manager may approve MOUs allowing use of other City properties by the SFPUC for infrastructure, including MOUs allowing street vacations where the City will continue to own the property. Where no jurisdictional transfer occurs and expected expenditures exceed $5,000 per month and/or the term is greater than 5 but less than 10 years, the Commission shall approve such MOUs on its Consent Calendar .
7.2 Lease and License Types
REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT APPROVALS
City as Tenant or Licensee
Agreement with total Anticipated Expenditures of $10 Million or more over the term (including options to renew)
Regular Calendar and
Board of Supervisors
Agreement with term of 10 years or longer (including options to renew) Regular Calendar and Board of Supervisors
Agreement with total anticipated expenditures of more than $300,000 and less than $10 Million over the term (including options to renew) Regular Calendar Agreement with term of more than 5 and less than 10 years (including options to renew) Regular Calendar
Agreement with anticipated expenditures of $300,000 or less and t erm of 5 years or less (including options to renew)
General Manager or
Acting General Manager
MOU with City department with anticipated monthly expenditures paid by SFPUC of more than $5,000, with no jurisdictional transfer Consent Calendar
H-40
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 21
REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT APPROVALS
City as Tenant or Licensee
MOU with City department with anticipated expenditures paid by SFPUC of $5,000 or less per month, with no jurisdictional transfer General Manager or
Acting General Manager
MOU with City department for SFPUC infrastructure (e.g., continuing SFPUC use following street vacation), with no jurisdictional transfe r General Manager or
Acting General Manager
H-41
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 22
8 Rental Accounting
When appropriate, the Real Estate Director may exercise the authority to waive processing fees, holdover rent provisions (to the extent they double or triple the rent), and late fees related to such extraordinary escalations in any agreement based on continuing good faith negotiations or other unforeseen circumstances that result in the agreement remaining in holdover status through no fault of the tenant or licensee. The monthly rent or use fee, including annual escalations and all other terms and conditions of the lease or license are still enforced when in holdover status.
8.1 Processing Fees
The R eal Estate Director may waive or reduce a processing fee as follows: (a) for a renewing tenant or licensee or (b) upon a showing of benefit to SFPUC and written approval by the General Manager or Acting General Manager . RES may charge applicants for staff and attorney time involved in preparation and approval of leases and licenses.
8.2 Late Fees and Grace Periods
Upon written application from a tenant or licensee and a demonstration by such tenant or licensee of its ability to promptly cure any arrearages, the Real Estate Director may extend in writing up to two grace periods for payment of rental or use fees and waive collection of up to two late payment fees for a tenant or licensee during any given calendar year of the lease or license, up to a maximum annual amount of $5,000.
The Real Estate Director may not approve any further grace periods or late fee waivers for a tenant or licensee without the prior written consent of the General Manager or Acting General Manager. Except as provided in Section 8. 2, n either the Real Estate Director nor the General Manager shall be authorized to waive payments of pa st due rent without Commission approval, and if applicable, Board of Supervisors approval.
8.3 Employee Housing Rent Credits
The Real Estate Director may issue a rent credit for maintenance or repairs performed by a tenant where the work is considered the land lord’s obligation under the applicable lease, subject to the following criteria:
1. The Real Estate Director , in conjunction with the Water Supply and Treatment Division , must approve the rent credit in writing in advance of the work ;
2. Once t he tenant completes the approved work to SFPUC’s reasonable satisfaction (including inspection of the work) , it must submit to RES a written request for a rent credit and a paid invoice or receipt verifying the maintenance or repair work in the amount of the rent credit requested, all within 12 months of completion of the work;
3. The amount of the rent credit issued may not exceed the sum of three months’ rent;
4. The Real Estate Director must apply the rent credit against the next installments of rent due;
5. At no time shall any rent credit extend beyond the term of the lease; and
6. The Real Estate Director shall approve any rent credit in writing, prior to any such rent H-42
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 23
credit taking effect.
8.4 Southeast Community Facility Rent Offsets
The General Manager, or Acting General Manager, has authority to provide offsets for rent at the SECF for improvements and repairs performed by a tenant or licensee where the work is considered the landlord’s obligation under the applicable lease or license at the SECF , subject to the following criteria:
1. The tenant or licensee can provide such repair at a lower cost or more cost -efficiently; and
2. The SECF Executive Director, the Real Estate Director and the Wastewater Enterprise AGM or his or her designee approve such offset in writing in advance of such repairs.
8.5 Capital Project-Induced Rent Credits
The issuance of a rent credit to a tenant or licensee to facilitate SFPUC or its contractors’ operations during an SFPUC capital project, may be preferable in lieu of other compensation for the tenant or licensee’s accommodation. The General Manager, or Acting General Manager, may approve in writing the issuance of a rent credit to a tenant or licensee to facilitate SFPUC operations during an SFPUC capital project, in lieu of providing other compensat ion, provided that the amount of the rent credit shall not exceed the lesser of (a) three months’ rent or (b) $10,000. Commission approval is required for any additional rent credit or rent waiver. Any rent credit issued to settle a tenant claim is subje ct to the City Administrative Code provisions governing claims.
8.6 Grazing Tenant Long-Term Maintenance Rent Credits
The SFPUC is landlord to a number of grazing tenants. NRLM manages the land subject to these grazing leases. All grazing lease s permit the t enant to receive a credit against the next installment of annual base rent for its actual costs incurred in satisfactorily performing long -term maintenance upon the leased premises. Presently, these leases provide that the total amount of the credit for a ny such tenant shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the current annual base rent.
Each tenant must provide NRLM and RES with written documentation of such costs before NRLM and the Real Estate Director will approve such rent credits.
H-43
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 24
9 Easement Agreements
If the Commission authorizes the grant of an easement to a third party on SFPUC lands, RES negotiates and documents the easement and acts as a liaison between the SFPUC and the City Real Estate Division regarding the approval of the easement by the Cit y’s Board of Supervisors and Mayor. RES charges a minimum $2,500 processing fee and may additionally charge for staff and administrative costs, including attorney ’s fees and costs and any other fees charged by other City departments , for each such agreeme nt. RES may also require the grantee to pay costs associated with obtaining any necessary City General Plan Referral. 10 Conclusion
These Guidelines steer the Real Estate Director and analysts in daily operations. RES updates its Operating Manual, for inte rnal use, from time to time incorporating the decisions approved by the Commission and expressed in these Guidelines. Any future changes to the Operating Manual will also be made in light of the Guidelines promulgated herein.
The Operating Manual includes detailed information regarding leasing and licensing procedures, RES best practices, lease and license term enforcement, delinquent accounts and procedures to improve interdivision communication in the leasing and licensing process.
Please direct any questions regarding the implementation of these Guidelines to SFPUC Real Estate Services at (415) 487 -5210 or [email protected] .
H-44
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 25
Exhibit 1: City Attorney’s Office-Approved
Lease and License Forms
1. Cell Site Lease Form
2. Gr ound Lease Form
3. Revocable License Form ( SFPUC as Licensor)
4. Employee Housing Lease Form
5. Consent Letter Form
Note: All City Attorney’s Office-Approved Forms are on file with the SFPUC Commission Secretary.
H-45
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
PAGE 26
Exhibit 2: SFPUC-Approved Land Use
Policies
1. Watershed Management Plans
2. Land Use Framework
3. Interim SFPUC Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy for San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties
4. Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy
Note: All SFPUC land use policies may be amended from time to time.
H-46
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy
for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties
Approved January 13, 2015
by
SFPUC Resolution No. 15-0014
as an amendment to the SFPUC Real Estate Guidelines
H-47
Hetch Hetchy
Regional Water System
Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
SFPUC Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy for
San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties
As part of its utility system, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) operates and maintains hundreds of miles of water pipelines. The SFPUC provides for public use on its water pipeline property or right of way (ROW) throughout Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties consistent with our existing plans and policies . The following controls will help info rm how and in which instances the ROW can serve the needs of third parties—including public agencies, private parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers—seeking to provide recreational and other use opportunities to local communities.
