Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, October 8, 2024 (part 3 of 7)

Page 2 of 4 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Appendix E

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Appendix E. Known and Potential Occurrences of Special-Status Species within the Project Area Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Plants
alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var. tener
1B.2, S1 Alkaline flats, vernally moist meadows, vernal pools Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
1B.2, S2 Alkaline or clay soils in playas, vernal pools, vernally moist meadows, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. lesser saltscale
Atriplex minuscula
1B.1, S2 Sandy, alkaline soils in playas, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Congdon's tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
1B.1, S2 Terraces, swales in floodplains, and disturbed sites in valley and foothill grassland communities, and
disturbed sites containing alkaline soils, sometimes
heavy white clay. Occurs usually in wetlands,
occasionally in non-wetlands.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
palustre
1B.2, S2 Coastal salt marsh Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. robust spineflower
Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta
FE, 1B.1, S1 Sand or gravel in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, maritime chaparral, and openings in cismontane
woodlands
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1882 historic CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, generally mapped to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

Hoover's button-celery
Eryngium aristulatum var.
hooveri
1B.1, S1 Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands, occasionally alkaline
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1902 historic CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, generally mapped to the Santa Clara/North San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

San Joaquin spearscale
Extriplex joaquinana
1B.2, S2 Alkaline soils in playas, vernally moist meadows, chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Contra Costa goldfields
Lasthenia conjugens
FE, 1B.1, S1 Vernal pools, wet meadows, alkaline playas Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Hall's bush-mallow
Malacothamnus hallii
1B.2, S2 Early-recovering post-burn woody vegetation, edges of openings in coastal scrub and chaparral
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
Navarretia prostrata
1B.2, S2 Alkaline floodplains, vernal pools Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. hairless popcornflower
Plagiobothrys glaber
1A, SX Wet, saline, sometimes alkaline soils in valleys, coastal marshes. Presumed extinct
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
1B.2, S2 Saline flats, mineral springs Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California seablite
Suaeda californica
FE, 1B.1, S1 Margins of coastal salt marshes Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum
1B.2, S2 Salt marshes, open areas in alkaline soils Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Invertebrates
obscure bumble bee
Bombus caliginosus
S1S2 Grassy coastal prairies and Coast Range meadows in humid and foggy areas. Requires floral resources,
undisturbed nest sites, and overwintering sites.

Low (minimal). Study Area within current species range. Minimal potential to occur in or adjacent to proposed Project area at the following locations due to presence of limited marginal habitat:
utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS at proposed structures 1, 2, and 3, landscaped interchange at proposed structure 18, and ruderal road shoulder at proposed structure 19.

Marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing and/or discing, and other disturbances. Study Area contains minimal floral resources dispersed amongst various urban landscaped areas. One historic 1954 CNDDB occurrence presumed extant generally mapped to San Jose overlaps Study Area with a 5-mile accuracy; no iNaturalist observations; multiple Bumble Bee Watch potential species sightings, nearest located along the Guadalupe River Trail ~0.9 miles ENE of proposed structure 18.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
SC, S1S2 Open grasslands and scrub. Requires floral
resources, undisturbed nest sites, and overwintering
sites.

Marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing and/or discing, and other disturbances. Study Area contains minimal floral resources dispersed amongst various urban landscaped areas. One historic 1903 CNDDB occurrence presumed extant generally mapped to San Jose overlaps Study Area with a 5-mile accuracy; two recent iNaturalist observations within 5 miles, nearest ~2 miles NNW of NRS; one recent Bumble Bee Watch sighting north of downtown San Jose ~3.7 miles SE of KRS.
western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis
SC, S1S2 Generalist forager in a wide range of flower-rich habitats. Requires floral resources, undisturbed nest
sites, and overwintering sites.

Low (minimal). Study Area within historic species range. Minimal potential to occur in or adjacent to proposed Project area at the following locations due to presence of limited marginal habitat:
utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS at proposed structures 1, 2, and 3, landscaped interchange at proposed structure 18, and ruderal road shoulder at proposed structure 19.

Conservancy fairy shrimp
Branchinecta conservatio
FE, S2 Large, turbid freshwater vernal pools called playa pools
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
monarch - California
overwintering population
Danaus plexippus plexippus
pop. 1
FC, S2 Occur in fields, roadside, open, and wet areas or urban gardens where milkweed and flowering plants
are present. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of
many flowers during breeding and migration, but
they can only lay eggs on milkweed plants. Monarchs
living west of the Rocky Mountain range in North
America primarily overwinter in California at sites
along the Pacific Coast, roosting in eucalyptus,
Monterey pines, and Monterey cypress trees.

Not likely to occur (overwintering, breeding). Study Area outside the over-wintering range of species; lacks over-wintering habitat.

Study Area lacks suitable habitat that supports milkweed (Asclepias sp.) required for breeding.

Low (migration foraging). Study Area is within urban area containing various dispersed floral resources in landscaped areas that could support foraging monarchs migrating through the area.

No CNDDB records within 5 miles; numerous iNaturalist
observations, nearest is 2023 observation across San Tomas Aquino Creek from the NRS.
western ridged mussel
Gonidea angulata
S2 More often in streams than lakes and prefers
constant water flow and well-oxygenated stable
substrates in areas of low gradient
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any streams or lakes that could support this species. One 1908 historic CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, mapped to San Tomas Aquino Creek near the Project area. One undated CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, generally mapped to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
FE, S3 Ephemeral freshwater habitats, including alkaline pools, clay flats, vernal lakes, vernal pools, vernal
swales and other seasonal wetlands
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. mimic tryonia / California
brackishwater snail
Tryonia imitator
S2 Aquatic gastropod, occurs in coastal lagoons,
estuaries, sloughs, and marshes.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any lagoon, estuary, slough, or marsh habitat that could support this species.

Fish
longfin smelt
Spirinchus thaleichthys
FC, ST, S1 Pelagic fish (occurring mainly in open water habitats) that occur in bays and estuaries
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any marine habitat that could support this species.
white sturgeon
Acipenser transmontanus
SSC, S2 Anadromouos fish, occurs in estuaries and large rivers, migrates to freshwater to spawn, and travels
through the ocean between river systems.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river or marine habitat that could support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
coho salmon - central
California coast ESU
Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4
FE, SE, S2 Depending on life stage, can be found in freshwater rivers, streams, estuaries, and marine environments
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river, stream, or marine habitat that could support this species.
steelhead - central California
coast DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 8
FT, SSC, S3 Depending on life stage, can be found in freshwater rivers, streams, estuaries, and marine environments
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river, stream, or marine habitat that could support this species.

Amphibians
California tiger salamander -
central California DPS
Ambystoma californiense
pop. 1
FT, ST, WL, S3 Vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. Upland grasslands with underground
refuges (often ground squirrel burrows)
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any vernal pool or other seasonal wetlands that could support breeding habitat for this species. One 1895 historic CNDDB record, extirpated, generally mapped to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

California giant salamander
Dicamptodon ensatus
SSC, S2S3 Wet coastal forests in or near clear, cold permanent and semi-permanent streams and seepages
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river or seep habitat that could support this species.
foothill yellow-legged frog -
central coast DPS
Rana boylii pop. 4
FT, SE, S2 Rocky streams in a variety of habitats, including valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-
conifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine,
mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and
wet meadow types.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river or stream habitat that could support this species.

California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT, SSC, S2S3 Quiet pools of streams, marshes and ponds, prefers shorelines with extensive vegetation
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any stream, marsh, or pond habitat that could support this species.
red-bellied newt
Taricha rivularis
SSC, S2 Streams and rivers in coastal woodlands and
redwood forest
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any river or stream habitat that could support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Coast Range newt
Taricha torosa
SSC, S4 Terrestrial habitats, primarily cismontane
woodlands, coastal scrub, and mixed chaparral; also
known from annual grassland and mixed conifer
types
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

The Project will not impact or cross any aquatic features that could support breeding habitat for this this species.

Reptiles
western pond turtle
Actinemys = Emys
marmorata
FC, SSC, S3 Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation. Need
basking sites and upland habitat up to ~0.3 miles
(1,640 feet) from water for egg laying.

Low (minimal). The project will not impact or cross over aquatic habitat that may support this species. Marginal upland habitat occurs adjacent to San Tomas Aquino Creek, which is at the edge or just outside the 500-ft Study Area buffer near the NRS work area.

Marginal upland habitat at this location consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing and/or discing, and other disturbances. Soils at this location may be too compact for western pond turtle to excavate a nest or over-wintering burrow, but individuals may attempt to migrate into the area from the adjacent creek. Chainlink fencing present at the far west side of the utility right-of-way may present a barrier to the species moving into this area; unknown if burrows or other breaks in this fence exist. 13 CNDDB records within 5 miles; numerous iNaturalist observations; nearest is 2017 CNDDB record in San Tomas Aquino Creek ~0.75 miles NW of the NRS.

Northern California legless
lizard
Anniella pulchra
SSC, S2S3 Moist warm loose soil with plant cover. Sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak
woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream
terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1949 historic CNDDB record, possibly extirpated, mapped generally to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

Alameda whipsnake
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
FT, ST, S2 Chaparral and scrub habitats. Will also use adjacent grassland, oak savanna and woodland habitats.

Mostly south-facing slopes and ravines, with rock
outcrops, deep crevices or abundant rodent
burrows.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
SSC, S4 Requires loose, fine soils with a high sand fraction, abundance of native ants or other insects, open
areas with limited overstory for basking and areas
with low, dense shrubs for refuge
Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Birds
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperii
WL, S4 Most common in forests and woodland habitats but can be found nesting and hunting in suburban parks
and neighborhoods; will nest in dense patches of
large pines, oaks, or Douglas-firs. Breeding resident
throughout most of the wooded portion of the state.