Primarily, SFPUC land is used to deliver high quality, efficient and reliable water, power, and sewer services in a manner that is inclusive of environmental and community interests, and that sustains the resources entrusted to our care. The SFPUC’s utmost priority is maintaining the safety and security of the pipelines that run underneath the ROW.
Through our formal Project Review and Land Use Application and Project Review process, we may permit a secondary use on the ROW if it benefits the SFPUC, is consistent with our mission and policies, and does not in any way interfere with, endanger, or damage the SFPUC ’s current or future operations, security or facilities.1 No secondary use of SFPUC land is permitted without the SFPUC’s consent.
These controls rely on and reference several existing SFPUC policies, which should be read when noted in the document. Being mindful of these policies while planning a proposed use and submitting an application will ease the process for both the applicant and the SFPUC. These controls are subject to change over time and additional requirements and restrictions may apply depending on the project.
The SFPUC typically issues five-year revocable licenses for use of our property, with a form of rent and insurance required upon signing.2
Note: The project proponent is referred to as the “Applicant” until the license agreement is signed, at which point the project proponent is referred to as the “Licensee.”
1 SFPUC Guidelines for the Real Estate Services Division, Section 2.0. 2 SFPUC Guidelines for the Real Estate Services Division, Section 3.3.
H-48
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
I. Land Use, Structures, and Compliance with Law
The following tenets govern the specifics of land use, structures, and accessibility for a project. Each proposal will still be subject to SFPUC approval on a case-by-case basis.
A. SFPUC Policies. The Applicant’s proposed use must conform to policies approved by the SFPUC’s Commission, such as the SFPUC’s Land Use Framework (http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=586).
B. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance. The Applicant must demonstrate that a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) has reviewed and approved its design and plans to confirm that they meet all applicable accessibility requirements.
C. Environmental Regulations . The SFPUC’s issuance of a revocable license for use of the ROW is subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Applicant is responsible for assessing the potential environmental impacts under CEQA of its proposed use of the ROW. The SFPUC must be named as a Responsible Agency on any CEQA document prepared for the License Area. In addition, the Applicant shall provide to SFPUC a copy of the approved CEQA document prepared by the Applicant, the certification date, and documentation of the formal approval and adoption of CEQA findings by the CEQA lead agency. The SFPUC will not issue a license for the use of the ROW until CEQA review and approval is complete.
D. Crossover and Other Reserved Rights. For a ROW parcel that bisects a third party’s land, the Applicant’s proposed use must not inhibit that party’s ability to cross the ROW. The Applicant must demonstrate any adjoining owner with crossover or other reserved rights approves of the proposed recreational use and that the use does not impinge on any reserved rights.
E. Width. The License Area must span the entire width of the ROW. For example, the SFPUC will not allow a 10-foot wide trail license on a ROW parcel that is 60 feet wide.
F. Structures. Structures on the ROW are generally prohibited. The Licensee shall not construct or place any structure or improvement in, on, under or about t he entire License Area that requires excavation, bored footings or concrete pads that are greater than six inches deep.
i. Structures such as benches and picnic tables that require shallow (four to six inches deep) cement pads or footings are generally permitted on the ROW.
No such structure may be placed directly on top of a pipeline or within 20 feet of the edge of a pipeline.
ii. The SFPUC will determine the permitted weight of structures on a case- by- case basis.
H-49
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
When the SFPUC performs maintenance on its pipelines, structures of significant weight and/or those that require footings deeper than six inches are very difficult and time-consuming to move and can pose a safety hazard to the pipelines. The longer it takes the SFPUC to reach the pipeline in an emergency, the more damage that can occur.
G. Paving Materials. Permitted trails or walkways should be paved with materials that both reduce erosion and stormwater runoff (e.g., permeable pavers).
H. License Area Boundary Marking. The License Area’s boundaries should be clearly marked by landscaping or fencing, with the aim to prevent encroachments.
I. Fences and Gates. Any fence along the ROW boundary must be of chain-link or wooden construction with viewing access to the ROW. The fence must include a gate that allows SFPUC access to the ROW. 3 Any gate must be of chain-link construction and at least 12 feet wide with a minimum 6-foot vertical clearance.
II. Types of Recreational Use
Based on our past experience and research, the SFPUC will allow simple parks without play structures, community gardens and limited trails.
A. Fulfilling an Open Space Requirement. An applicant may not use the ROW to fulfill a development’s open space, setback, emergency access or other requirements. 4 In cases where a public agency has received consideration for use of SFPUC land from a third party, such as a developer, the SFPUC may allow such recreational use if the public agency applicant pays full Fair Market Rent.
B. Trail Segments. At this time, the SFPUC will consider trail proposals when a multi- jurisdictional entity presents a plan to incorporate specific ROW parcels into a fully connected trail. Licensed trail segments next to unlicensed parcels may create a trail corridor that poses liability to the SFPUC. The SFPUC will only consider trail proposals where the trail would not continue onto, or encourage entry onto, another ROW parcel without a trail and the trail otherwise meet all SFPUC license requirements.
III. Utilities
A. Costs. The Licensee is responsible for all costs associated with use of utilities on the License Area.
3 SFPUC Right of Way Requirements.
4 SFPUC Guidelines for the Real Estate Services Division, Section 2.0.
H-50
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
B. Placement . No utilities may be installed on the ROW running parallel to the SFPUC’s pipelines, above or below grade. 5 With SFPUC approval, utilities may run perpendicular to the pipelines.
C. Lights. The Licensee shall not install any light fixtures on the ROW that require electrical conduits running parallel to the pipelines. With SFPUC approval, conduits may run perpendicular to and/or across the pipelines.
Any lighting shall have shielding to prevent spill over onto adjacent properties.
D. Electricity . Licensees shall purchase all electricity from the SFPUC at the SFPUC’s prevailing rates for comparable types of electrical load, so long as such electricity is reasonably available for the Licensee’s needs.
IV. Vegetation
A. The Applicant shall refer to the SFPUC Integrated Vegetation Management Policy for the minimum requirements concerning types of vegetation and planting. (http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=431.) The Licensee is responsible for all vegetation maintenance and removal.
B. The Applicant shall submit a Planting Plan as part of its application. (Community garden applicants should refer to Section VII.C for separate instructions.)
i. The Planting Plan should include a layout of vegetation placement (grouped by hydrozone) and sources of irrigation, as well as a list of intended types of vegetation. The SFPUC will provide an area drawing including pipelines and facilities upon request.
ii. The Applicant shall also identify the nursery(ies) supplying plant stock and provide evidence that each nursery supplier uses techniques to reduce the risk of plant pathogens, such as Phytophthora ramorum.
V. Measures to Promote Water Efficiency6
A. The Licensee shall maintain landscaping to ensure water use efficiency.
B. The Licensee shall choose and arrange plants in a manner best suited to the site’s climate, soil, sun exposure, wildfire susceptibility and other factors. Plants with similar water needs must be grouped within an area controlled by a single irrigation valve
5 SFPUC Land Engineering Requirements.
6 SFPUC Rules and Regulations Governing Water Service to Customers, Section F.
H-51
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
C. Turf is not allowed on slopes greater than 25 percent.
D. The SFPUC encourages the use of local native plant species in order to reduce water use and promote wildlife habitat.
E. Recycled Water. Irrigation systems shall use recycled water if recycled water meeting all public health codes and standards is available and will be available for the foreseeable future.
F. Irrigation Water Runoff Prevention. For landscaped areas of any size, water runoff leaving the landscaped area due to low head drainage, overspray, broken irrigation hardware, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, walks, roadways, parking lots, structures, or non-irrigated areas, is prohibited.
VI. Other Requirements
A. Financial Stability . The SFPUC requires municipalities or other established organizations with a stable fiscal history as Licensees. i. Applicants must also demonstrate sufficient financial backing to pay rent, maintain the License Area, and fulfill other license obligations over the license term.
B. Smaller, community-based organizations without 501(c)(3) classifications must partner with a 501(c)(3) classified organization or any other entity through which it can secure funding for the License Area over the license term. Maintenance. The Licensee must maintain the License Area in a clean and sightly condition at its sole cost.7 Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, regular weed abatement, mowing, and removing graffiti, dumping, and trash.
C. Mitigation and Restoration. The Licensee will be responsible, at its sole cost, for removing and replacing any recreational improvements in order to accommodate planned or emergency maintenance, repairs, replacements, or projects done by or on behalf of the SFPUC. If the Licensee refuses to remove its improvements, SFPUC will remove the improvements l at the Licensee’s sole expense without any obligation to replace them.
D. Encroachments. The Licensee will be solely responsible for removing any encroachments on the License Area. An encroachment is any improvement on SFPUC property not approved by the SFPUC. Please read the SFPUC ROW Encroachment Policy for specific requirements. If the Licensee fails to remove encroachments, the SFPUC will remove them at Licensee’s sole expense. The Licensee must regularly patrol the License Area to spot encroachments and remove them at an early stage.
7 SFPUC Framework for Land Management and Use.
H-52
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
E. Point of Contact. The Licensee will identify a point of contact (name, position title, phone number, and address) to serve as the liaison between the Licensee, the local community, and the SFPUC regarding the License Agreement and the License Area.
In the event that the point of contact changes, the Licensee shall immediately provide the SFPUC with the new contact information. Once the License Term commences, the point of contact shall inform local community members to direct any maintenance requests to him or her. In the event that local community members contact the SFPUC with such requests, the SFPUC will redirect any requests or complaints to the point of contact.
F. Community Outreach .
i. Following an initial intake conversation with the SFPUC, the Applicant shall provide a Community Outreach Plan for SFPUC approval. This Plan shall include the following information:
1. Identification of key stakeholders to whom the Applicant will contact and/or ask for input, along with their contact information;
2. A description of the Applicant’s outreach strategy, tactics, and materials
3. A timeline of outreach (emails/letters mailing date, meetings, etc.) ; and
4. A description of how the Applicant will incorporate feedback into its proposal.
ii. The Applicant shall conduct outreach for the project at its sole cost and shall keep the SFPUC apprised of any issues arising during outreach. iii. During outreach, the Applicant shall indicate that it in no way represents the SFPUC.
G. Signage. The SFPUC will provide, at Licensee’s cost, a small sign featuring the SFPUC logo and text indicating SFPUC ownership of the License Area at each entrance. In addition, the Licensee will install, at its sole cost, an accompanying sign at each entrance to the License Area notifying visitors to contact the organization’s point of contact and provide a current telephone number in case the visitors have any issues. The SFPUC must approve the design and placement of the Licensee’s sign.
H-53
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
VII. Community Gardens
The following requirements also apply to community garden sites. As with all projects, the details of the operation of a particular community garden are approved on a case-by- case basis.
A. The Applicant must demonstrate stable funding. The Applicant must provide information about grants received, pending grants, and any ongoing foundational support.
B. The Applicant must have an established history and experience in managing urban agriculture or community gardening projects. Alternatively, the Applicant may demonstrate a formal partnership with an organization or agency with an established history and experience in managing urban agriculture or community gardening projects
C. During the Project Review process, the Applicant shall submit a Community Garden Planting Plan that depicts the proposed License Area with individual plot and planter box placements, landscaping, and a general list of crops that m ay be grown in the garden.
D. The Applicant shall designate a Garden Manager to oversee day- to-day needs and serve as a liaison between the SFPUC and garden plot holders. The Gar den Manager may be distinct from the point of contact, see Section VI.E.
E. The Licensee must ensure that the Garden Manager informs plot holders about the potential for and responsibilities related to SFPUC repairs or emergency maintenance on the License Area. In such circumstances, the SFPUC is not liable for the removal and replacement of any features on the License Area or the costs associated with such removal and replacement.
F. The Licensee must conduct all gardening within planter boxes with attached bottoms that allow for easy removal without damaging the crops.
H-54
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
AMENDMENT TO THE
RIGHT OF WAY INTEGRATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY
Approved January 13, 2015
by
SFPUC Resolution No. 15-0014
H-55
Hetch Hetchy
Regional Water System
Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
12.000 RIGHT OF WAY INTEGRATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY
12.001 General
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”) is responsible for the delivery of potable water and the collection and treatment of wastewater for some 800,000 customers within the City of San Francisco; it is also responsible for the delivery of potable water to 26 other water retailers with a customer base of 1.8 million. The following policy is established to manage vegetation on the transmission, distribution and collection systems within the SFPUC Right of Way (“ROW”) so that it does not pose a threat or hazard to the system’s integrity and infrastructure or impede utility maintenance and operations.
The existence of large woody vegetation1, hereinafter referred to as vegetation, and water transmission lines within the ROW are not compatible and, in fact, are mutually exclusive uses of the same space.
Roots can impact transmission pipelines by causing corrosion. The existence of trees and other vegetation directly adjacent to pipelines makes emergency and annual maintenance very difficult, hazardous, and expensive, and increases concerns for public safety. The risk of fire within the ROW is always a concern and the reduction of fire ladder fuels within these corridors is another reason to modify the vegetation mosaic. In addition to managing vegetation in a timely manner to prevent any disruption in utility service, the SFPUC also manages vegetation on its ROW to comply with local fire ordinances enacted to protect public safety.
One of the other objectives of this policy is to reduce and eliminate as much as practicable the use of herbicides on vegetation within the ROW and to implement integrated pest management (IPM).
12.002 Woody Vegetation Management
1.0 Vegetation of any size or species will not be allowed to grow within certain critical portions of the ROW, pumping stations or other facilities as determined by a SFPUC qualified professional, and generally in accordance with the following guidelines.
1.1 Emergency Removal
SFPUC Management reserves the right to remove any vegetation without prior public notification that has been assessed by a SFPUC qualified professional as an immediate threat to transmission lines or other utility infrastructure, human life and property due to acts of God, insects, disease, or natural mortality.
1.2 Priority Removal
Vegetation that is within 15 feet of the edge of any pipe will be removed and the vegetative debris will be cut into short lengths and chipped whenever possible. Chips will be spread upon the site where the vegetation was removed. Material that cannot be chipped will be hauled away to a proper disposal site. 1 Woody vegetation is defined as all brush, tree and ornamental shrub species planted in (or naturally occurring in) the native soil having a woody stem that at maturity exceeds 3 inches in diameter.
H-56
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
If vegetation along the ROW is grouped in contiguous stands2, or populations, a systematic and staggered removal of that vegetation will be undertaken to replicate a natural appearance. Initial removal3 will be vegetation immediately above or within 15 feet of the pipeline edges; secondary vegetation4 within 15 to 25 feet from pipelines will then be removed.
1.3 Standard Removal
Vegetation that is more than 25 feet from the edge of a pipeline and up to the boundary of the ROW will be assessed by a SFPUC qualified professional for its age and condition, fire risk, and potential impact to the pipelines. Based on this assessment, the vegetation will be removed or retained.
1.4 Removal Standards
Each Operating Division will develop its own set of guidelines or follow established requirements in accordance with local needs.