High potential to occur (nesting, foraging). The Study Area is developed/disturbed but provides suitable habitat that could support this urban-adapted species.

No CNDDB records within 5 miles; numerous eBird and iNaturalist observation within 5 miles, concentrated along the Guadalupe River, and in residential neighborhoods south of the Southern Pacific Railroad line, nearest is 2024 eBird observation at the Oracle Santa Clara Campus adjacent the Project.
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
ST, SSC, S2 Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and vicinity. Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey
within a few kilometers of the colony.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
FP, WL, S3 Open and semi open country featuring native
vegetation across most of the Northern Hemisphere.

They avoid developed areas and uninterrupted
stretches of forest.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SSC, BCC, S2 Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent on
burrowing mammals, most notably, the California
ground squirrel.

Moderate (nesting, foraging). Minimal potential to occur in or adjacent to proposed Project area at the following locations due to presence of marginal habitat: utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS and within or adjacent to work areas for proposed structures 2, 3, 18, and 19. Marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing. 32 CNDDB records and numerous eBird and iNaturalist observations within 5 miles; one 2014 CNDDB record overlaps the NRS and northern-most part of the proposed Project alignment, however, almost entire occurrence area fully developed.

Potentially extant populations from 2004 CNDDB record located at the Santa Clara Golf and Tennis Club located ~0.50 mile north of the NRS; and 2009 CNDDB record at the San Jose International Airport located ~0.50 miles east of the KRS. One extirpated 1999 CNDDB record located along Lafayette Street north of the Palm Substation.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ST, S4 Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper- sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands,
or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent
populations.

Not likely to occur (nesting). Although the Study Area is within the historic breeding range of the species and contains some marginal nesting habitat at the Oracle Santa Clara campus, CDFW data (CNDDB, 2016 Status Review) show no evidence of current nesting efforts in the greater San Jose region. Nearest known breeding locations are between Gilroy, Santa Clara County, and Hollister, San Benito County, ~35 miles SE of the Study Area.

Low (minimal; foraging). Minimal potential to occur in or adjacent to proposed Project area at the following locations due to presence of marginal habitat: utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS and within or adjacent to work areas for proposed structures 2, 3, 18, and 19. Marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation; Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these areas are managed through periodic mowing.

One likely extirpated historic (1889) CNDDB record of a nest located ~0.75 miles S of the KRS; one iNaturalist and few eBird observations during migration located within 5 miles.
western snowy plover
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
FT, SCC, S3 Coastal beaches, sand spits, dune-back beaches, sparsely-vegetated dunes, beaches at creek and river
mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries
Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
SSC, BCC, S3 Prefer open country, grasslands, steppes, wetlands, meadows, agriculture fields; roost and nest on
ground in shrubby vegetation often at edge of
marshes. Permanent resident of coastal areas and
northeastern plateau.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, SE, S1 Riparian habitat, cottonwood and willow trees. Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. yellow rail
Coturnicops noveboracensis
SSC, BCC, S2 Shallow marshes, and wet meadows; in winter, drier fresh-water and brackish marshes, as well as dense,
deep grass, and rice fields.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1895 historic CNDDB record, presumed extant, mapped generally to the San Jose area overlaps the Project area.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
white-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
FP, S3S4 Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to
deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped
trees for nesting and perching.

Low (minimal; nesting, foraging). Minimal potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area. Limited suitable nesting habitat present within the Study Area, particularly along San Tomas Aquino Creek to the west of the NRS, Lick Mill Park near proposed structure 4, the Oracle Santa Clara Campus adjacent to the Palm Substation and proposed structures 14 through 17, and the landscaped interchange adjacent to proposed structure 18.

Limited marginal foraging habitat present at utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the NRS and within or adjacent to work areas for proposed structures 2, 3, 18, and 19. Two CNDDB records and numerous eBird and iNaturalist observations; nearest is a 2022 eBird observation located at the Oracle Santa Clara campus adjacent to the Palm Substation and proposed structures 14 through 17.

American peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
FD, SD, S3S4 Nests and roosts on protected ledges of high cliffs, buildings, and bridges, usually adjacent to lakes,
rivers, or marshes that support abundant avian prey.

Not likely to occur (nesting). The Study Area lacks suitable nesting habitat to support this species.

Moderate (foraging). The Study Area is developed/disturbed but provides suitable habitat that supports urban-adapted bird species that American peregrine falcon could prey upon.

One CNDDB record located within the San Jose West quadrangle; few iNaturalist and multiple eBird observations within 5 miles, concentrated along the bay.
saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
SSC, BCC, S3 Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and salt water marshes. Requires thick, continuous
cover down to water surface for foraging; tall
grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California condor
Gymnogyps californianus
FE, SE, FP, S2 Nests in caves, crevices, behind rock slabs, or on large ledges on high sandstone cliffs; requires vast
expanses of open savannah, grasslands, and foothill
chaparral with cliffs, large trees and snags for
roosting.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
FD, SE, FP, S3 Habitat includes rivers and lakes with adjacent woodlands. Large bodies of water are always
associated with breeding populations. Nests on large
trees in the vicinity of large lakes, reservoirs, and
rivers. Wintering birds are most often found near
large concentrations of waterfowl or fish.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
ST, FP, S2 Saltwater marshes and shallow freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Alameda song sparrow
Melospiza melodia pusillula
SSC, BCC, S2 Resident of salt marshes bordering south arm of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits Salicornia marshes; nests
low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to escape high
tides) and in Salicornia.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

One 1947 historic CNDDB record, presumed extant, mapped generally to the Santa Clara Golf and Tennis Club and Guadalupe River area north of the Project area.

American white pelican
Pelacanus erythrorhynchos
SCC, BCC, S1S2 Large freshwater and saltwater lakes, usually on small islands or remote dikes. Nest-sites are flat or
gently sloping, lacking shrubs or other obstructions,
free of human disturbance, and usually with loose
earth suitable for nest-mounds.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California Ridgway's rail
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
FE, SE, FP, S2 Saltwater marshes and freshwater marshes. Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia
SSC, S3 Primarily in willows, riparian thickets, and riparian trees such as cottonwood, sycamore, ash, and alder,
especially near water, but also xeric montane shrub
fields and shrubby understory of mixed-conifer
forest.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

California least tern
Sternula antillarum browni
FE, SE, FP, S2 Colonies along marine and estuarine shores and near abandoned salt ponds. Feeds in nearby shallow,
estuarine waters.

Not likely to occur (nesting, foraging). The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
Mammals
Townsend's big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
SSC, S2 Habitat associations include conifer forests, deserts, grasslands, riparian, coastal habitats, active
agriculture; most commonly found in mesic sites.

Roosts on walls and ceilings of caves and mines, also
buildings, bridges, rock crevices, and hollow trees.

Extremely sensitive to human disturbance. Forages
in edge habitats along streams, adjacent to and
within a variety of wooded habitats.

Low (minimal; roosting, foraging). The Montague Expressway overpass bridge structure between proposed structures 19 and 20 provides limited suitable roosting habitat to support this species.

The Study Area provides limited suitable foraging habitat to support this species. One historic (1943) CNDDB record in the general area of San Jose ~3 miles SE of the KRS; no iNaturalist observations within 5 miles.
western red bat
Lasiurus frantzii
SSC, S3 Typically solitary, prefers riparian. Roosts primarily in shrub and tree foliage, especially cottonwood-
willow, mostly in edge habitats adjacent to streams
or open fields but also orchards, sometimes urban
areas. May occasionally use caves.

Low (minimal; roosting, foraging). The Study Area contains limited trees and shrubs suitable to support roosting for this species, particularly along San Tomas Creek to the west of the NRS, Lick Mill Park near proposed structure 4 and the Oracle Santa Clara Campus adjacent to the Palm Substation and proposed structures 14 through 17, and the landscaped interchange adjacent to proposed structure 18. Study Area contains limited suitable foraging habitat.

No CNDDB records within 5 miles; one 2020 iNaturalist observation along Guadalupe River ~0.7 miles NE of the KRS.

San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
SSC, S2S3 Forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. May prefer chaparral and
redwood habitats. Constructs nests of shredded
grass, leaves, and other material. May be limited by
availability of nest building materials.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. salt-marsh harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys raviventris
FE, SE, FP, S3 Salt marshes, diked and tidal wetlands, pickleweed Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species. salt-marsh wandering shrew
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
SSC, S1 Salt marshes Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

American badger
Taxidea taxus
SSC, S3 Semi-fossorial mammal found most often in drier, open stages of shrubland, forest, and herbaceous
habitats with friable soils and rodent prey.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Species Status Habitat Occurrence in Study Area
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
FE, ST, S3 Resident of arid regions of the southern half of the state, living in annual grasslands or grassy open
stages of vegetation dominated by scattered bush,
shrubs and scrub. Dens dug in open, level areas with
loose-textured, sandy and loamy soils. Dens used
throughout the year.

Not likely to occur. The proposed Project area is
developed/disturbed. No suitable habitat to support this species.

Definitions Regarding Potential Occurrence:

Present: Species (or sign) was observed in the Study Area during recent surveys, or a population has been acknowledged by CDFW, USFWS, or local experts.

High: Habitat (including soils) for the species occurs in the Study Area and a known occurrence occurs within five miles within the past 20 years; however, the species was not detected during recent surveys.

Moderate: Habitat (including soils) for the species occurs in the Study Area and a known regional record has been documented, but not within five miles of the Project site or within the past 20 years; or there is a documented occurrence within five miles of the Study Area within the past 20 years and marginal or limited habitat occurs on site; or the species’ range includes the geographic area and suitable habitat exists in the Survey Area.

Low: Limited habitat for the species occurs in the Study Area and the species’ range includes the geographic area, but there are no documented occurrences within five miles of the Survey Area within the past 20 years.