2.0 All stems of vegetation will be cut flush with the ground and where deemed necessary or appropriate, roots will be removed. All trees identified for removal will be clearly marked with paint and/or a numbered aluminum tag.
3.0 Sprouting species of vegetation will be treated with herbicides where practicable, adhering to provisions of Chapter 3 of the San Francisco Environment Code.
4.0 Erosion control measures, where needed, will be completed before the work crew or contractors leave the work site or before October 15 of the calendar year.
5.0 Department personnel will remove in a timely manner any and all material that has been cut for maintenance purposes within any stream channel.
6.0 All vegetation removal work and consultation on vegetation retention will be reviewed and supervised by a SFPUC qualified professional. All vegetation removal work and/or treatment will be made on a case-by-case basis by a SFPUC qualified professional.
7.0 Notification process for areas of significant resource impact that are beyond regular and ongoing maintenance:
7.1 County/City Notification – The individual Operating Division will have sent to the affected county/city a map showing the sections of the ROW which will be worked, a written description of the work to be done, the appropriate removal time for the work crews, and a contact person for more information. This should be done approximately 10 days prior to start of work. Each Operating Division will develop its own set of guidelines in accordance with local need. 2 A stand is defined as a community of trees possessing sufficient uniformity in composition, structure, age, arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent forest communities to form a management unit. 3 Initial removal is defined as the vegetation removed during the base year or first year of cutting . 4 Secondary vegetation is defined as the vegetative growth during the second year following the base year for cutting.
H-57
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
7.2 Public Notification – The Operating Division will have notices posted at areas where the vegetation is to be removed with the same information as above also approximately 10 days prior to removal. Notices will also be sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the removal site. Posted notices will be 11- by 17-inches in size on colored paper and will be put up at each end of the project area and at crossover points through the ROW. Questions and complaints from the public will be handled through a designated contact person. Each Operating Division will develop its own set of guidelines in accordance with local needs.
12.003 Annual Grass and Weed Management
Annual grasses and weeds will be mowed, disked, sprayed or mulched along the ROW as appropriate to reduce vegetation and potential fire danger annually. This treatment should be completed before July 30 of each year. This date is targeted to allow the grasses, forbs and weeds to reach maturity and facilitate control for the season.
12.004 Segments of ROW that are covered by Agricultural deed rights The only vegetation that may be planted within the ROW on those segments where an adjacent owner has Deeded Agricultural Rights will be: non-woody herbaceous plants such as grasses, flowers, bulbs, or vegetables.
12.005 Segments of ROW that are managed and maintained under a Lease or License Special allowance may be made for these types of areas, as the vegetation will be maintained by the licensed user as per agreement with the City, and not allowed to grow unchecked. Only shallow rooted plants may be planted directly above the pipelines.
Within the above segments, the cost of vegetation maintenance and removal will be borne by the tenant or licensee exclusively. In a like fashion, when new vegetative encroachments are discovered they will be assessed by a SFPUC qualified professional on a case-by-case basis and either be permitted or proposed for removal.
The following is a guideline for the size at maturity of plants (small trees, shrubs, and groundcover) that may be permitted to be used as landscape materials. Note: All distance measurements are for mature trees and plants measured from the edge of the drip-line to the edge of the pipeline. • Plants that may be permitted to be planted directly above existing and future pipelines: shallow rooted plants such as ground cover, grasses, flowers, and very low growing plants that grow to a maximum of one foot in height at maturity.
• Plants that may be permitted to be planted 15–25 feet from the edge of existing and future pipelines: shrubs and plants that grow to a maximum of five feet in height at maturity. • Plants that may be permitted to be planted 25 feet or more from the edge of existing and future pipelines: small trees or shrubs that grow to a maximum of twenty feet in height and fifteen feet in canopy width.
H-58
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Trees and plants that exceed the maximum height and size limit (described above) may be permitted within a leased or licensed area provided they are in containers and are above ground. Container load and placement location(s) are subject to review and approval by the SFPUC.
Low water use plant species are encouraged and invasive plant species are not allowed.
All appurtenances, vaults, and facility infrastructure must remain visible and accessible at all times. All determinations of species acceptability will be made by a SFPUC qualified professional.
The above policy is for general application and for internal administration purposes only and may not be relied upon by any third party for any reason whatsoever. The SFPUC reserves the right at its sole discretion, to establish stricter policies in any particular situation and to revise and update the above policy at any time.
H-59
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Sheelen, Ryan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 1:01 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project
Cc: Wilson, John
Subject: SVP Transmission Line Project & San Jose International Airport Height Concerns
Hi Allie,
My name is Ryan Sheelen, I am the Senior Planner at San Jose International Airport. I recently became aware of this project with plans to install new transmission towers and lines along Lafayette via the filed 7460's on the FAA's Obstruction Evaluation website. This poses significant concern for the Airport, as it is directly in our approach/departure corridor for our Runways and exceeds critical safety surfaces used by our Airlines in inclement weather and for emergencies.
I am hoping to set up a meeting with you to talk through this further and understand the project and explain the Airport's concerns.
Please feel free to reach out via email or call me directly at 408-392-1193. Look forward to connecting with you on this project.
Thank you,
Ryan Sheelen, C.M., ACE
Planner IV | Planning & Development
o: 408.392.1193 | [email protected]
1701 Airport Blvd. Ste. B-1130, San José, CA 95110
flysanjose.com
H-60
SJC ,
SAN JOSE Ml NETA
I ERNAT IONA.L AIIRPORT
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
August 29, 2024 SCH #: 2024080009
GTS #: 04-SCL-2024-01312
GTS ID: 33540
Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/101/41.183
Allie Jackman, Project Manager
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line ─ Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Dear Allie Jackman:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line project. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the July 2024 MND.
Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.
Project Understanding
The proposed project will include an overhead transmission line that will cross over State Route (SR)-101 near postmile 41.183. The transmission line will be 2.24 miles long and will run between two facilities.
Aeronautics
Caltrans Aeronautics has reviewed the MND for the NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line project in Santa Clara County. One of the goals of the Caltrans Aeronautics Program is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) or their equivalent, to understand and comply with the State Aeronautics Act pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code (PUC), Section 21001 et seq.
The project site is approximately 0.5 miles south-east of the San Jose Mineta International Airport and spans three safety zones defined by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Santa Clara County. Therefore, it must adhere to the H-61
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM . GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation
,.
lilltrans
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Allie Jackman, Project Manager
August 29, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” safety criteria and restrictions defined in the ALUCP, adopted by the ALUC pursuant to PUC Section 21674. The project also contains portions in the 70dB and 75dB Aircraft Noise Contours. The City of Santa Clara should consider the safety zone and noise compatibility polices stipulated in the ALUCP.
The proposed project must comply with requirements outlined by the FAA, specified in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77. (14 CFR Part 77). Title 14 CFR Part
77.9 provides vertical and horizontal criteria for construction near an airport. Moreover, the California Public Utilities Code Section 21659 prohibits structural hazards near airports. An Obstruction Analysis will be required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace.” To ensure compliance notices should be submitted to the FAA’s Obstacle Evaluation Group (OEG) online (link).
Project Management
If the project requires freeway lane closures during construction, Caltrans must review and approve lane closure timing and traffic handling plans in the Encroachment Permit process. Maintenance of these transmission lines must be the responsibility of the sponsoring agency, which may require an amendment to existing maintenance agreements.
Additionally, Caltrans has a planned pavement preservation project that is in the vicinity of the proposed project. Coordination may be required during the construction phase.
Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link).Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN).
Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.
Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control, or any modification or additional work that encroaches onto Caltrans’ Right of Way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit and coordination with Caltrans. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office H-62
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Allie Jackman, Project Manager
August 29, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. All proposed work must be submitted through a Caltrans Encroachment Permit process. The proposed project may require an encroachment policy exception for a permit to be issued so coordinate with the Encroachment Permit office closely.