Not likely to occur: Species or signs not observed in the Study Area, the Study Area is outside of the species’ known range, and conditions in the Study Area are not suitable for occurrence.

STATUS CODES:

FT Federally Threatened
FC Federal Candidate
SE State Endangered
SC State Candidate
SSC California Species of Special Concern
FP Fully Protected
CNPS California Native Plant Society Listing
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 Plants about which we need more information – a review list .1 Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) .3 Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current threats known) BCC Birds of Conservation Concern: USFWS- d esignated migratory and non -migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action.

STATE RANKING The state rank (S-rank) is assigned much the same way as the global rank, but state ranks refer to the imperilment status only within California’s state boundaries.

SX Presumed Extirpated – Species is believed to be extirpated from the state. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.

S1 Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as ve ry steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state.

S2 Imperiled—Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state.

S3 Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extirpation in the state due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.

S4 Apparently Secure – At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the state due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors.

NRS-KRS 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

JULY 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

Appendix F

SCOPING REPORT

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

NRS-KRS 115 kV
Transmission Line Project
APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT
Prepared for

Silicon Valley Power
City of Santa Clara
Submitted by

July 2024

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTENTS

JULY 2024 i APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

CONTENTS

1. Overview of CEQA Scoping Process .................................................................................. 1

1.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Summary of CEQA Scoping Process .......................................................................................... 1

1.3. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Providing Scoping Comments ...................................... 2

1.4. Scoping Report Organization .................................................................................................... 4

2. Summary of the Proposed Project .................................................................................... 5

3. Summary of Scoping Comments ....................................................................................... 6

3.1. Form Letter Summary ............................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1. Health Concerns – EMF ................................................................................................ 6

3.1.2. Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards ....................................... 6

3.1.3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs and Property Value ................................................ 7

3.1.4. Aesthetic Impact .......................................................................................................... 7

3.1.5. Complexity and Inconvenience .................................................................................... 7

3.1.6. Exploring Alternatives .................................................................................................. 8

3.1.7. Other ............................................................................................................................ 8

4. Summary of Future Steps in the Environmental review Process ..................................... 10

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Comments Received During Public Scoping Period .................................................................. 2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Project Review and Timeline ................................................................................................... 10

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Public Scoping Meeting Notices
Attachment B Scoping Meeting Presentation
Attachment C Written Scoping Comments Received During Scoping Period

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ACRONYMS

JULY 2024 ii APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

ACRONYMS
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMF Electromagnetic Fields
kV Kilovolt

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS

JULY 2024 1 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS
The environmental review of the Silicon Valley Power (SVP) NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project) is being conducted by the City of Santa Clara (City) as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.). The City held a 50 -day public scoping period. There are no CEQA requirements for a public scoping period for an MND, however, SVP chose to conduct public scoping to provide an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on the scope of the environmental review of the Project.

This Scoping Report documents the scoping process and summarizes the scoping comments received for the Project. Specifically, this report describes the scoping events and activities, and summarizes written comments submitted in response to the City’s notice of a public scoping meeting for the Project. This report provides the issues presented in public comments that will be considered in the preparation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The lead agency will use the comments received during the scoping period to:

1. Identify key issues to focus the analysis in the environmental document.

2. Analyze environmental impacts of the Project and alternatives.

3. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts.

1.1. Introduction
SVP is proposing to construct the NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project, which would include constructing a new, 2.24 mile long overhead and/or underground 115 Kilovolt (kV) transmission line between two existing facilities, Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS), in the City of Santa Clara. The City has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project.

The Project would be located in Santa Clara County in a fully developed urban area and includes several existing transmission lines, including lines owned by SVP and PG&E. The proposed Project would be located in Section 27, Township 6S, Range 1W, Mount Diablo Meridian.

The NRS is located south of the intersection of Bill Walsh Way and Stars and Stripes Drive, immediately adjacent to the southeast corner of Levi’s Stadium. The KRS is located approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Central Expressway. The NRS and KRS are approximately 2 miles away from each other.

1.2. Summary of CEQA Scoping Process
The CEQA scoping process provides government agencies, Tribal agencies, organizations, and members of the public the opportunity to identify environmental issues and alternatives for consideration in the IS/MND. The scoping process and results are an initial step in the environmental review process.

There are no requirements included in the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to scoping for an IS/MND. The City modeled the scoping process required for EIRs as outlined in Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). The City issued a notice of a public scoping meeting on April 10, 2024, that sum- marized the Project, stated the City’s intention to prepare an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and requested comments from interested parties. The notice was mailed to 3,626 people, using a list compiled with GIS data for a 1,000+ foot radius around the entire Project route. Prior to the scoping meeting on April 25, 2024, SVP’s project manager was notified that some residents near the project did not receive the notice. The decision was made to extend the scoping period an additional three weeks, re-send the notices, and electronically notify people as well.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS

JULY 2024 2 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

The second notice was mailed out on May 7, 2024 to 3,626 addresses. The second notification also included electronic notification, which sent out notices to SVP’s (8,177 subscribers) and the City’s (7,552 subscribers) news blast email lists, plus social media accounts on Facebook (2,400 followers), and Nextdoor (52,860) members. Additionally, as part of the AB 52 process, two tribes on the City’s tribal consultation list were contacted. Attachment A includes a copy of the notices that were sent out.

The notice was also posted on the Silicon Valley Power’s webpage:
www.siliconvalleypower.com/115kv
During the comment period, the City held two virtual public scoping meetings from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Thursday April 25, and Thursday May 23, 2024. Remote participation was made available through the online web-based platform, Zoom. SVP and their environmental and engineering consultants provided a presentation explaining the Project, CEQA process, the City’s role throughout this process, and public participation opportunities (Attachment B).

The first meeting was attended by 8 people, and the second meeting was attended by 18 people.

The comment period began on April 8, 2024 and originally ended 30 days later, on May 8, 2024. However, the comment period was extended to conduct an expanded outreach effort. Therefore, the 50 -day comment period began on April 8, 2024 and ended on May 29, 2024.

In total, 87 comment letters were received during the scoping period. Most of these comments (83 out of 87) were identical “form” letters, which include the same text in the body of the comment but are signed individually by the sender. Eleven individuals sent in more than one comment letter, and several com- ments were received from the same physical address, resulting in 50 comments from unique properties. 86 comments were received from residents, and one comment was received from a nearby business (see Table 1-1). No comments were received from tribes.

These letters have been included in this Scoping Report in Attachment C. The comments identified in these letters and the comments presented at the scoping meeting were considered in the drafting of this IS/MND.

1.3. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Providing Scoping Comments The majority of public comments received were from members of the public. Table 1-1 presents the resi- dents and business that provided written comments during the scoping process, in chronological order.

Contact information was collected from commentors, and their information was added to the mailing list to be notified about the Project in the future.

Table 1-1. Comments Received During Public Scoping Period Commenter Date Commenter Date
Organizations and Businesses
BiCMOS/Peter Liljegren 5/28/2024
Individuals
Xiaoling Huang 4/14/2024 Gane Sugali 5/27/2024
Cipson Jose 5/27/2024 Preetika Tiwari 5/27/2024
Anu Alex 5/27/2024 Mehul Suresh Kumar Jain 5/27/2024
Preetika Tiwari 5/27/2024 Vishaka Sutrave 5/27/2024
Aman Sharma 5/27/2024 Mehul Suresh Kumar Jain 5/27/2024 Neelam Dabholkar 5/27/2024 Nikhil Mungre 5/27/2024
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS

JULY 2024 3 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

Commenter Date Commenter Date
Derek Fong 5/27/2024 Punnya Ann Joy 5/29/2024
Suneet Bisht 5/27/2024 Satya Gandreddi 5/29/2024
Ruchika Sarna 5/27/2024 Satya Gandreddi 5/29/2024
Vijay Srinivasan 5/27/2024 Neethu Cherian 5/29/2024
Adnan Hemani 5/27/2024 Leonard Le 5/29/2024
Amit Chandak 5/27/2024 Diem Nguyen 5/29/2024
Saurabh Sharma 5/28/2024 Yuri Kleban 5/29/2024
Pratima Hans 5/28/2024 Niaz Khan 5/29/2024
Manali Desai 5/28/2024 Gayathri Chebrolu 5/29/2024
Dr. Vinay Iyer 5/28/2024 Anupama Swaminath 5/29/2024
Dr. Vinay Iyer 5/28/2024 Shaheen Khan 5/29/2024
Shankar Pandravada 5/28/2024 Rahul Khona 5/29/2024
Shankar Pandravada 5/28/2024 Himasree Chundi 5/29/2024 Harini Tadinada 5/28/2024 Sushil Gote 5/29/2024
Harini Tadinada 5/28/2024 Aswini Kumbavath 5/29/2024
Pankaj Sinha 5/28/2024 Kanupriya Kabra 5/29/2024
Darshna Siva 5/28/2024 Emily Le 5/29/2024
Preetika Tiwari 5/28/2024 Unnikrishnan Udinoor 5/29/2024 Amit Thakkar 5/28/2024 Simple Yadav 5/29/2024
Dr. Vinay Iyer 5/28/2024 Hima Kalapatapu 5/29/2024
Amit Thakkar 5/28/2024 Sandeep Jain 5/29/2024
Prithvi Arun 5/28/2024 Paddy Subbian 5/29/2024
Gane Sugali 5/28/2024 Aparna Raman 5/29/2024
Lini Kuriyan 5/28/2024 Praveen Vutukuru 5/29/2024
Ramya Venkatachalam 5/29/2024 Pavan Batchu 5/29/2024
Mehul Suresh Kumar Jain 5/29/2024 Ruhi Batchu 5/29/2024 Bharathi Narayanan 5/29/2024 Ravi Krishna Adusumalli 5/29/2024 Manu Bharathi 5/29/2024 Srinivas Dangeti 5/29/2024
Sathiya Narayanan 5/29/2024 Ravi Krishna Adusumalli 5/29/2024 Cipson Jose 5/29/2024 Hasitha Dangeti 5/29/2024
Mukil Narayanan 5/29/2024 Swapna Dangeti 5/29/2024
Nandakumar Gopalakrishnan 5/29/2024 Shashi Devaraju 5/29/2024 Swati Sinha 5/29/2024 Srinivas Reddy 5/29/2024
Dr. Prashant Tiwari 5/29/2024 Vasanti 5/29/2024
Radhakrishna Yeluri 5/29/2024 Vishnu Vardhan Hari 5/29/2024 Radhakrishna Yeluri 5/29/2024 Srividya Hari 5/29/2024
Jerin Joy 5/29/2024 Vijaya Divakaruni 5/29/2024
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA SCOPING PROCESS

JULY 2024 4 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

1.4. Scoping Report Organization
This Scoping Report summarizes the comments and issues identified during the scoping period. The City reviewed and considered all of the scoping comments received in preparing the IS/MND for the Project.  Section 2 provides a summary of the Project.
 Section 3 provides a summary of all comments received and issues raised during the Project’s scoping period.
 Section 4 provides a summary of future steps in the planning process and indicates opportunities for public participation in the environmental review process.  Attachments that follow Section 4 include the mailed notice , scoping presentation, and scoping comment summary and letters.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 2. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

JULY 2024 5 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

2. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
SVP is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of a new overhead and/or underground 115 kV transmission line. The NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project would be built to accommodate energization at 230 kV, however it would initially be operated at 115 kV.

The transmission line would start at the Northern Receiving Station, south of the intersection of Bill Walsh Way and Stars and Stripes Drive, just southeast of Levi’s Stadium. The transmission line would travel approximately 2.24 miles south and end at the Kifer Receiving Station, approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Central Expressway.

Two options are being considered for the northern segment of this project: overhead and underground.

The northern segment that contains both overhead and underground options would start at NRS, follow Lafayette Street, and end approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, covering approximately 0.74 miles.

Depending on the option selected, the transmission line would be built either completely overhead (Option 1), or as a combination of underground and overhead (Option 2). The underground segment, if chosen, would place the transmission line underground after a portion of overhead alignment where the line would leave NRS and enter the median of Lafayette and transition underground. The overall northern segment is approximately 0.74 miles long. The underground segment would transition to overhead approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, then continue over- head south of Agnew Road to connect to the KRS. South of Agnew Road, the route would be overhead, regardless of the Option chosen.

The proposed Project is comprised of the following components/facilities:
 115 kV Transmission Line: The majority of the new 115 kV transmission line would be constructed along the following streets: Lafayette Street, Bassett Street and Duane Avenue. The new route would require approximately 39 poles (if overhead). The transmission line would be built to support a 230 kV transmission line, but would be initially energized at 115 kV, allowing for future capacity expansion.

New poles would consist of tubular steel monopoles, which are anticipated to range from 85 to 1 50 feet tall (average height of 115 feet), with a diameter of approximately 2 to 4 feet. At some locations the poles will support the new 115 kV circuit as well as an existing 60 kV circuit and distribution and communication lines.
 Replacement of Existing Distribution and Telecommunication Lines. Some existing distribution lines and/or telecommunication lines along the proposed route would be transferred to the new poles to be underbuilt on the new poles. Some existing poles will be removed.  Substation Modifications. No substation modifications would occur as part of the proposed Project.

Both receiving stations are existing and would be rebuilt or expanded prior to the proposed Project.

New poles would be placed within the NRS and KRS substations to bring the new 115 kV circuit to the appropriate substation rack.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS

JULY 2024 6 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS
This section of the report summarizes the comments received from the public during the scoping process.

Table 1-1 provides a list of commenters who provided comments. A number of environmental concerns were raised during the scoping process that focused on the Project’s potential effects to environmental resources and issue areas.

3.1. Form Letter Summary

3.1.1. Health Concerns – EMF
Commentors expressed concern related to electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted by transmission lines.

They expressed concern about the health risks correlated with EMF exposure, especially due to the proxi- mity of the line to residential communities along Lafayette Street. The commentors state that even a small risk should not be ignored.

Impacts from electromagnetic fields are not analyzed under CEQA. However, due to the concern from the public, SVP has conducted an EMF study. This study is included in the IS/MND as Appendix G, EMF Report.

The EMF Report broke up the Proposed Project into 19 segments and presents calculations for the current year, 2024, and for the anticipated construction year, 2028, for normal and peak loads. The EMF discussion in the IS/MND is focused on the EMF measurements 60 feet to the east of the Project’s centerline, for Segments 1 through 6, which are located adjacent to the residential community where the majority of comments were sent from. The IS/MND also includes proposed EMF Design Guidelines to be considered during final engineering. Please see Section 4.15, Electric and Magnetic Fields Summary for a summary of EMFs, and a discussion of impacts due to EMF.

One commentor specifically stated that the project would create a problem for the residential community near the Project, who already have to deal with road, train, and airplane noise. Construction of the Project would create temporary noise, but once operational, there would be no additional noise created by the Project. The public health-related impacts of the project, aside from EMF, are considered in the IS/MND’s analysis of impacts related to various environmental resources environmental resources, such as air (Section 5.3), noise (Section 5.13), and water (Section 5.10), that may, in turn, affect public health. For example, Section 5.3 (Air Quality) addresses attainment of air quality standards and includes dust control measures to protect human health.

3.1.2. Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards Commentors expressed concern about placing the transmission line in an already congested utility zone because of the heightened risk of accidents and fire hazards due to the proximity to railway lines, residential buildings, and heavy traffic.

As stated in Section 4.10, the objective of the Project is to increase SVP’s system capacity and reliability, which should result in less power outages and service interruptions after construction is completed. As stated in Section 5.20, Wildfire, the Project would update and install new electrical line equipment, which would reduce the risk of a system failure or line fault due to aging equipment. Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials includes a discussion of accident conditions that could cause imp acts, and the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented to reduce these impacts to less than significant level.

Impacts related to traffic and safety are discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, which includes a mitigation measure to protect emergency access throughout the City and ensure the safety of the nearby roadways.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS

JULY 2024 7 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

3.1.3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs and Property Value Commentors expressed concern that their home insurance costs may increase, and their property values decrease, due to the proximity of the Project to residents.

CEQA focuses on the potential physical impacts of a project. Economic and social effects may be considered under CEQA, but by themselves, are not treated as significant effects on the environment. The economic effects of a project need only be considered if those effects themselves would cause significant physical impacts on the environment. Such secondary effects are typically difficult to predict (it is unknown whether or not home insurance costs would increase, or property values decrease) , and an IS/MND is not required to speculate about such secondary impacts. However, if the insurance costs increased or the property values decreased, neither of these are, nor would cause, a significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, given the CEQA guidance regarding social and economic impacts, this would not be considered a significant effect on the environment.

3.1.4. Aesthetic Impact
Commentors expressed concern about the addition of poles for the transmission line, and their impact on the visual appeal of the neighborhood. The commentor stated that the additional poles would spoil the aesthetic beauty of the residential area.

The Project is in a highly urbanized area, with the majority of residents located near the northern portion of the Project, where, depending on the option chosen, would be constructed either overhead within the median of Lafayette Street, or underground in Lafayette Street. Both options run parallel to Lafayette Street and an existing rail road right of way. The median includes trees which will be preserved to the extent possible (see Appendix D, Arborist Report) which will minimize the visual impact of any overhead poles. Both to the east and west of Lafayette Street are neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are geographically separated by Lafayette Street, which has four lanes and is approximately 75 feet wide, plus the railroad right of way, which is approximately 50 feet wide and fenced off. Additionally, there is a large wall that separates the neighborhood to the west from Lafayette Street and the railroad right of way. The transmission line was sited in this corridor, among other reasons, because of the existing visual setting, which includes structures similar to what is being proposed for this Project, and that it is partially screened from the adjacent neighborhoods. Because of consistency of the proposed Project’s components with the existing setting and the location of the Project near other utilities or right of ways, makes this impact less than significant. See Section 5.1, Aesthetics, for a full discussion of the aesthetic impacts of the project.

3.1.5. Complexity and Inconvenience
Commentors expressed concerns about the disruption to their daily lives, citing noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes as potential disruptions. Commentors also expressed concerns about the possibility of power outages and service interruptions from ongoing maintenance activities .

One commentor, a representative of the company BiCMOS, specifically expressed concerns about the potential service disruptions due to construction of the Project that may affect the underground utilities that serve their company.

It is acknowledged in the IS/MND that construction of the Project would create impacts related to environmental resources such as aesthetics, air quality, noise, transportation, and hazards. Impacts from construction are typically considered less than significant due to their intermittent and temporary nature, especially for a transmission line project, which requires the construction work to move along the Project route. See Section 5 for a discussion of construction impacts for each environmental resource.

While power outages and service interruptions may be needed during construction to safely connect or disconnect elements from the transmission system, these would be temporary and rare. Any service NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS

JULY 2024 8 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

interruptions due to relocation of utilities would be coordinated with the utility owner, and nearby residents and businesses would be notified in advance of this work, to reduce impacts. As stated in Section

4.10, the objective of the Project is to increa se SVP’s system capacity and reliability, which should result in less power outages and service interruptions after construction is completed.

The IS/MND also acknowledges that the underground construction efforts for Option 2 would result in more intense, and longer, construction impacts when compared to the overhead construction of Option 1, due to the greater amount of ground disturbance, and the multitude of existing underground utilities in the area. Additionally, Option 2 could cause greater disruptions in the future, as its location underground makes it more difficult to reach for maintenance or emergency work.