The Office of Encroachment Permit requires 100% complete design plans and supporting documents to review and circulate the permit application package. To obtain more information and download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link). Please note that the checklist TR-0416 is used to determine the appropriate Caltrans review process for encroachment projects. Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Marley Mathews, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected].
For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact [email protected].
Sincerely,
MARLEY MATHEWS
Acting Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
H-63
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Kanupriya Kabra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 12:47 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
H-64
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
H-65
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-66
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
H-67
fifurt S.1•2. Wall Stpamlnc Rt.udtncts Ind LlflytUt SlrHt NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 • Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-68
at You Can Do
If you are concerned about possible health risks from electric and magnetic fields, you can:
• Increase the distance between yourself and the source. The greater the distance between you and the source of EMF, th e lower your exposure.
• Limit the time spent around the source. The less time you spend near EMF, th e lowe r your NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Harsha Priya <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:18 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would H-69
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
H-70
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-71
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations H-72
NRS-IRS 11.$1VT~lJNtPIIOlcCt S.1. ACSTMOIC$
Figure S.1-2. Wall Separatfn1 Residences and Lafayette Street W I Stpant,ng RHldtncel and l.lliyolll SlrNt
5.1-5 ~TMC>un MN0/15
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-73
at You Can Do
If you are concerned about possible health risks from elKtnc and m11'netic fields, you c.an:
• lncreue the distance between yourself and the source. The greater the dl-.tancP ~twee,n you and the source of EMF. the lower your exposure.
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Aadya Shrotriya <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:55 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
H-74
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
H-75
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-76
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
H-77
NRS,lltS11SCYT IWISMIS.SIONl.9oe,.,,.._tT 5.1. AmMrnc:$ Figure s.1.2. Wall Separatln1 Residences and Lafayette Street NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-78
at You Can Do
If you are concerned about possible health risks fro m electr ic and magnetic fields, you can:
• Increase the distance between yourself and the source. The greater the distance between you and th e source of EMF, the lowe r you r exposure.
• Limit the time spent around the source. The less time you spend near EMF, the lowe r your NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Jigisha Shukla <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:34 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
Dear Santa Clara Officials,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project, connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) to Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). As a resident of Santa Clara, I believe this project, as currently proposed, poses significant risks to our community's health, safety, and property values.
Key Concerns:
1. Health Risks from EMF Exposure: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) assessment for this project has inadequately addressed the potential health impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on residents. The report fails to include studies from agencies qualified to assess human health risks, particularly regarding the effects of EMF on people living within 60 feet of these high- voltage lines. Numerous studies indicate serious health concerns, including increased risks of childhood leukemia and other diseases, with prolonged EMF exposure. I urge you to commission independent, third-party studies to thoroughly evaluate these risks before moving forward.
2. Inadequate Consideration of EMF Impact: The section on Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) in the draft report appears to be copied from an outdated 2020 study related to a different project. The lack of a dedicated, up-to-date study for this specific project is unacceptable. The EMF map shared during recent meetings contained several flaws, including unclear assumptions and questionable accuracy. Different areas that are not relevant, have been misrepresented as subject areas. Given the potential for cumulative EMF effects, especially with the planned electrification of nearby railway lines, a comprehensive, current analysis is essential.
3. Potential Decrease in Property Values: The proximity of these transmission lines to residential areas is likely to cause a significant drop in property values. Real estate experts confirm that homes near high-tension power lines are harder to sell and typically suffer substantial devaluation. With over 1,000 homes potentially affected, the financial loss to homeowners could far exceed any savings the city might gain by choosing the current route. This decrease in property values would also reduce the city’s tax revenue.
4. Increased Safety Risks: The proposed transmission lines’ proximity to the railway line raises serious safety concerns, particularly the risk of induced currents from the Corona effect. The CEQA report does not adequately address these hazards, which could have catastrophic consequences for nearby residents.
I strongly urge the City of Santa Clara to pause this project until a more thorough evaluation of its impacts can be conducted. This should include independent health studies, a reassessment of property devaluation risks, and a reconsideration of alternative routes or designs that prioritize public safety and well-being. Our community deserves better than a project that could compromise our health, safety, and financial security.
Thank you for your attention to these critical issues.
Jigisha Shukla
Mission Gardens community resident
H-79
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Jigisha Shukla <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 10:44 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line
Dear Santa Clara Officials,
I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project, which would connect the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) to Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). As a Santa Clara resident, I believe this project, in its current form, poses significant risks to our community's health, safety, and property values.
1. Health Risks from EMF Exposure
• The CEQA assessment inadequately addresses potential health impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on residents.
• No studies from agencies qualified to assess human health risks are included. • Numerous studies indicate serious health concerns with prolonged EMF exposure, including increased risks of childhood leukemia.
• Action Needed: Commission independent, third-party studies to thoroughly evaluate these risks.
2. Inadequate EMF Impact Assessment
• The EMF section in the draft report appears copied from an outdated 2020 study for a different project. • The EMF map shared at recent meetings contains flaws, including unclear assumptions and questionable accuracy.
• Potential cumulative EMF effects, especially with planned railway electrification, are not addressed. • Action Needed: Conduct a comprehensive, current EMF analysis specific to this project.
3. Potential Property Value Decrease
• Proximity to high-tension power lines typically causes significant property devaluation. • Over 1,000 homes could be affected, potentially resulting in financial losses exceeding any city savings from the current route.
• Decreased property values would also reduce city tax revenue. • Action Needed: Reassess the economic impact on homeowners and city finances.
4. Increased Safety Risks
• The transmission lines' proximity to the railway raises serious safety concerns, particularly the risk of induced currents from the Corona effect.
• The CEQA report does not adequately address these potential hazards. • Action Needed: Conduct a thorough safety assessment, particularly regarding the interaction between the power lines and nearby railway.
H-80
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
I strongly urge the City of Santa Clara to:
1. Pause this project pending a more thorough evaluation of its impacts.
2. Commission independent health studies on EMF exposure.
3. Reassess the risk of property devaluation and its broader economic impact.
4. Reconsider alternative routes or designs that prioritize public safety and well-being.
Our community deserves a project that does not compromise our health, safety, and financial security.
Thank you for your attention to these critical issues.
Sincerely,
Jigisha Shukla
Concerned Santa Clara Resident
H-81
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Praveen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:59 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Issues Raised Regarding the "NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project"
Greetings,
We, the residents of Santa Clara, collectively express our concerns regarding the "NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project" based on the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration from July 2024.
Reference #1: Lack of Human Health Considerations
• The CEQA reporting includes numerous state reviewing agencies, but none are associated with human health. This deficiency disqualifies CEQA from assessing health concerns. • The project lacks studies to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, despite the proximity of transmission lines to dwellings.
• We request that the City of Santa Clara commission independent studies focused on human health.
Reference #2: Reused Sections and Incomplete Analysis
• Section 4.15 of the report, addressing Electric and Magnetic Fields, was added only after residents raised concerns.
• This section is copied from an older report on a different project, indicating a lack of due diligence and ignorance of this project's specifics.
• The EMF map shared during the in-person meeting had flaws, raising questions about the study's validity.
• We request a detailed analysis of the report and the EMF map.
Reference #3: Corona and Induced Current Effect
• The proximity of the railway line to the proposed high transmission lines is concerning. • The report does not adequately address the hazards posed by high voltage lines and the potential for Corona effect to transfer current to railway lines.
• This negligence poses a high risk to residents, especially considering the railway line's proximity.
Reference #4: Selection of Option A Based on Cost
• Option A was selected solely based on cost, without considering human health, children, property values, and long-term sustainability.
• CEQA's findings are important, but understanding the negative impact of EMF on young children is critical.
• Real estate values near power lines decrease, affecting over 1000 residences and businesses. This loss of equity is unacceptable.
Reference #5: Misleading Picture in the Report
• Figure 5.1-2 in the report includes a misleading picture of a wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
• The picture was taken from the other side of the railway line, which is further away from the proposed lines.
H-82
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 • The Mission Garden Townhome community has no such wall, and the main entry to residences directly faces the street.
• This inaccuracy instills distrust and reflects the incompetency of the agencies preparing the report.
Conclusion and Demands
• The project's initial study must expand beyond CEQA to address our concerns. • The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address health hazards, reduced property values, aesthetic appeal, noise levels, fire hazards, and economic effects. • We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the city's power needs.
• The health of our residents, especially our children, must not be compromised in the name of development and infrastructure.
We respectfully request that the Santa Clara Mayor and Council take immediate action to address these concerns and ensure the well-being of our community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Praveen Vutukuru & Vijaya Chaganti
--
Praveen | Software Engineer | Google | 650-265-8190
H-83
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: sudhir kulkarni <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 5:51 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: UJ Kools
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would H-84
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
H-85
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-86
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations H-87
NltS-USllScVT ~tMPIQ(Ct 5.1. AmMJna
Figure S.1~2. Wall Separat ln1 ResldencH and Lafayette Street NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
H-88
at You Can Do
If you are concerned about possible health risks from electric and magnet ic fields , you can:
• Increase the distance between yourself and the source. The greater the distance between you and the source of EMF, the lower your exposure.
• Limit the time spent around the source. The less time you spend near EM F, the lowe r your NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
6 4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
Thank you,
Sudhir Kulkarni
1961 Silva Pl,
Santa Clara CA 95054
H-89
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Rajesh Upalekar <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 6:02 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would H-90
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
H-91
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-92
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
H-93
NRS-KRS 11S!cVT~SMMIONLINCPflot£0 5.1. AlSTHrnCS
Figure 5.1·2, Wall Separating Residences and Lafayette Street Wall Separating Residences and Lafayette SlrNt
JUlV 2024 s.i.s AoMlttls!AATM Dlw1 MND/15
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-94
at You Can Do
If you are concerned abo ut possible health risks from electric and magnet ic fields, you can:
• Increase the distance between yourself and the source. The greater the distance between you and the source of EMF, the lower your exposure.
• Limit the time spent around the source. The less time you spend near EMF, the lowe r your NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Amit Chandak <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 2:36 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
H-95
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
H-96
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th
2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7- 4D15-BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-97
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
H-98
NRS-KRS 11SlcVTltAkSMISSIONUN€PlloJtcr
Figure 5.1-2. Wall Separating Residences and Lafayette Street
5.1•5
5.t . AESJH£TIC$
Flgur9S.1·2
Wall S.parat ing RHidencff and uf1yeH1 Street
AoMiNISTUT!Y(0Hn MN O/1S
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
Thanks & Regards,
Kanupriya
Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-99
at You Can Do
If you are concerned about possible health risks fro m elect ric and magnet ic fields, you can:
Increase the distance between yourself and the source . The greater the distance between you and the source of EMF, the lower you r exposure.
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Neelam <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 3:35 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would H-100
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet. These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments-and- agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf Some other questions around the EMF study map shared during presentation on Aug 22 2024:
1. Have you conducted an existing EMF study to identify the current value of the community ?
2. Are your emf study values based on the cumulative, or interference of existing emf and potential emf.
3. Emf value was calculated based on existing studies. What was the delta between mathematical modeling and actual values ( from existing structures).
4. What is the delta between underground and overhead structures’ emf values?
5. Can you provide the same for Route options B and C?
6. What happens when electrification of rail lines happens- as this is already planned for the future? Have you potentially considered the cumulative EMF effect in coexistence of the high power lines and with railway lines’ electrification? Will the EMF values not be much higher then? H-101
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 7. Can you share the mathematical modeling maps of Emf for 115k, 230k and the next two higher values of the power line ?
8. Can you share Emf maps from existing structures of 115k, 230 k and the next 2 higher values of the power line?
9. Please share any emf related information that you have especially if it contains assumptions for any calculations so we can understand the effects of current project and future projects.
10. Why does the electric pole structure proposed have wider diameter at the top? Can you share the design of the top of the pole ? Can it be extended by adding another section by bolting, welding or any other method? If so, what extra voltage can be added to the line?
11. what is the proposed power consumption of 95054 zip code for the next 5, 10 and 15 years in the master plan ?
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the H-102
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-103
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
H-104
FIBure 5.1-2. Wall Separating Residences and Lafayette Street S.l•S
Flgu,.S.1-2
wau Stparating Resldtnen and Lafayttte Slrfft
MIMNfTAATM l)w"f MND/IS
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
6 Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-105
at You Can Do
If you are concerned about possible healt h risks from electr ic and magnet ic fields, you can:
• Increase the distance between yourself and the source. The greater t he distance between you and the source of EMF, the lower your exposure .
• Limit the time spent around the source. The less time you spend near EMF, the lower your NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Aman S <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 2:19 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
H-106
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet. These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments-and- agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf Some other questions around the EMF study map shared during presentation on Aug 22 2024:
1. Have you conducted an existing EMF study to identify the current value of the community ?
2. Are your emf study values based on the cumulative, or interference of existing emf and potential emf.
3. Emf value was calculated based on existing studies. What was the delta between mathematical modeling and actual values ( from existing structures).
4. What is the delta between underground and overhead structures’ emf values?
5. Can you provide the same for Route options B and C? H-107
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 6. What happens when electrification of rail lines happens- as this is already planned for the future? Have you potentially considered the cumulative EMF effect in coexistence of the high power lines and with railway lines’ electrification? Will the EMF values not be much higher then?
7. Can you share the mathematical modeling maps of Emf for 115k, 230k and the next two higher values of the power line ?
8. Can you share Emf maps from existing structures of 115k, 230 k and the next 2 higher values of the power line?
9. Please share any emf related information that you have especially if it contains assumptions for any calculations so we can understand the effects of current project and future projects.
10. Why does the electric pole structure proposed have wider diameter at the top? Can you share the design of the top of the pole ? Can it be extended by adding another section by bolting, welding or any other method? If so, what extra voltage can be added to the line?
11. what is the proposed power consumption of 95054 zip code for the next 5, 10 and 15 years in the master plan ?
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of H-108
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
And this is what is included on the report:
H-109
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
H-110
FJ&ure 5.1-2. Wall Separatln& ReNOl!ncH and Lafayene 5UHt NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
6 2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-111
at You Can Do
If you are concerned about possible health risks from electric and magnetic fields , you can:
• Increase the distance between yourself and the source. The greater the distance betwee n you and the source of EMF, th e lowe r you r exposure.
• Limit the time spent around the source. The less time you spend near EMF, the lower your NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Aruna Pothukuchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 12:01 AM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would H-112
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf Some other questions around the EMF study map shared during presentation on Aug 22 2024:
1. Have you conducted an existing EMF study to identify the current value of the community ?
2. Are your emf study values based on the cumulative, or interference of existing emf and potential emf.
3. Emf value was calculated based on existing studies. What was the delta between mathematical modeling and actual values ( from existing structures).
4. What is the delta between underground and overhead structures’ emf values?
5. Can you provide the same for Route options B and C?
6. What happens when electrification of rail lines happens- as this is already planned for the future? Have you potentially considered the cumulative EMF effect in coexistence of the high power lines and with railway lines’ electrification? Will the EMF values not be much higher then? H-113
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 7. Can you share the mathematical modeling maps of Emf for 115k, 230k and the next two higher values of the power line ?
8. Can you share Emf maps from existing structures of 115k, 230 k and the next 2 higher values of the power line?
9. Please share any emf related information that you have especially if it contains assumptions for any calculations so we can understand the effects of current project and future projects.
10. Why does the electric pole structure proposed have wider diameter at the top? Can you share the design of the top of the pole ? Can it be extended by adding another section by bolting, welding or any other method? If so, what extra voltage can be added to the line?
11. what is the proposed power consumption of 95054 zip code for the next 5, 10 and 15 years in the master plan ?
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the H-114
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-115
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
H-116
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
6 Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-117
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Fang Gong <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2024 9:10 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project
Subject: Objection to Proposed 115 kV Transmission Line Project
Hello,
I'm a resident in the Hogan Dr neighborhood, which is impacted by this project. I am writing to express my objection to Silicon Valley Power's (SVP) proposed construction of a new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line within the northeastern area of the City of Santa Clara, connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).
While I understand the need to facilitate energy redistribution and accommodate projected load growth, I have several significant concerns about the impact of this project on our community:
1. Aesthetic and Property Value Impact on Hogan Drive: The installation of overhead transmission lines with poles along Lafayette Street will significantly damage the street view of this neighborhood.
This visual intrusion is likely to negatively impact property values, as prospective homeowners and residents generally prefer neighborhoods free of such industrial infrastructure. The presence of these poles and lines could deter potential buyers and reduce the appeal of our community.
2. Traffic Disruptions on Lafayette Street: The construction phase will necessitate traffic control measures and potential lane closures on Lafayette Street. This will cause considerable inconvenience to residents for more than a year. Daily commutes, local business operations, and general mobility within the area will be severely affected. The prolonged construction period could also lead to increased traffic congestion and heightened safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians.
3. Environmental Concerns: The construction and maintenance of the transmission lines may have detrimental effects on the local environment. Additionally, the long-term visual pollution from overhead lines could detract from the natural beauty and character of our community.
4. Health and Safety Risks: There are ongoing concerns regarding the health and safety implications of living in close proximity to high-voltage transmission lines. While the scientific community continues to study the potential health effects, the perceived risks can cause significant anxiety among residents. Ensuring that our community feels safe and secure should be a top priority.
5. Alternative Solutions: I urge SVP to consider alternative solutions that could mitigate these concerns. For example, underground transmission lines, although potentially more costly initially, would preserve the visual aesthetics of our neighborhood, reduce environmental disruption, and avoid the health and safety concerns associated with overhead lines.
In light of these issues, I strongly urge SVP to reconsider the current proposal and explore less disruptive alternatives that will better serve both the technical needs and the well-being of our community. I am confident that with thoughtful planning and community engagement, we can arrive at a solution that balances progress with the preservation of our neighborhood's character and quality of life.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I hope to see a revised proposal that addresses these critical issues.
Sincerely,
Fang
H-118
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Sriharish Pisipati <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 11:59 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would H-119
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf Some other questions around the EMF study map shared during presentation on Aug 22 2024:
1. Have you conducted an existing EMF study to identify the current value of the community ?
2. Are your emf study values based on the cumulative, or interference of existing emf and potential emf.
3. Emf value was calculated based on existing studies. What was the delta between mathematical modeling and actual values ( from existing structures).
4. What is the delta between underground and overhead structures’ emf values?
5. Can you provide the same for Route options B and C?
6. What happens when electrification of rail lines happens- as this is already planned for the future? Have you potentially considered the cumulative EMF effect in coexistence of the high power lines and with railway lines’ electrification? Will the EMF values not be much higher then? H-120
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 7. Can you share the mathematical modeling maps of Emf for 115k, 230k and the next two higher values of the power line ?
8. Can you share Emf maps from existing structures of 115k, 230 k and the next 2 higher values of the power line?
9. Please share any emf related information that you have especially if it contains assumptions for any calculations so we can understand the effects of current project and future projects.
10. Why does the electric pole structure proposed have wider diameter at the top? Can you share the design of the top of the pole ? Can it be extended by adding another section by bolting, welding or any other method? If so, what extra voltage can be added to the line?
11. what is the proposed power consumption of 95054 zip code for the next 5, 10 and 15 years in the master plan ?
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th 2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7-4D15- BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the H-121
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-122
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
H-123
S,t. AmMITICS
Figure S.1-2. Wall Separat ing Resldence.s and Lafayette Street w Soparolinil RKldences and Llfay,111 s~
5.1•5 MMN$fUTMDIW'T MND/IS
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
6 Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
H-124
at You Can Do
If you are concerned about possible health risks from elect ric and magnet ic fields, you can:
• Increase the distance between yourself and the source. The greater the distance betwee n you and th e source of EMF, th e lower your exposure.
• Limit the time spent around the source. The less ti me you spend near EMF, the lowe r you r NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: saurabh sharma <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 6:50 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
H-125
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf Some other questions around the EMF study map shared during presentation on Aug 22 2024:
1. Have you conducted an existing EMF study to identify the current value of the community ?
2. Are your emf study values based on the cumulative, or interference of existing emf and potential emf.
3. Emf value was calculated based on existing studies. What was the delta between mathematical modeling and actual values ( from existing structures).
4. What is the delta between underground and overhead structures’ emf values?
5. Can you provide the same for Route options B and C?
6. What happens when electrification of rail lines happens- as this is already planned for the future? Have you potentially considered the cumulative EMF effect in coexistence of the high power lines and with railway lines’ electrification? Will the EMF values not be much higher then?
7. Can you share the mathematical modeling maps of Emf for 115k, 230k and the next two higher values of the power line ?
8. Can you share Emf maps from existing structures of 115k, 230 k and the next 2 higher values of the power line?
9. Please share any emf related information that you have especially if it contains assumptions for any calculations so we can understand the effects of current project and future projects.
10. Why does the electric pole structure proposed have wider diameter at the top? Can you share the design of the top of the pole ? Can it be extended by adding another section by bolting, welding or any other method? If so, what extra voltage can be added to the line?
11. what is the proposed power consumption of 95054 zip code for the next 5, 10 and 15 years in the master plan ?
Reference #3
Personal observation#3
The railway line's proximity to the proposed high transmission lines is very concerning. The centerline distance from proposed lines to railway line is aproximately 50 feet per google maps with some margin for error. As per the report there are no Corona rings proposed for the 115KV lines. There seems to be negligence in design in consideration of the hazards posed by these high voltage lines as Corona effect H-126
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
3 can transfer current to railway lines. All the residents are at a high risk of accidental hazards given the proximity of the railway line, this project is adding on to the hazards. This section is only stating information about what Corona effect is, as may be required by law, which by the way is again a copy paste from an old report. The only concern discussed in more depth is the audible noise level. The concerns are presented to imply that this is not significant by stating that 115KV lines pose less than significant risk.
Reference #4: Post meeting material from March 19th
2024 @https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6582415&GUID=E6E14646-3CF7- 4D15-BB98-F18580696012&Options=&Search=
Personal observation#4: At surface level, it looks like Option #A was selected only based on Cost perspective, without any consideration to human health, young children, property values, Corona effect, long term sustainability perspective or any other factors. While its important to understand the results of CEQA study, its extremely critical to understand the negative impact of EMF on the many young children living around the proposed transmission lines. Without extensive research and study on the impact to young children and adult heath, we should not be approving such an incomplete proposal.
discussions with several real estate agents in the region, I have unanimously found all to agree that the real estate values of residences in close proximity to power lines goes down. Its hard to find potential buyers and most folks refrain from buying a house too close to high power transmission lines. There are 1000 plus residences in the area affected by this project. Even if we were to make very rough assumptions, and assume minimal cost reduction in property values and take an average loss of $100,000 per property in the current year, that goes to $100,000,000 of loss of equity to the public. This is not even accounting the businesses affected by this project. This long explanation was to raise a point that if the selection of route A was saving money to the city, this is costing a huge financial loss to the public, which is not acceptable. This decrease in property values will also directly impact the tax collection by the Santa Clara Assessor and result in lower tax revenue coming into the city of Santa Clara.
Reference #5 : Page 49 of report- Figure 5.1-2. Wall separating residences and Lafayette Street.
Personal observation#5: The picture is taken conveniently from the other side of the railway line which is actually Kingsbury street, inside a private community and not Lafayette street. This is further away from the proposed SVP lines. This is very misleading; see snapshots taken from Google maps below
H-127
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
4 And this is what is included on the report:
The Mission Garden Townhome community has no walls as such and the main entry to residences face the road directly and are the most impacted. There are several other single family homes on Lafayette street with the same impact, having an entryway directly on the street. This and including other citations of reusing sections of older reports, is all in all absolutely unacceptable and instills distrust. This further shows incompetency of the agency/ agencies preparing this report.
Conclusion: This project's initial study needs to expand beyond CEQA for approval from the public. The limited scope of CEQA has failed to address the following concerns we have:
• Health hazards due to EMF levels.- This is by far the gravest concern and CEQA is clearly not qualified to study that.
• Reduced property values- several references provided below. • Loss of Aesthetic appeal for potential real estate buyers/ new and current businesses. • Increase in audible noise levels during and post construction, which is already high in the area with presence of railway line and air traffic route.
• Increased fire hazard/ risk of other accidents.
• Induced current on railway lines with close proximity/ corona effect- CEQA report did not clearly address this for a 115KV line.
• Economic effect on the community from small to larger scale based on all of the above.
We demand further investigation and revisit other routes or proposals to resolve the power needs of the city. We have to ensure our and our kids’ health is not at stake in the name of development and H-128
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
5 infrastructure and are not in agreement for this project to move forward. We cannot approve this to move forward as of now given the lack of study and absence of a satisfactory solution/ mitigation provided in favor/ assurance to public health.
Additional References:
Research on effects of EMF on humans:
1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025786/ This research reinforces the concerns of EMF exposure effect on human health.
2. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/electric-and-magnetic-fields-power-lines This resource suggests taking precautions and keeping distance or limiting exposure. Residents would no longer have either of these two options per the current proposals if they are living there 24-7.
3. https://www.fastexpert.com/blog/should-i-buy-a-house-near-power-lines/ These are points of view from a real estate expert who clearly states that property value declines proportionately to the distance of the property from high tension lines. People have apprehensions whether or not research clearly defines the risk. Potential buyers might have low priority for a property too close to a high tension power line.
4. https://orchard.com/blog/posts/power-lines-and-property-value Another research on real estate values lowered due to high tension power lines proximity.
Thanks,
Saurabh Sharma
H-129
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
1 Email: NRS-KRS 115 kV T-Line
From: Saurabh Sharma <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 11:01 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)- NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project
To Whomsoever it may concern,
We are residents of Santa Clara that will be negatively impacted by the “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project”. We have collectively reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative declaration for “NRS-KRS 115kV Transmission Line Project” from July 2024. After reviewing this report and also attending the virtual and in person meetings, here are some references to emphasize our various concerns.
Reference #1 : CEQA’s reporting includes these State reviewing agencies: California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region 3 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California Department of Transportation, District 4 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Energy Commission, California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 2 (RWQCB), Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water.
Personal observation#1 : None of these agencies has any association with human health. CEQA reporting is not qualified enough to force the public to compromise on health concerns. Other agencies need to be involved to review this proposal, that are qualified to study the effect on “ humans”, not just wildlife and vegetation, or “ environment. The checklist is completely devoid of our gravest humanitarian concerns. It is quite shocking that the project has not included any study to understand the potential impact of EMF waves on human lives, given that the transmission lines are potentially less than 60 feet from the closest dwellings. The city of Santa Clara needs to step in and have third party/ independent studies completed in favor of human health.
Reference #2: Page 41 of report- Section 4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields summary.
Personal observation#2 : This consideration was completely absent earlier. Only after the residents raised their voices, this section was added. To our greatest disappointment, this section is copied over from an older report on the “South Loop Reconfiguration Project” from 2020. One would have expected that a new study would have been conducted for a project this size. The lack of due diligence and ignorance towards the specifics of this project are apparent and not acceptable. In fact we have found several sections of this older report as being reused across the entire report.
The EMP map shared during the in person meeting had several flaws and we would like to question the viability of the study that was completed. What time of the day was the study completed and on what models were the values based on since these were done on assumption for the EMF values that would be there once the project is complete. Since we have seen the several sections of the report redundantly copied over from other reports, we would like a more detailed analysis of this report.
Regarding EMF concerns for human health, there are plenty of scientific studies that do indicate the grave concern on human health with EMF exposures and we cannot ignore this aspect. Here is a reference to an article and there are plenty of articles listed here under references:
https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/EMF.pdf
H-130
NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2024 FINAL IS/MND
2 There are not enough references listed in the draft report provided to us, and the explanation provided seems to be conveniently using studies that prove otherwise. This needs more investigation and references. The solution provided as raising the height of the poles and increasing the distance is non- existent. It was confirmed during the in person meeting that the design will not be altered and the height was already designed as required according to the SVP team present there. It seems that the preparers of this report did not even read the report after copying pasting from the old report as evident in the list of proposed solutions is not applicable here.
The live presentation on August 22nd showed the comparison of EMF values of household objects as a means to show that everyday household items carry a similar range of mG( milli Gauss) units. This comparison was inherently flawed since it mentioned that the household devices were producing those level at 1 feet while those indicated for 115KVf lines were at 60 feet. further these household devices do not operate 24X7 similar to the transmission lines.
There were a lot of citations of reports showcasing that no clear proof of EMF to human health exists but we would like to also point out certain states like Connecticut Department of Public Health have cited reports that have shown an increased incidence of childhood leukemia( Blood cancer) at avg exposure of only 3 mG. Also they have called out that some utility workers exposed to high levels of emf have increase risks of Lur Gehrig's disease.
They also call out that most impacts of EMF from high voltage lines dissipate at ~300 feet.
These are available on Page 2 & Page 3 of this report: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/departments- and-agencies/dph/dph/environmental_health/eoha/pdf/emffactsheet2008pdf.pdf This report has citations from WHO , National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and California Department of Health Services.
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/health/materials/electric_and_magnetic_fields_associ ated_with_the_use_of_electric_power_questions_and_answers_english_508.pdf Some other questions around the EMF study map shared during presentation on Aug 22 2024:
1. Have you conducted an existing EMF study to identify the current value of the community ?
2. Are your emf study values based on the cumulative, or interference of existing emf and potential emf.
3. Emf value was calculated based on existing studies. What was the delta between mathematical modeling and actual values ( from existing structures).
4. What is the delta between underground and overhead structures’ emf values?
5. Can you provide the same for Route options B and C?
6. What happens when electrification of rail lines happens- as this is already planned for the future? Have you potentially considered the cumulative EMF effect in coexistence of the high power lines and with railway lines’ electrification? Will the EMF values not be much higher then?
7. Can you share the mathematical modeling maps of Emf for 115k, 230k and the next two higher values of the power line ?
8. Can you share Emf maps from existing structures of 115k, 230 k and the next 2 higher values of the power line?
9. Please share any emf related information that you have especially if it contains assumptions for any calculations so we can understand the effects of current project and future projects.
10. Why does the electric pole structure proposed have wider diameter at the top? Can you share the design of the top of the pole ? Can it be extended by adding another section by bolting, welding or any other method? If so, what extra voltage can be added to the line?
11. what is the proposed power consumption of 95054 zip code for the next 5, 10 and 15 years in the master plan ?
Reference #3