3.1.6. Exploring Alternatives
Commentors suggested exploring alternatives such as upgrading existing power lines or implementing underground power lines. They recommended this due to potential benefits such as safety, reliability, and aesthetic impact. The commentors also suggested investigating advanced technologies or alternative routing options. The commentors suggested considering alternative options that prioritize public safety and minimize impacts to residents.

SVP conducted an Alternatives Analysis as part of the project development process. Several routes were considered, and three were analyzed in the alternatives analysis. The proposed Project route was chosen because, among other reasons, it had fewer impact s, fewer engineering design challenges, fewer permitting challenges, and it met the project objectives the best when compared to the other options.

See Section 4.16, Alternatives, and Appendix G.

Upgrading existing power lines This alternat
ive was not analyzed in detail because this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed Project. The Project seeks to increase SVP’s system capacity and reliability by installing a 115 kV transmission line between NRS and KRS, w hich would create a new connection between these substations, increasing the redundancy and reliability of SVP’s electrical grid.

Additionally, as stated in Section 4.11, some existing distribution lines would be transferred onto the new poles, which consolidates the energy corridor and increases the reliability by placing components on newly built poles.

Underground power lines. This “alternat
ive” is explored as Option 2 of the IS/MND, and the impacts of Option 2 are discussed under each environmental resource in Section 5.

Alternative locations. This alternat ive was already explored as part of the Alternatives Analysis, and the proposed Project location was chosen because it had fewer impacts than other locations, and best met SVP’s objectives.

Priority for public safety. SVP priori
tized public safety in the design of the Project. As stated in Section

4.11, the transmission line would be designed to adhere to National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 95, which de fine separation of structures from adjacent buildings or other utility facilities. Section 4.12.5.1 describes safety measures implemented during construction of the project, designed to protect public safety. See section 5.9, Haz ards and Hazardous Materials for a discussion of safety in relation to accidental spills of hazardous materials, the presence of existing subsurface contamination, the risk of wildfire, and aircraft safety . Section 5.17, Transportation discusses safety in relation to the transportation system.

3.1.7. Other
The commentors requested a meeting with city officials and representatives from the utility company to discuss the commentors concerns. The commentors expressed opposition of the installation of the power line.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS

JULY 2024 9 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

SVP has scheduled an in person public meeting on August 22, 2024, to discuss the commentors concerns during the IS/MND comment period. This meeting will be attended by SVP/City staff, and by industry professionals who can answer questions about the transmission line.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

JULY 2024 10 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

4. SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

PROCESS
An important part of the environmental review process is engaging the public and relevant agencies from the earliest stages of and throughout the process to identify issues, comments, and concerns. Figure 4-1 illustrates the steps in the CEQA review process and where the City’s decision falls within this process.

The public scoping period, when the comments in this report were received, is highlighted with an orange outline. The next opportunity for public involvement is the 30-day review process of the IS/MND.

Figure 4-1. Project Review and Timeline

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

Attachment A

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING NOTICES
NOTICE

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR
SVP NRS-KRS 115 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
Thursday, April 25, 2024
Project Background: Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line within the northeastern area of the City of Santa Clara. SVP’s primary objective of the new 115kV transmission line (Proposed Project) is to connect the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). By connecting these two receiving stations, it will allow energy to be balanced and redistributed within SVP's transmission receiving stations and allow SVP to serve new load growth projected based on the SVP Resource Load Forecast.

The new power line would begin at the Northern Receiving Station, located south of the intersection of Bill Walsh Way and Lafayette Street, and would continue to the Kifer Receiving Station, which is located on Lafayette Street. Most of the new 115kV transmission line would be constructed along the following city streets: Lafayette Street, Bassett Street and Duane Avenue. The transmission line would be built to support a 230kV transmission line, but would be initially energized at 115kV, allowing for future capacity expansion.

Construction is estimated to take approximately 14 months and be completed by early 2028.

Information Available : SVP is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), describing the project and its potential environmental effects. The IS/MND will be posted on the project website after publication.

Project Website : Scoping materials and information about the Proposed Project are available at:
www.siliconvalleypower.com/115kv
Informal Scoping Meeting: In order to help the affected community understand the Proposed Project and to explain how the public can participate in SVP’s decision-making process, SVP will hold a virtual informational scoping meeting on April 25, 2024. This informal workshop is an opportunity for agencies and the public to ask questions about the project being proposed and the scope of the environmental document and provide input on the scope and content of the environmental document. Written and oral comments may be submitted during the workshop, via US Mail, or email until May 8, 2024.

Thursday, April 25, 2024, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Please register in advance of the webinar at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_7L0n1KI7RFKFTFI43STN-Q Scoping Period: The public scoping period will be held from April 8 throug h May 8, 2024. Written or emailed comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 8, 2024, at the following mailing address or email address:

Allie Jackman
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Silicon Valley Power
c/o Aspen Environmental Group
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 967
San Francisco, CA 94104-3002
[email protected]

NOTICE

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR
SVP NRS-KRS 115 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
Thursday, May 23, 2024
Project Background: Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line within the northeastern area of the City of Santa Clara. SVP’s primary objective of the new 115kV transmission line (Proposed Project) is to connect the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). By connecting these two receiving stations, it will allow energy to be balanced and redistributed within SVP's transmission receiving stations and allow SVP to serve new load growth projected based on the SVP Resource Load Forecast.

The new power line would begin at the Northern Receiving Station, located south of the intersection of Bill Walsh Way and Lafayette Street, and would continue to the Kifer Receiving Station, which is located on Lafayette Street. Most of the new 115kV tran smission line would be constructed along the following city streets: Lafayette Street, Bassett Street and Duane Avenue. The transmission line would be built to support a 230kV transmission line, but would be initially energized at 115kV, allowing for future capacity expansion.

Construction is estimated to take approximately 14 months and be completed by early 2028.

Project Website: Scoping materials, a recording of the previous scoping meeting, and information about the Proposed Project are available at: www.siliconvalleypower.com/115kv Informal Scoping Meeting: In order to help the affected community understand the Proposed Project and to explain how the public can participate in SVP’s decision- making process, SVP will hold a second virtual informational scoping meeting on May 23, 2024. This informal workshop is an opportunity for agencies and the public to ask questions about the project being proposed and the scope of the environmental document and provide input on the scope and content of the environmental document. Written and oral comments may be submitted during the workshop, via US Mail, or email until May 29, 2024.

Thursday, May 23, 2024, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Please register in advance of the webinar at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_wW0QfYKBSp25hI6vIknzsA Scoping Period: The public scoping period was extended an additional three weeks to conduct an expanded outreach effort. The scoping period will be held from April 8 through May 29, 2024. Written or emailed comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 29, 2024, at the following mailing address or email address:

Allie Jackman
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Silicon Valley Power
c/o Aspen Environmental Group
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 967
San Francisco, CA 94104-3002
[email protected]

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

Attachment B

SCOPING MEETING PRESENTATION
1 SVP Public Scoping
Meeting #2
NRS-KRS 115 kV
Transmission Line Project
May 23, 2024
Key Players and their Roles in the
CEQA Process
• Silicon Valley Power (SVP): Lead Agency under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Project Proponent
– AECOM: Program and Project Managers for SVP
– ECI: Engineer of Record for SVP
– Aspen Environmental Group: Environmental contractor for SVP
1 2
2 Meeting Agenda
• Welcome and Introduction
• Purpose of this Meeting: Scoping
• Description of Proposed Project and Need
• Route Options Considered
• CEQA Process
• Project Schedule
• Q&A
• Public Comments
Purpose of This Meeting: Scoping
• To inform the public and responsible agencies about an upcoming project for which an Initial Study (IS) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be prepared
• To inform the public about the environmental review process • To solicit input regarding the appropriate scope of issues to be studied in the IS/MND
• To identify issues of concern and areas of potential controversy 3 4
3 Project Overview:
115kV Transmission Line
Northern to Kifer Receiving Station
• Construct a new 115kV overhead transmission line of
approximately 2.24 miles between Northern
Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station
(KRS)
• The transmission line would be built to support a
230kV transmission line, but would be initially
energized at 115kV, allowing for future capacity
expansion.
• Construction is estimated to take approximately 14
months and be completed by early 2028.

NR
S
K
R
S
S
R
S

NORTHERN

RECEIVING

STATION
Route A
Route B
Route C
LEGEND
KIFER

RECEIVING

STATION
Project Need
• Needed to accommodate approved and under construction load growth and reliability
• Balance and redistribute loads throughout the City
• System Operating Limit will be limited to ~819MW if
transmission line is not constructed
• Key Items: constructability, existing utilities, power delivery, potential growth, aesthetics, tree removals, maintenance considerations, construction costs, and schedule
5 6
4 Three Route Options Considered
• An assessment was prepared to determine the preferred route for the Proposed Project.
• Key consideration – feasibility and schedule (2028 completion date) – Route A (Proposed Project)– Being analyzed as the Proposed Project in CEQA document
• Along Lafayette Street to Bassett Street and Duane Avenue – Route B (considered and eliminated)
• Follows Route A on Lafayette Street until diverging at Bassett and George Street to the UPRR ROW and then crosses several private parcels to KRS.
– Route C (considered and eliminated)
• West side of San Tomas Aquino Creek
Routes
• Route A (Proposed Project)
• Route B (considered and eliminated)
• UPRR right of way is too narrow (concerns with induced current on the rail lines and additional permitting and design review)
• Properties surrounding UPPR do not have sufficient space to place structures
• Require extensive easement costs and coordination
• UPRR permits
• Route C (considered and eliminated)
• Majority within Creek boundaries
• Replace existing 60kV line where available
• Easements and permitting - unknown if permits would even be feasible and if feasible would not meet schedule due to extensive permitting schedules
• Longest route
NR
S
K
R
S
S
R
S

NORTHERN

RECEIVING

STATION
Route A
Route B
Route C
LEGEND
KIFER

RECEIVING

STATION
George
Street
Duane
Avenue
7 8
5 Proposed Project – Route A
• Northern Segment (NRS to Agnew)
• 0.74 miles
• Overhead and underground options
• Lafayette Street
• Southern Segment (Agnew to KRS)
• 1.5 miles
• Replaces existing transmission lines where available
• Lafayette Street, Bassett Street, Duane Avenue
Any ideas
for graphic
or
pictures?
Northern Segment
Southern Segment
LEGEND

NORTHERN

RECEIVING

STATION
KIFER

RECEIVING

STATION
Route A – Northern Segment
Route A – Southern Segment
LEGEND
George
Street
Duane
Avenue
Total Route Spans 2.24 miles
• Nine new poles within center median of Lafayette Street • No existing overhead transmission
• Residential development on both sides of Lafayette Street • Poles spaced every 250-500 feet on average and ~85-140 feet in height • Located within existing ROW or easements
• Minimal utility relocation
• Would minimize landscape/tree removal as part of design • An overhead transmission line can deliver more power and accommodate future growth with the option for a future underbuilt 60kV or 115kV transmission line Northern Segment (0.74 Miles)
Route A, Option 1:

Overhead Northern Segment (Preferred)
9 10
6 Route A, Option 1:

Overhead Northern Segment (Preferred)
Proposed Project Rendering Looking North
on Lafayette Street just south of Hope Drive
Looking South on Lafayette Street at
Hogan Drive
Route A, Option 2:

Underground Northern Segment (Not Preferred)
• Constraints with constructability, schedule,
power deliverability, and aesthetics
• 25 existing utilities crossing or conflicts with
underground alignment in Lafayette
• Requires relocation of 300 feet of two
transmission gas mains for PG&E and DVR
• The DVR shutdown can only occur twice a year
• PG&E work would be on PG&E schedule – will
not meet 2028 date
• Would also need to cross multiple utility lines
• Could require not meeting minimum spacing
requirements or significant excavation up to
20’ deep
11 12
7 Route A, Option 2:

Underground Northern
Segment (Not Preferred)
• Power Delivery:
• Can deliver up to 83% of the power of overhead
at 115kV due to heat dissipation requirements.
• Further declines at the 230kV level to 79.9%.
• Underground option will limit future
load growth and our ability to serve
currently entitled customers.
• Aesthetics:
• Overhead alignment from NRS to riser pole in
median of Lafayette
• Additional riser pole just south of Agnew on east
side of Lafayette
Typical Underground
Riser Pole
Comparison of Options for Northern Segment
Route A, Option 2 – Underground (Not Preferred)Route A, Option 1 – Overhead (Preferred) Can not meet 2028 schedule
• Relying on PG&E for utility relocation
• DVR shut-down
Ability to meet 2028 schedule.

Reduced transmission capacity Maximum transmission capacity Lack of provisions for future growthAbility to accommodate future growth Extended construction timelines with extended lane
closures and traffic control
Minimize utility relocations and reduce construction
disruption to the public
Longer restoration times in emergency situationsEase of maintaining the system Northern Segment Costs: ~$19 Million
Total Project Costs: ~$45.5 Million
Northern Segment Costs: ~$9.5 Million
Total Project Costs: ~$36 Million
13 14
8 Why Option 1 is Preferred
• Ability to meet the 2028 energization date
• Can accommodate future additional growth
• Maximum transmission capacity - Can accommodate
~20% more power than underground options for
already approved projects
• Reduced construction disruption to the public in
comparison to underground options
• Pole space provisions for future additional growth
along new transmission segments
• Ease of maintaining the system/restoration in
emergency conditions
Route A – Southern Segment
• Two existing 60kV overhead transmission lines. Between Agnew and Montague, existing 60kV at the following
locations would be replaced

1. East side of Lafayette Street

2. West side of Bassett Street
• At Montague Expressway, continue on west side of Bassett Street and replace 1,120 feet of 60kV where existing and install 2,980 feet of new overhead
• Final 980 feet of transmission line from just north of Bayshore to KRS along Duane Avenue would replace an
existing 60kV transmission line
Southern Segment (1.5 Miles)
Any ideas
for graphic
or
pictures?
Northern Segment
Southern Segment
LEGEND

NORTHERN

RECEIVING

STATION
KIFER

RECEIVING

STATION
Route A – Northern Segment
Route A – Southern Segment
LEGEND
George
Street
Duane
Avenue
15 16
9 Proposed Project
Southern Segment (1.5 Miles)
Poles RemovedPoles InstalledAlignment Consideration ToFrom 97East side of Lafayette and
west side of Bassett
Montague
Expressway
Agnew Road
11*11West side of BassettBassett and George
Street
Montague Expressway
37East side of Bassett and
Duane Street
Kifer Receiving
Station
Bassett and George
Street
*Distribution and transmission
Looking South on Lafayette Street just
south of Agnew
Looking South on Bassett Street just
south of Montague
Looking South on Duane Avenue just
south of Bayshore
Existing Poles
Examples of varying existing
poles ranging in heights from
65 to 90 feet in residential
neighborhoods.
17 18
10 CEQA Process
Preparation of
conceptual design
and start
of CEQA
Prepare
Proposed
IS/MND
30-day
IS/MND Public
Review Period
Consider
Comments &
Finalize
IS/MND
City Council
ConsiderationScoping
Identify
Project Need
Schedule
TimeframeTask
Feb. 2023 – May 2026Design
CEQA Process
Jan. 2024Identify Project Need
Jan. 2024 – Mar. 2024Preparation of conceptual design and start of CEQA April 8 – May 29, 2024CEQA Community Outreach (Scoping) Jun. 2024 – Jul. 2024Publication of Draft IS/MND and 20-day Public Review Period
Aug. 2024 – Sep. 2024Consider Comments and Finalize IS/MND Oct. 2024 - Nov. 2024City Council Consideration
Nov. 2026 – Mar. 2028Anticipated Construction
19 20
11 Initial Study Analysis
Environmental Issue Areas
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology & Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology & Water Quality
• Land Use & Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population & Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities & Service Systems
• Wildfire
Next Steps
• Public Scoping Period: April 8 – May 29, 2024
• All public comments submitted during the public scoping period will be reviewed • Environmental issues raised will be addressed in the environmental document • Publication of Draft CEQA IS/MND: ~ June 2024*
• After publication, the IS/MND will be available for public review and comment • All comments on the IS/MND will be reviewed, and changes to the IS/MND will be made, if necessary
• City Council Consideration: ~ November 2024*
• After the Final IS/MND is published, the City Council will decide to approve or deny the Project
*dates subject to change, assumes no identification of significant impacts 21 22
12 Questions?
Scoping Comments
• The most useful scoping comments:
– Identify the location and extent of environmental impacts of the proposed project
– Recommend modifications that would avoid or reduce impacts of the proposed project
– Are as specific as possible
23 24
13 Comments
• Mailing address:

Allie Jackman
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Silicon Valley Power
c/o Aspen Environmental Group
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 967
San Francisco, CA 94104-3002
• Email:

[email protected]
Please be sure to include your name, address, and email or phone number on all comments.

Thank You for
Your Input!
25 26
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
JULY 2024 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING REPORT

Attachment C

WRITTEN SCOPING COMMENTS RECEIVED

DURING SCOPING PERIOD
Opposition to SVP NRS-KRS 115KV transmission line project XIAOLING HUANG <[email protected]>
Sun 4/14/2024 5:30 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>
Hi,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed high voltage transmission line project near our community. As a resident deeply concerned about the well-being of our neighborhood, I believe that this project poses significant risks to our health, safety, and environment.

The electromagnetic fields generated by high voltage transmission lines have been linked to various adverse health effects, including increased risk of cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive issues.

Placing such infrastructure in close proximity to residential areas puts our families and children at unnecessary risk.

I urge you to reconsider the placement of this project and explore alternative routes or technologies that minimize the negative impacts on our community. Our health, safety, and quality of life should not be sacrificed for the sake of energy infrastructure.

Thank you for considering my concerns. I look forward to hearing from you and participating in the decision-making process regarding this important issue.

Sincerely,
Shownie
Mission Terrace resident
Concerns Regarding new 115 kV power lines.

Cipson Jose <[email protected]>
Wed 5/29/2024 11:13 AM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

Having reviewed the materials provided by your office and attended the recent public scoping meeting on May 23, 2024, I have delved into the details of the project. After careful consideration, I must voice my complete opposition to options A and B.

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by the se high-power

2. Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards: The proposed route intersects with an already congested utility zone along Lafayette Street, he

3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high-power transmission lines in front of resid ences introduces additional risk factors that could prompt insu

4. Property Value Concerns: The aesthetic and health-related concerns associated with the proposed power lines could adversely af fect property values in our co

5. Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in o

6. Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and maintenance of these power lines could dis rupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures,

7. Exploring Alternatives
: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite pot As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, and a member of a community directly affected by this proposal, I strongly oppose the installation of power lines in options A and B. I implore Silicon Valley Power to consider alternative options that prioritize public health and safety and minimize adverse impacts on Santa Clara residents.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter, and eagerly await your response.

Sincerely
Cipson Jose
2142 Payne Pl, Santa Clara
[email protected]
Payne Place Community
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS).

Anu Alex <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 1:45 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving S
tation (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power electric lines are paramount. Numerous studies have indicated a possible correlation between EMF exposure and various health issues, including heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological disorders, especially in children and the elderly. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling evidence supporting these concerns. For instance, there is extensive research supporting that magnetic fields generated by the proposed power lines far exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

Residents living in close proximity to these high power lines are at greater risk. I have gone through several medical and scientific research papers published on this matter that support our concern on this matter.

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590107/
https://www.hydroone.com/poweroutagesandsafety_/corporatehealthandsafety_/EMFs/Transmission_Line_EMF_Fields.pdf https://www.emrss.com/blogs/emr-shielding-solutions-blogs/what-are-safe-levels-of-emf As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans. Here is a break up:
· 115kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 6.5 at a distance of <50 feet. · 230kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 19.5 at a distance of <50 feet. ( ref. Link2)

Link3) per
numbers listed above, it's evident that residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the concerns.

While I am speaking up as a resident of Mission Gardens, there are many other houses and apartment complexes along and near Lafayette St. whose residents will also be impacted by the unsafe levels of EMF.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high-power transmission lines in front of residences introduces additional risk factors that could prompt insurance companies to raise premiums further, exacerbating the already soaring home insurance costs in the Bay Area.

4. Property Value Concerns: The aesthetic and health-related concerns associated with the proposed power lines could adversely affect property values in our community, posing a significant concern for homeowners who have invested substantially in their properties.

5. Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in our well-maintained homes and attractive streetscapes.

6. Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes. Moreover, frequent power outages and service interruptions may result from ongoing maintenance activities.

7. Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite potentially higher upfront costs. These alternatives offer long-term benefits in terms of safety, reliability, and minimal aesthetic impact. Additionally, investigating advanced technologies and alternative routing options could help mitigate the adverse effects on our community.

I respectfully request a meeting with relevant city officials and representatives from the utility company to discuss these concerns in detail and explore viable solutions. Finding a balance between necessary infrastructure upgrades and safeguarding the health, safety, and aesthetic integrity of our community is imperative.

As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, and a member of a community directly affected by this proposal, I strongly oppose the installation of power lines in options A and B. I implore Silicon Valley Power to consider alternative options that prioritize public health and safety and minimize adverse impacts on Santa Clara residents.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Thankfully,
Anu Alex
4457 Lafayette St, Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408)836-8153
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)
Prashant Tiwari <[email protected]>
Wed 5/29/2024 11:40 AM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure t o unsafe levels
of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power electric lines are paramount.

Numerous studies have indicated a possible correlation between EMF exposure and various health issues, including heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological disorders, especially in children and the elderly. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling evidence
supporting these concerns. For instance, there is extensive research supporting that magnetic fields generated by the proposed power lines far exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

Residents living in close proximity to these high power lines are at greater risk. I have gone through several medical and scientific research papers publishe d on this matter that support our
concern on this matter.

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590107/
https://www.hydroone.com/poweroutagesandsafety_/corporatehealthandsafety_/EMFs/Transmissi on_Line_EMF_Fields.pdf
https://www.emrss.com/blogs/emr-shielding-solutions-blogs/what-are-safe-levels-of-emf As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans.

Here is a break up:
· 115kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 6.5 at a distance of <50 feet.
· 230kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 19.5 at a distance of <50 feet. ( ref. Link2)

Link3) per numbers listed above, it's evident that
residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the concerns.

While I am speaking up as a resident of Mission Gardens, there are many other houses and apartment complexes along and near Lafayette St. whose resident s will also be impacted by the
unsafe levels of EMF.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high-power transmission lines in front of residences introduces additional risk factors that could prompt insurance companies to raise
premiums further, exacerbating the already soaring home insurance costs in the Bay Area.

4. Property Value Concerns: The aesthetic and health-related concerns associated with the proposed power lines could adversely af
fect property values in our community, posing a significant concern for homeowners who have invested substantially in their properties.

5. Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in ou r well-maintained homes and
attractive streetscapes.

6. Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes.

Moreover
, frequent power outages and service interruptions may result from ongoing maintenance activities.

7. Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrad ing
existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite potentially higher upfront costs.

These alternatives offer long-term benefits in terms of safety, reliability, and minimal aesthetic impact. Additionally, investigating advanced technologies and alternative routing o ptions could
help mitigate the adverse effects on our community.

As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, and a member of a community directly affected by this proposal, I strongly oppose the installation of power lines in options A and B. I implore Silicon Valley
Power to consider alternative options that prioritize public health and safety and minimize adverse impacts on Santa Clara residents.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Dr. Prashant Tiwari
4489 Lafayette St, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Cell: 518-892-1551
Mission Gardens Community (Santa Clara Rivermark)
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community (Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS)
Aman S <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 2:52 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

my complete opposition to options A and B.

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure t o unsafe levels
of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power electric lines are paramount.

Numerous studies have indicated a possible correlation between EMF exposure and various health issues, including heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological disorders, especially

in children and the elderly. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling evidence supporting these concerns. For instance, there is extensive research supporting that magnetic fields generated by the proposed power lines far exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590107/
https://www.hydroone.com/poweroutagesandsafety_/corporatehealthandsafety_/EMFs/Transmissi on_Line_EMF_Fields.pdf
https://www.emrss.com/blogs/emr-shielding-solutions-blogs/what-are-safe-levels-of-emf As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans.

Link3) per numbers listed above, it's evident that
residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the concerns.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

2. Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards:

The proposed route intersects
with an already congested utility zone along Lafayette Street, heightening the risk of accidents and fire hazards, especially given the proximity to existing railway lines, residential buildings, and heavy vehicular traf
fic.

4. Property Value Concerns:

The aesthetic and health-related concerns associated with the proposed power lines could adversely affect property values in our community, posing a significant concern for homeowners who have invested substantially in their properties.

5. Aesthetic Impact:

The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in our well-maintained homes and attractive streetscapes.

6. Complexity and Inconvenience:

The construction and maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes.

Moreover, frequent power outages and service interruptions may result from ongoing maintenance activities.

7. Exploring Alternatives
: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite potentially higher upfront costs.

These alternatives offer long-term benefits in terms of safety, reliability, and minimal aesthetic impact.

Additionally, investigating advanced technologies and alternative routing options could help mitigate the adverse effects on our community.

As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, and a member of a community directly affected by this proposal, I strongly oppose the installation of power lines in options A and B. I implore Silicon Valley
Power to consider alternative options that prioritize public health and safety and minimize adverse impacts on Santa Clara residents.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Best,
Aman Sharma
(Resident - Mission Garden)
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS).

Neelam <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 2:52 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of electromagnetic
fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power electric lines are paramount. Numerous studies have indicated a possible
correlation between EMF exposure and various health
issues, including heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological disorders, especially in children and the
elderly. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling evidence supporting these concerns. For
instance, there is extensive research supporting that
magnetic fields generated by the proposed power lines far exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590107/
https://www.hydroone.com/poweroutagesandsafety_/corpor
atehealthandsafety_/EMFs/Transmission_Line_EMF_Fields
.pdf
https://www.emrss.com/blogs/emr-shielding-solutions-
blogs/what-are-safe-levels-of-emf
As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans. Here is a break up:

Â· 115kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 6.5 at a distance of <50 feet.

Â· 230kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of 19.5 at a distance of <50 feet. ( ref.

Link2)

0.7mg (ref.

Link3) per numbers listed above, it's evident
that residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on
Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the
concerns.

While I am speaking up as a resident of Mission Gardens, there are many other houses and apartment complexes along
and near Lafayette St. whose residents will also be
impacted by the unsafe levels of EMF.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

2. Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards:

The proposed route intersects with an already congested utility zone along Lafayette Street, heightening the risk of accidents and fire hazards, especially given the proximity to existing railway lines, residential buildings, and heavy vehicular traffic.

3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high- power transmission lines in front of residences introduces additional risk factors that could prompt insurance
companies to raise premiums further, exacerbating the
already soaring home insurance costs in the Bay Area.

5. Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our
neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in our well- maintained homes and attractive streetscapes.

6. Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and
maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and
restricted access to homes. Moreover, frequent power
outages and service interruptions may result from ongoing maintenance activities.

7. Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore
alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite potentially higher upfront costs. These alternatives offer long-term benefits in terms of safety, reliability, and minimal aesthetic impact. Additionally, investigating advanced technologies and alternative routing options could help mitigate the adverse effects on our community.

I respectfully request a meeting with relevant city officials and representatives from the utility company to discuss these concerns in detail and explore viable solutions. Finding a balance between necessary infrastructure upgrades and
safeguarding the health, safety, and aesthetic integrity of our community is imperative.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Neelam Dabholkar,
1914 Garzoni pl,
Resident of Mission Garden community
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS).

Gane Sugali <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 2:55 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Gane Sugali <[email protected]>; Ashwini Kumbavath <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power electric lines are paramount. Numerous studies have indicated a possible correlation between EMF exposure and various health issues, including heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological disorders, especially in children and the elderly. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling evidence supporting these concerns. For instance, there is extensive research supporting that magnetic fields generated by the proposed power lines far exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

R
esidents living in close proximity to these high power lines are at greater risk. I have gone through several medical and scientific research papers published on this matter that support our concern on this matter.

As the project stands today, the first row of houses in Mission Gardens on Lafayette Street will be less than 50 feet from the proposed installation point per Route A of these poles.The safe value of magnetic field around humans is 0.7mg (ref. Link3) per numbers listed above, it's evident that residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the concerns.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards: The proposed route intersects with an already congested utility zone along Lafayette Street, heightening the risk of accidents and fire hazards, especially given the proximity to existing railway lines, residential buildings, and heavy vehicular traffic.

Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high-power transmission lines in front of residences introduces additional risk factors that could prompt insurance companies to raise premiums further, exacerbating the already soaring home insurance costs in the Bay Area.

Property Value Concerns: The aesthetic and health-related concerns associated with the proposed power lines could adversely affect property values in our community, posing a significant concern for homeowners who have invested substantially in their properties.

Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in our well-maintained homes and attractive streetscapes.

Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes. Moreover, frequent power outages and service interruptions may result from ongoing maintenance activities.

Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite potentially higher upfront costs. These alternatives offer long-term benefits in terms of safety, reliability, and minimal aesthetic impact. Additionally, investigating advanced technologies and alternative routing options could help mitigate the adverse effects on our community.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Gane Sugali
1921 Silva place Santa Clara 95054
4086214804
Mission Garden community
Concerns with Proposed High Power Electric transmission lines Mission Gardens Community for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS).

Preetika <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 3:18 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed
installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern
Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station
(KRS).

Having reviewed the materials provided by your office and attended the recent public scoping meeting on May 23,
2024, I have delved into the details of the project. After careful consideration, I must voice my complete opposition to options A and B.

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

1. Health Concerns: The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of
electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-
power electric lines are paramount. Numerous studies
have indicated a possible correlation between EMF
exposure and various health issues, including
heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological
disorders, especially in children and the elderly. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling
evidence supporting these concerns. For instance,
there is extensive research supporting that magnetic
fields generated by the proposed power lines far
exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing
significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC105901
07/
https://www.hydroone.com/poweroutagesandsafety_/c
orporatehealthandsafety_/EMFs/Transmission_Line_E
MF_Fields.pdf
https://www.emrss.com/blogs/emr-shielding-solutions-
blogs/what-are-safe-levels-of-emf
As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans. Here is a break
up:

Â· 115kV power transmission line has a Mean
Magnetic Field (mG) of 6.5 at a distance of <50
feet.

Â· 230kV power transmission line has a Mean
Magnetic Field (mG) of 19.5 at a distance of <50
feet. ( ref.

Link2)

Link3) per numbers
listed above, it's evident that residents in close
proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the
residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more
reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed
can also be provided if needed to reinforce the
concerns.

While I am speaking up as a resident of Mission Gardens, there are many other houses and apartment
complexes along and near Lafayette St. whose
residents will also be impacted by the unsafe levels of EMF.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we
need to err on the side of caution.

3. Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high- power transmission lines in front of residences
introduces additional risk factors that could prompt
insurance companies to raise premiums further,
exacerbating the already soaring home insurance
costs in the Bay Area.

4. Property Value Concerns: The aesthetic and health-
related concerns associated with the proposed power
lines could adversely affect property values in our
community, posing a significant concern for
homeowners who have invested substantially in their
properties.

5. Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our
neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in our
well-maintained homes and attractive streetscapes.

6. Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and
maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our
daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes. Moreover, frequent
power outages and service interruptions may result
from ongoing maintenance activities.

7. Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore
alternative solutions such as upgrading existing lines
or implementing underground power lines, despite
potentially higher upfront costs. These alternatives
offer long-term benefits in terms of safety, reliability, and minimal aesthetic impact. Additionally,
investigating advanced technologies and alternative
routing options could help mitigate the adverse effects on our community.

I respectfully request a meeting with relevant city officials and representatives from the utility company to discuss these concerns in detail and explore viable solutions.

Finding a balance between necessary infrastructure
upgrades and safeguarding the health, safety, and
aesthetic integrity of our community is imperative.

As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, and a member of a community directly affected by this proposal, I strongly oppose the installation of power lines in options A and B. I implore Silicon Valley Power to consider alternative
options that prioritize public health and safety and
minimize adverse impacts on residents.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to
collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Sincerely
Preetika Tiwari
Address: 4489 Lafayette St. Santa Clara, CA 95054
Phone: 940-232-6463
Mission Gardens Community at intersection of Lafayette
and Hope dr.

MEHUL SURESH JAIN <[email protected]>
Wed 5/29/2024 11:01 AM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP).

This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans. Here is a break up:
· 115kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of

6.5 at a distance of <50 feet.
· 230kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of

19.5 at a distance of <50 feet. ( ref. Link2)
As the project stands today, the first row of houses in Mission Gardens on Lafayette Street will be less than 50 feet from the proposed installation point per Route A of these poles.The safe value of magnetic field around humans is 0.7mg (ref. Link3) per numbers listed above, it's evident that residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the concerns.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Mehul Suresh Kumar Jain
2069 Garzoni Pl, Santa Clara, CA-95054
408-326-9386
Mission Gardens
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS).

Vishaka Sutrave <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 3:54 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

Health Concerns:

The potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these high-power electric lines are paramount.

Numerous studies have indicated a possible correlation between EMF exposure and various health issues, including heightened risks of certain cancers and neurological disorders, especially in children and the elderly
. I have extensively researched this topic and found compelling evidence supporting these concerns. For instance, there is extensive research supporting that magnetic fields generated by the proposed power lines far exceed safe levels for human exposure, posing significant risks to residents, particularly those living within close proximity to the installation site.

Residents living in close proximity to these high power lines are at greater risk. I have gone through several medical and scientific research papers publishe d on this matter that support our
concern on this matter.

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590107/
https://www.hydroone.com/poweroutagesandsafety_/corporatehealthandsafety_/EMFs/Transmiss ion_Line_EMF_Fields.pdf
https://www.emrss.com/blogs/emr-shielding-solutions-blogs/what-are-safe-levels-of-emf As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans.

Link2)

Link3) per numbers listed above, it's evident that
residents in close proximity will be exposed to very high unsafe levels of EMF. This will have a significant impact to all the residents within 50-75 feet. As mentioned ,more reference to various NIH research articles on Pubmed can also be provided if needed to reinforce the concerns.

While I am speaking up as a resident of Mission Gardens, there are many other houses and apartment complexes along and near Lafayette St. whose resident s will also be impacted by the
unsafe levels of EMF.

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

Increased Risk for Catastrophic Accidents and Fire Hazards: The proposed route intersects with an already congested utility zone along Lafayette Street, heightening the risk of accidents and fire hazards, especially given the proximity to existing ra ilway lines, residential buildings, and
heavy vehicular traffic.

Impact on Home Insurance Costs: The addition of high-power transmission lines in front of residences introduces additional risk factors that could prompt insurance companies to raise
premiums further, exacerbating the already soaring home insurance costs in the Bay Area.

Property Value Concerns: The aesthetic and health-related concerns associated with the proposed power lines could adversely af
fect property values in our community, posing a
significant concern for homeowners who have invested substantially in their properties.

Aesthetic Impact: The installation of large electric poles and wires would detract from the visual appeal of our neighborhood, undermining the pride we take in ou r well-maintained homes and
attractive streetscapes.

Complexity and Inconvenience: The construction and maintenance of these power lines could disrupt our daily lives, leading to noise pollution, road closures, and restricted access to homes.

Moreover
, frequent power outages and service interruptions may result from ongoing maintenance activities.

Exploring Alternatives: We urge the city to explore alternative solutions such as upgrad ing
existing lines or implementing underground power lines, despite potentially higher upfront costs.

As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, and a member of a community directly affected by this proposal, I strongly oppose the installation of power lines in options A and B. I implore Silicon Valley
Power to consider alternative options that prioritize public health and safety and minimize adverse impacts on Santa Clara residents.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Regards,
Vishaka Sutrave
2069 Garzoni Place, Santa Clara
2133099207
Mission Gardens
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS).

Mehul Suresh Kumar Jain <[email protected]> Mon 5/27/2024 3:50 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP).

This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).

While acknowledging the necessity of upgrading the city’s power infrastructure, there are several significant concerns that demand attention:

Here are a few links for reference to some such research articles:
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC10590107%2F&data=05%7C02 %7CNRS-
KRS%40aspeneg.com%7C65ac8d1d694941ea9a0708dc7e9f4905%7Cf56a45392d8e4b0d8454a64203aa39 d3%7C0%7C0%7C638524470296577594%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fL%2FKLHk1gune4ikFTzs PntRdEzFX3FwrP2DAjN1g4dw%3D&reserved=0
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hydroone.com%2Fpoweroutagesandsafety_%2Fcorporatehealthandsafety_%2 FEMFs%2FTransmission_Line_EMF_Fields.pdf&data=05%7C02%7CNRS- KRS%40aspeneg.com%7C65ac8d1d694941ea9a0708dc7e9f4905%7Cf56a45392d8e4b0d8454a64203aa39 d3%7C0%7C0%7C638524470296586465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=36ptUnPzB46U2Nah7T %2B6%2F7cZYWQN1WPBYMM2rlMMPoI%3D&reserved=0
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.emrss.com%2Fblogs%2Femr-shielding-solutions-blogs%2Fwhat-are-safe- levels-of-emf&data=05%7C02%7CNRS-
KRS%40aspeneg.com%7C65ac8d1d694941ea9a0708dc7e9f4905%7Cf56a45392d8e4b0d8454a64203aa39 d3%7C0%7C0%7C638524470296589251%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1emXJgEFqTxhmt04Jtlh GsKYceMny9QmvWocwfduhjk%3D&reserved=0
As a quick overview from these please see below:

The magnetic field generated by the high power lines is way beyond safe levels for humans. Here is a break up:
· 115kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of

6.5 at a distance of <50 feet.
· 230kV power transmission line has a Mean Magnetic Field (mG) of

Even a small risk is substantial for public health safety and can and should not be ignored by authorities; we need to err on the side of caution.

Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter. I eagerly await your response and the opportunity to collaborate on finding a satisfactory resolution.

Mehul Jain
2069 Garzoni Pl, Santa Clara, CA-95054
408-326-9386
Mission Gardens
Concerns Regarding Upcoming High Power Electric Wire Poles in Our Community( Mission Gardens) for the upcoming SVP project connecting the Northern Receiving Station NRS to Kifer receiving station (KRS).

Nikhil Mungre <[email protected]>
Mon 5/27/2024 4:53 PM
To: NRS-KRS Project <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> To Whomsoever it may concern,
As a concerned resident of Santa Clara, I am writing to express our apprehensions regarding the proposed installation route for high-power electric transmission lines and poles by Silicon Valley Power (SVP). This initiative is part of the project aimed at connecting the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS).