Agenda packet — City Council and Authorities Concurrent, November 12, 2024 (part 5 of 13)

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-686 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Informational Report on Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager Meetings for the Period of April 1 to June 30, 2024

BOARD PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
On August 24, 2017, the Stadium Authority approved the Harvey Rose Audit titled “Comprehensive Audit of Stadium”. Audit recommendation 1.Q states that “the Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to require that all meetings, including the date and purpose of the meetings, between Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff be documented and reported quarterly or annually to the Stadium Authority Board.” Staff has implemented this audit recommendation on a quarterly basis.

At the August 25, 2020 meeting, the Stadium Authority Board provided additional direction to staff to prepare minutes for all future Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff meetings.

DISCUSSION
In accordance with the Board approved audit recommendation, meetings between Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff for the period of April 1 to June 30, 2024 are listed below. The attendees and topics discussed at these meetings are included in this report as Attachment 1.

Date Meeting Purpose
04/05/2024 Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting (via Zoom) 04/08/2024 Super Bowl LX Master Planning Session Meeting (in person) 04/09/2024 Arbitration Issues Meeting (via Teams)
04/11/2024 Public Works Procurement Meeting (via Teams) 04/15/2024 Disability Access Services Meeting (via phone) 04/16/2024 Event Security RFP Discussion Meeting (via Teams) 04/17/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 04/19/2024 Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting (via Zoom) 04/19/2024 Financial Management System/Managed Services Status Meeting (via Zoom)
04/22/2024 Insurance Meeting (via phone)
04/22/2024 Arbitration Issues Meeting (via Teams)
04/22/2024 Disability Access Services Meeting (via phone) 04/24/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 04/26/2024 Assignment and Assumption Agreement Issues Meeting (via Zoom) 04/26/2024 Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting (via Zoom) City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-686 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024
04/19/2024 Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting (via Zoom) 04/19/2024 Financial Management System/Managed Services Status Meeting (via Zoom)
04/22/2024 Insurance Meeting (via phone)
04/22/2024 Arbitration Issues Meeting (via Teams)
04/22/2024 Disability Access Services Meeting (via phone) 04/24/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 04/26/2024 Assignment and Assumption Agreement Issues Meeting (via Zoom) 04/26/2024 Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting (via Zoom) 04/26/2024 Arbitration Issues Meeting (via Teams)
04/29/2024 Stadium Authority/Stadium Manager Monthly Coordination Meeting (in person)
04/30/2024 Procurement Discussion Meeting (hybrid)
05/01/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 05/02/2024 Arbitration Issues and FIFA Meeting (via Teams) 05/03/2024 Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting (via Zoom) 05/08/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 05/09/2024 FIFA World Cup 2026 Assignment and Assumption Agreement Meeting (via Zoom)
05/10/2024 Claim Meeting (via phone)
05/10/2024 Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting (via Zoom) 05/10/2024 Levi’s Coordination Meeting (via Zoom)
05/14/2024 Stadium Authority/Stadium Manager Monthly Coordination Meeting (via Teams)
05/15/2024 49ers Settlement Agreement Meeting (via Teams) 05/15/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 05/17/2024 49ers Settlement Agreement Meeting (via Teams) 05/20/2024 49ers Settlement Agreement Meeting (via Teams) 05/20/2024 Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting (via Teams) 05/29/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 05/31/2024 Kylii/Blue Lot Parking Meeting (via Teams)
06/03/2024 Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting (via Teams) 06/04/2024 Various Stadium Operations and Settlement Meeting (via Teams) 06/05/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 06/12/2024 Guidepost Discussion Meeting (via Teams)
06/14/2024 Stadium Parking Meeting (via phone)
06/17/2024 Stadium Authority/Stadium Manager Quarterly Status Meeting (in person)
06/17/2024 Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting (via Teams) 06/18/2024 Various Stadium and Settlement Implementation Issues Meeting (via Teams)
06/20/2024 Financial Management System/Managed Services Status Meeting (via Zoom)
06/21/2024 Event Security Services Meeting (via phone)
06/24/2024 Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting (via Teams) 06/26/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 06/28/2024 Event Security RFP and Agreement Meeting (via Teams) City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-686 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024
06/18/2024 Various Stadium and Settlement Implementation Issues Meeting (via Teams)
06/20/2024 Financial Management System/Managed Services Status Meeting (via Zoom)
06/21/2024 Event Security Services Meeting (via phone)
06/24/2024 Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting (via Teams) 06/26/2024 Weekly Accounting Status Meeting (via Teams) 06/28/2024 Event Security RFP and Agreement Meeting (via Teams)

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to this item aside from administrative time to prepare this report.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel and Treasurer’s Offices.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file the quarterly report on Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff meetings and corresponding summaries for the period of April 1 to June 30, 2024.

Reviewed by: Chuck Baker, Assistant Executive Director
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, Executive Director

ATTACHMENTS

1. Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager Meeting Summaries for the Period of 4/1/24 to 6/30/24
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting
Date: 4/05/2024; 11:00 am to 11:30 am
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (SCSA), Ryan Van Maarth (ManCo) AGENDA

1. Permits:
a. Canopy Camera Project
i. Pilot Program in partnership with Intel. Update on permit status under review with the building department.

Super Bowl LX Master Planning Session Meeting
Date: 4/8/2024; 12:30pm
In Person Meeting at Levi’s Stadium: Jovan Grogan, Chuck Baker, Derek Rush (City/SCSA); Grecia Barboza (49ers); Zaileen Janmohamed, Becca Smith, Karina Herold, Patty Hubbard, Ryan Bates, Kristin Miller, Ruth Shikada (Bay Area Host Committee); Sonia Nayak and Robert Weikert (Nixon Peabody)

1. Representatives from the NFL and NFL related agencies and vendors hosted a SBLX Master Planning Session at Levi’s Stadium with key stakeholders. This meeting was a highly collaborative planning session/workshop to explore security perimeter, hospitality, media, ride share and other SBLX related initiatives that require logistics planning and coordination.

Date: 4/9/2024, 10:30 a.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Arbitration Issues
Public Works Procurement Meeting
Date: 04/11/2024; 2:00pm to 3:00pm
Teams Meeting: Christine Jung, Falguni Amin (City/SCSA), and Jenti Vandertuig (Stadium Manager)

1. Discuss City public works procurement process

2. Review City public works bid documents
Date: 4/15/2024, 3:30 p.m.

Phone Call:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Sujata Reuter, Chief Assistant City Attorney
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Disability Access Services
Event Security RFP Discussion
Date: 04/16/2024; 11:00am to 11:30am
Teams Meeting: Christine Jung (City/SCSA); Francine Melendez Hughes, Jenti Vandertuig, and Jeremy Vaux (Stadium Manager)

1. Discussion of the Event Security RFP
Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 4/17/2024; 2:30pm to 2:39pm
Teams Meeting: Linh Lam (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), and Brent Ghan (ManCo)

1. NFL Surcharge Request

2. Public safety cost estimates to ManCo
Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting
Date: 4/19/2024; 11:00 am to 11:30 am
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (SCSA), Ryan Van Maarth (ManCo) AGENDA
• Facilities Condition Assessment:
• B&D and selected subconsultants will conduct a visual non-intrusive inspection on May 7th and 8th.
• SCSA requested access to the RFQ.
• Tenant Exclusive spaces are not incorporated into the report. • Review open permits
• Permits anticipated for intake
• Discuss Video Board Meeting Agenda and outcome – Consultant meeting currently scheduled for 4/22 (Shannon George from David J Powers is unable to attend).
• Proposed Agenda:
• Update on design status - design is lagging behind.
• Configuration of the naming rights signage (additional transformers to supplement the power).
• Environmental reports currently being generated.
• Discuss what, if any, regulatory agency is required to be consulted. • Project schedule (Microsoft Project - Shareable) – Outstanding • Isolated schedule for video boards
• Critical Path
• Overall shareable

1. Open Projects:
• BLD24-00284 Demo (Green halo number) - Done
• BLD24 00398 Building Permit (Green halo number) - Done • South Field Seats - Build out this summer (Build out - May 19th) • Suite Reno (phased over 2 years).
• Gate A signage (BLD24- 01029) - (Outstanding with Fire. Built out before the start of the football season)
• 2 months for fabrications and install - approval by June.

Critical Incoming Projects
o Bowl Modifications – Submissions anticipated 4/30
o LED Video Boards – Submission anticipated 4/30 (Architectural / MEP) • Deferred submittal for catwalk and screen tech)
o Tech Room – Submission anticipated 4/30
• Core and Shell will be submitted - 4/30.
• Public Safety may need to review for emergency exit signage (event safety component).
o Naming Right (tab Signage_ Separate from the batwings) – Anticipated submission 4/30 • Will be submitted as two separate packages with a reference to the video boards because the structural details that tie back to the video board. • (Armand 4/22) Structural calcs will need to be included with loads imposed (wind and seismic). Signage can show connection places and points - video boards will include language for accounting for the points shown in the video boards. Video boards will need the structural). Video board layout needs to match the signage. o Field Lights - Public Funds (Prevailing wage) – Anticipated Submission 4/30 • LCP tracker/Certified Payroll.
• Bid date a few weeks beyond permit intake.

Financial Management System/Managed Services Status Meeting Date: 4/19/2024; 2:00pm to 2:19pm
Zoom Meeting: Linh Lam (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), David Presley (SCSA), Brent Ghan (ManCo), Chad Hundley (Armanino), Rebecca Bunas, and Giles Zollar (Armanino)

1. Available system review, available support hours and academy courses

2. ManCo open support tickets with InTwo

3. Coupa/Scribe to load AP invoices into Great Plains

4. System upgrade for Great Plains to upgrade from 18.4 to 18.6

5. SCSA trainings using available academy courses
Date: 4/22/2024 10:00 a.m.

Phone Call:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Sujata Reuter, Chief Assistant City Attorney
For Stadium Manager:

Jodi Marvet

1. Insurance
Date: 4/22/2024, 11:00 a.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Arbitration Issues
Date: 4/22/2024, 5:00 p.m.

Phone Call:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Sujata Reuter, Chief Assistant City Attorney
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Disability Access Services
Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 4/24/2024: 2:30pm to 2:40pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), and Brent Ghan (ManCo)

1. SCSA switching banks to JP Morgan Chase

2. Final Capital Expenditure spend report from ManCo

3. Non-NFL Events P&L reporting

4. Stadium Builder License Relocation
Date: 4/26/2024, 10:00 a.m.

Zoom Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
Chuck Baker, Assistant City Manager
Christine Jung, Assistant to the City Manager
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman
For Bay Area Host Committee:

Zaileen Janmohamed
Sonia Nayak
Matthew Richards
Ruth Shikada
Becca Smith
Robert Weikert

1. Assignment and Assumption Agreement Issues
Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting
Date: 4/26/2024; 11:00 am to 11:30 am
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (SCSA), Ryan Van Maarth (ManCo) Agenda:
• Consultant proposals for FCA – ManCo to provide.
• Permits:
o ManCo to provide SCSA an updated schedule
o South Field Seats comments back to the consultant
 Responses probably intaking next week.
o Yahoo Wings – Approved.
o Suite Renovations - TCO application may be requested - use 1 - 2 suites (Devcon)
 Likely will request suites under TCO
 Phase 2 (May 3rd).
o Naming rights - Meeting with Armand
o Bowl Modifications / Pitch anticipated submission (4/30). o Video Boards anticipated submission (5-6 weeks out)
o Tech Room anticipated submission (4/30).
o LED field lights anticipated submission (4/30).

Date: 4/26/2024, 2:30 p.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Arbitration Issues

STADIUM AUTHORITY/STADIUM MANAGER

MONTHLY COORDINATION MEETING
April 29, 2024 | 3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Levi’s Stadium

ATTENDEES
City/Stadium Authority
• Chuck Baker, Assistant City
Manager/ Assistant Executive
Director
• Christine Jung, Assistant to the
City Manager/Assistant to the
Executive Director
• Elycia Knight, Development Project
Manager
49ers/Stadium Manager
• Francine Melendez Hughes,
Executive Vice President &
General Manager
• Peter Wilhelm, Chief Financial
Officer
AGENDA

1. Field Seat SBLs 5/7 Agenda Item and Stadium Manager In-Person Appearance Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed field seat logistics, including ADA seats and the status of NFL approval. The Stadium Manager was also asked to be present at the Stadium Authority Board meeting for the item.

2. Jumbotron and Control Room Status
Stadium Manager staff provided an update on the jumbotron that they were in the design process and preparing a submittal. They shared that the Naming Rights signage would need to be a on parallel track. Stadium Authority staff requested a timeline and coordination on the project. Stadium Authority staff also inquired about control room related equipment and labor, which Stadium Manager staff said they would follow up on.

3. FCA Feedback
Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff confirmed Stadium Authority staff’s participation in meetings related to the Facility Condition Assessment and discussed the Stadium Authority’s request for bid documents for the selected consultant and subconsultants from the Stadium Manager’s project manager. A walk-through of the Stadium was scheduled for the following week.

4. Inventory List (Follow up)
Stadium Manager staff shared that they were working on an inventory list of old Stadium equipment.

5. Parking Agreements (Follow up)
Stadium Authority staff confirmed that they received copies of the parking agreements for Non-NFL Events sent by the Stadium Manager. There was brief discussion and acknowledgement that the Stadium Manager provided spaces for a Convention Center event.

6. Miscellaneous Items
Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed coordination for the Levi’s Stadium security and neighborhood impacts assessment, scheduling potential Non-NFL Events presentations to the Board in the upcoming months, and stadium capacity for the upcoming Luke Combs concerts.

Procurement Discussion Meeting
Date: 4/30/2024; 10:30am to 12:00pm
Hybrid Meeting – Teams and Levi’s Stadium: Chuck Baker, Christine Jung, Grace Dougherty, and Laura Sunseri (City/SCSA); Jenti Vandertuig (ManCo)

1. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Stadium Authority Procurement Policy Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 5/1/2024; 2:30pm to 2:38pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), Brent Ghan (ManCo) and Caitlin Ritchie (ManCo)

1. Non-NFL Event Revenue Financial Management System Backup

2. Request for breakout of Trust Budget Details

3. May Operating and Maintenance disbursement
Date: 5/2/2024, 4:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Arbitration Issues and FIFA
Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting
Date: 5/3/2024; 11:00 am to 11:30 am
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (SCSA), Ryan Van Maarth (ManCo) Agenda:
• BND Proposal
o Subconsultant proposals
o Leveling
o ManCo requests on behalf of BND - Expenses for and expenditures - for CapEx (SCSA) what's been paid over the last 10 years.
• Permits
o South Field Seats - 5/2
o FIFA Bowl
o Video Boards - Bld. 6/7 - 6/14
 CEQA studies next week
 When does the peer review happen in the process
 FAA - duration
o Control room
o Naming rights- 5/17
o LED Field Lights - 5/6
Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 5/08/2024; 2:30pm to 2:36pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), Brent Ghan (ManCo) and Caitlin Ritchie (ManCo)

1. CapEx invoices for Fiscal Year 2023/24

2. CapEx reconciliation

3. Additional backup for interest deposited to SCSA Revenue account Date: 5/9/2024, 9:30 a.m.

Zoom Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Jovan D. Grogan, Executive Director
Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
Chuck Baker, Assistant City Manager
Christine Jung, Assistant to the City Manager
Elizabeth Klotz, Assistant City Attorney
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman
For Bay Area Host Committee:

Zaileen Janmohamed
Sonia Nayak
Matthew Richards
Ruth Shikada
Becca Smith
Robert Weikert

1. FIFA World Cup 2026 Assignment and Assumption Agreement Terms/Issues Date: 5/10/2024, 10:00 a.m.

Phone Call:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Sujata Reuter, Chief Assistant City Attorney
For Stadium Manager:

Jodi Marvet

1. Maya Claim
Biweekly Stadium CapEx SCSA Permit Meeting
Date: 5/10/2024; 11:00 am to 11:30 am
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (SCSA), Ryan Van Maarth (ManCo) Agenda:
• Incoming Permits/outstanding permit:
- FIFA Bowl design progress update
- Field Lights design progress update
- Signage (gate A and ring of honor) design progress update - South Field Seats (SBL) design progress update
- Tech Room (Video Boards) design progress update
• Schedule for Video Boards / Ribbon Boards/Naming Rights - CEQA Addendum Process
- Permit Sequencing
 Planning
 BLD
 Deferred Submittals
- Potential Regulatory Agency coordination
 Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC)
 Federal Aviation Administration (AFAA)
- Master Signage Update – Anticipated submittal date.
- FCA next steps
 Initial Report Schedule
• Draft
• Cost Estimates
Levi’s Coordination Meeting
Date: 5/10/2024; 1:00 pm to 2:00 am
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (SCSA), Ryan Van Maarth (ManCo), Reena Brilliot (CSC), Nimisha Agrawal (CSC), Armand Lobao (CSC), Chuck Baker (CSC), Joseph Crummet (DevCon), Shannon Bartch (HOK), Amber Luther (Populous), Francine Hughes (ManCo) Agenda:

1. Overall Magnitude of the Project and what impacts CEQA and determination of t trigger requirements for a supplemental EIR and Process going forward. a. Video Boards + Ribbon Board.
b. Naming rights Signage

2. Checklist for planning and Confirmation for CEQA addendum:
a. Sign package and Video boards should be studied together. i. Sightline study
ii. Photoluminescence study

3. Permitting Process and Expectations
a. City – Planning Project timelines for potential coordination with outside agencies i. 90 days for Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
ii. 60 days city review
Should not assume the City review the with the ALUC.
b. Building Permit

4. Overall Permitting and Construction Schedule and impact of all projects in critical path. • Construction start 1/27/25
Determine construction finish by date
• Determine permits in hand by date

STADIUM AUTHORITY/STADIUM MANAGER

MONTHLY COORDINATION MEETING
May 14, 2024 | 4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting

7. Review of All 2024 Non-NFL Events – Stadium Manager
Stadium Authority staff requested advanced notice of all events, including non-ticketed events and community events, organized in a spreadsheet format. This would allow the Stadium Authority to share information on upcoming events with staff and elected officials. The Stadium Manager staff said they were not aware of providing this type of document in the past, but they would look into it.

8. Luke Combs (Pre-Operations Meeting and Run of Show) – Stadium Manager The Stadium Manager shared an update that the City’s Police and Fire Departments attended the pre-operations meeting for the upcoming Luke Combs concerts and that all concert permits had been submitted. Stadium Authority staff shared that Guidepost Solutions were attending the Friday, May 17th concert as part of the security and neighborhood impacts assessment and requested the Stadium Manager to provide event credentials and coordination, as needed, for the consultant.

9. Guidepost Funding Agreement and NDA – Both
Stadium Authority staff provided an update that a draft of the funding agreement for the security and neighborhood impacts assessment will be shared with the Stadium Manager and Bay Area Host Committee for review.

10. $200k Grants Implementation Agreement (Status) – Stadium Authority Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed that their respective legal teams were negotiating the agreement that would allow for the distribution of StadCo’s annual grant of $200,000 to the Santa Clara community. The agreement is expected to have an initial three-year term and that funds will be disbursed to the Swim Club ($100,000), Bill Wilson Center ($50,000), and the City’s Community Grant Program ($50,000) in the initial year. Stadium Authority staff requested the Stadium Manager to identify the fiscal agent that would be responsible for disbursing the grant funds to the Swim Club and Bill Wilson Center.

11. FCA (status) – Stadium Manager
Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed the recent walk-through for the Facility Condition Assessment (FCA). Stadium Authority staff walked through some key areas of the Stadium. The Stadium Authority requested a completion schedule for the FCA from the Stadium Manager. Stadium Authority staff also shared a status update that the Finance team was preparing an invoice summary of all CapEx payments through FY 2024/25.

12. Display Boards and Control Room (Status) – Both
Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed recent meetings on the display boards and control room and the need for a weekly meeting cadence for the projects.

City/Stadium Authority staff previously asked the Stadium Manager to prepare a schedule that outlines the CEQA process and what needs to be submitted to Planning and regulatory agencies. The Stadium Manager is aiming to complete the display board installation before the first event in 2025. The schedule is compact but does incorporate limited time to address things that may come up. There was discussion regarding potential light, glare, and noise impacts associated with the larger display boards which staff was reviewing to determine appropriate analysis and next steps. Stadium Authority staff requested a logistics plan for capital projects. Stadium Authority staff also asked Stadium Manager staff to confirm whether current usage charges outlined in the Stadium Lease still applied due to size adjustments to the video boards and control room.

13. Field Seat SBLs (Status) – Both
Stadium Authority staff provided a status update that the Amendment No. 1 to the SBL Allocation Agreement was being rushed for execution. Stadium Manager staff shared that they expected final approval from the NFL to come in any day. There was discussion regarding the Stadium Authority Board’s follow up direction regarding field seat SBL pricing, the City’s provision of comments for the field seat permits, and prioritizing the project so that the installation could be completed by the end of July.

14. Marketing Plan (Agenda Items and Next Meeting Schedule Alignment) – Both Stadium Authority staff had an introductory meeting with the Stadium Manager’s NonNFL Events staff and requested to set up a regular meeting cadence.

15. Stadium Manager Board Appearance (Schedule Next Appearance) – Both The Stadium Manager aimed to June or July meeting for council appearance.

16. Miscellaneous
Stadium Authority staff requested the Stadium Manager to provide more information on the community tickets that are referenced in the Stadium Lease.

Date: 5/15/2024, 10:30 a.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
Mohammad Walizadeh, Hanson Bridgett
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman
Charmain Yu

1. 49ers Settlement Agreement Terms/Issues
Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 5/15/2024; 2:30pm to 2:36pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), Brent Ghan (ManCo) and Caitlin Ritchie (ManCo)

1. True-up for FY2023/24 Senior & Youth Program Fees

2. ManCo CapEx tracker sent by the end of the week

3. SBL reporting provided at the end of May

4. Lender budget

5. Bank reconciliations
Date: 5/17/2024, 8:00 a.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
Mohammad Walizadeh, Hanson Bridgett for Santa Clara Stadium Authority For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman
Charmain Yu

1. 49ers Settlement Agreement Terms/Issues
Date: 5/20/2024, 8:00 a.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
Mohammad Walizadeh, Hanson Bridgett for Santa Clara Stadium Authority For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman
Charmain Yu

1. 49ers Settlement Agreement Terms/Issues
Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting
Date: 5/20/2024; 9:00am to 10:00am
Teams Meeting: Chuck Baker, Reena Brilliot, Nimisha Agrawal, Armand Lobao (City/SCSA); Francine Hughes and Ryan Van Maarth (Stadium Manager); Joseph Crummet (DevCon), Shannon George and Fiona Phung (David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.); Amber Luther (Populous),

1. Video Board Design

2. CEQA Studies – Noise and Glare

3. FAA Land Use Commission Next Steps
Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 5/29/2024; 2:30pm to 2:40pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), Brent Ghan (ManCo) and Caitlin Ritchie (ManCo)

1. Remaining FY2023/24 CapEx invoices

2. KPMG Community Facilities District Advance confirmation

3. CapEx actual spending detail from 2013 – present.

Kylii/Blue Lot Parking Meeting
Date: 5/31/2024, 9:00 a.m.

Teams Meeting: Jovan Grogan, Chuck Baker, Reena Brilliot, and Elizabeth Klotz (City/SCSA); Francine Hughes and Michael Rescigno (Stadium Manager)

1. Discussed implications of a reduction of available parking spaces due to the Kylii development project on the Blue Lot parking area.

Meeting Title: Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting (via Teams) Date: 6/3/2024; 9:00am to 10:00am
Teams Meeting:

Chuck Baker, Reena Brilliot, Nimisha Agrawal, Armand Lobao (City/SCSA); Francine Hughes and Ryan Van Maarth (Stadium Manager); Joseph Crummet (DevCon), Shannon George and Fiona Phung (David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.); Amber Luther (Populous)
Agenda:

1. Video Board Design
• Levi's approved signage; will submit as one package to ALUC

2. CEQA Studies – Noise and Glare
• Neighborhood and glare site lines will be studied as part of a city neighborhood impact report
• Will have the data/numbers that measure the new light/glare Nit levels Date: 6/4/2024, 1:30 p.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Various Stadium Operations and Settlement Implementation Issues Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 06/05/2024; 2:30pm to 2:38pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), and Caitlin Ritchie (ManCo)

1. Performance Based Rent of $3.6M to be sent in July

2. CapEx actual spending detail from 2013 – present
Guidepost Discussion
Date: 06/12/2024; 9:30am to 10:30am
Teams Meeting: Chuck Baker and Christine Jung (City/SCSA), Francine Melendez Hughes and Peter Wilhelm (49ers/Stadium Manager), Jim Hayes (Guidepost Solutions)

1. Confidential discussion related to Levi’s Stadium security.

Date: 6/14/2024, 6:30 p.m.

Phone Call:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Elizabeth Klotz, Assistant City Attorney
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Stadium Parking

STADIUM AUTHORITY/STADIUM MANAGER

QUARTERLY STATUS MEETING
June 17, 2024 | 3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Levi’s Stadium

ATTENDEES
City/Stadium Authority
• Jōvan D. Grogan, City
Manager/Executive Director
• Chuck Baker, Assistant City
Manager/Assistant Executive
Director
• Christine Jung, Assistant to the
City Manager/Assistant to the
Executive Director
49ers/Stadium Manager
• Francine Melendez Hughes,
Executive Vice President &
General Manager
• Peter Wilhelm, Chief Financial
Officer

A G E N D A

1. Quarterly Status Meeting Updates from Stadium Manager (Required by Management Agreement)
a. Financial Performance of Past Non-NFL Events
b. Status of Future Non-NFL Events
i. Booked Events
ii. Pipeline Events
c. Private Parking Agreements
i. Executed Private Parking Agreements
ii. Ongoing Negotiations for Private Parking Agreements Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed logistics for upcoming events scheduled for June 22, July 2, 17, 24, and 27. Stadium Manager shared that there was delay with closing out the books for past Non-NFL Events due to delayed invoices for public safety services from external law enforcement partners, which Stadium Authority staff confirmed they would follow up on. Staff discussed whether future capital projects would impact the 2025 events calendar.

Event parking and private parking agreements were also discussed. Stadium Manager staff confirmed that the private parking agreements shared with the Stadium Authority were active agreements specific to Non-NFL Events. There was discussion regarding the number of parking spaces included in the Transportation Management and Operation Plan.

There was a confidential discussion about items related to negotiations with the Bay Area Host Committee.

2. Event Security Oversight Procedures (Stadium Authority) Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed procedures implemented by the event security consultant, including training, supervision, and briefings.

3. Great America Main Lot Approval Status (Stadium Authority) Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager discussed the Cedar Fair and City parking agreement and Main Lot parking matters and usage for prior events.

4. Control Room Equipment / TI Terms (Stadium Authority) Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed the control room, which would be impacted by the video boards, whether the existing fee for the Stadium Authority’s usage of Tenant Improvements would change, and confirmed that labor charges related to the control room are billed to the event promoter.

5. Scheduling Marketing Meeting (Stadium Authority)
Stadium Authority staff followed up on request to schedule a meeting with the Stadium Manager’s Head of Levi’s Stadium Events to discuss Non-NFL Events marketing and booking, which the Stadium Manager was working on.

6. Miscellaneous Items
Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff discussed the status of the field seats and potential applicable of the City’s salvaged equipment policy to the Stadium equipment. There was also a confidential discussion about items related to negotiations with the Bay Area Host Committee.

Meeting Title: Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting (via Teams) Date: 6/17/2024; 9:00am to 10:00am
Teams Meeting:

1. Video Board Design
• Review of ALUC package comments

2. CEQA Studies – Noise and Glare
• Confirmed city will review neighborhood glare impacts at NNE event • Already have the data/numbers that measure the light
Date: 6/18/2024, 1:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting:

For Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

Glen R. Googins, Stadium Authority Counsel
For Stadium Manager:

Jihad Beauchman

1. Various Stadium and Settlement Implementation Issues Financial Management System/Managed Services Status Meeting Date: 6/20/2024; 2:30pm to 2:43pm
Zoom Meeting: Brenda Lee (SCSA), David Presley (SCSA), Brent Ghan (ManCo), and Chad Hundley (Armanino)

1. Great Plains server reboot

2. Available system review, available support hours and academy courses

3. ManCo open support tickets with InTwo

4. Coupa/Scribe to load AP invoices into Great Plains
Date: 6/21/2024; 1:30pm to 1:46pm
Phone Meeting: Grace Dougherty (City/SCSA) and Jenti Vandertuig (ManCo)

1. Event security services
Meeting Title: Stadium Capital Projects Update Meeting (via Teams) Date: 6/24/2024; 9:00am to 10:00am
Teams Meeting:

1. Video Board Design
• Discussed battery storage code and relocation
• Staff review and confirmation of secondary steel requirement and cost attribution • Discussed Nit calculation methodology

2. CEQA Studies – Noise and Glare
• Aligned on timeline to submit to FAA, Airport; discussed comment review status Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 06/26/2024; 2:30pm to 2:42pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook (SCSA), Brenda Lee (SCSA), Brent Ghan (ManCo) and Caitlin Ritchie (ManCo)

1. Non-NFL Event Profit and Loss, Operating and Maintenance True-Up reporting

2. SBL proceeds through 5/31/24

3. KPMG AUP report
Event Security RFP and Agreement
Date: 6/28/2024; 3:30pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Chuck Baker, Christine Jung, and Derek Rush (City/SCSA); Francine Melendez Hughes (ManCo)

1. Discussion of the Event Security RFP, proposed event security agreement, and Stadium Manager’s presence at the Board meeting for the agenda item.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-835 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024

REPORT TO THE STADIUM AUTHORITY

SUBJECT
Adopt the Stadium Authority’s Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Positions as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
The California Political Reform Act requires all public officials, employees, and consultants who make or participate in the making of governmental decisions to disclose any economic interest that could be affected by those decisions. Under Government Code Section 87302 of the Political Reform Act, certain designated officials and employees of the City are required to file a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) because of the nature of their position with the public agency. These officials, staff members and consultants serve in positions that have been designated by the Stadium Authority’s Conflict of Interest Code as being required to file such statements.

Under the Political Reform Act, an individual consulting to a government agency is required to file a Form 700 when they assume office and annually thereafter if the consultant makes governmental decisions as defined in the FPPC regulations or when they serve in a staff capacity and participate in governmental decisions or performs the duties of an individual in the agency's conflict-of-interest code. Not every person that is subject to the Act has to file a Form 700, just statutory filers who are expressly listed in the Act and designated officials who the agency designate in the conflict of interest code, which includes new positions or consultants who meet the standard above.

DISCUSSION
The Stadium Authority’s Conflict of Interest Code is proposed to be amended to include an updated List of Designated Positions Required to File. Changes that occurred from the prior version of the Conflict of Interest are redlined in the Attachments. The list of Designated Positions has been updated to add new job classifications or titles.

1. Added Deputy City Manager
All public officials, including “consultants,” are prohibited from making, participating in making, or influencing any government decision having a foreseeable, material financial effect on their economic interests. Individual officials of the Stadium Manager, as the Stadium Authority’s consultant, have been determined to meet the consultant designation and are required to file a Form 700 under the Stadium Authority’s Conflict of Interest Code.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 2 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-835 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024
The proposed resolution and appendices reflect the position which is being added to the list of designated positions. Upon Stadium Authority Board approval, the Stadium Authority Secretary will notify the affected employees as to their filing status.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution amending the Stadium Authority Conflict of Interest Code required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Approved by: City Attorney’s Office

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution of the Stadium Authority

2. Stadium Authority Conflict of Interest Code and Appendices (Redline)

3. Stadium Authority Conflict of Interest Code and Appendices (Clean version) City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
17169999.3
RESOLUTION NO. (STADIUM AUTHORITY)

A RESOLUTION OF THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

AMENDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED

POSITIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT AND

REGULATIONS OF THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Sections 81000 et seq., requires certain public agency officials and employees to file economic disclosure forms ("Form 700") and abstain from making or participating in governmental decisions which have a reasonably foreseeable material effect on an economic interest; WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act requires the Stadium Authority to adopt a local conflict of interest code that enumerates specific official and employee positions other than those specified in Government Code § 87200 which involve making or participating in making decisions which have a reasonably foreseeable material effect on an economic interest, and to designate for each position the types of investments, business positions, interests in real property and sources of income which are reportable based on the scope of the decision-making authority of the position;
WHEREAS, the Stadium Authority has adopted a Conflict of Interest Code in compliance with the provisions of the Political Reform Act;
WHEREAS, consistent with FPPC advice and the Political Reform Act, the determination regarding whether or not a consultant is a public official is made by the designated agency, or delegated employee or department that hires the consultant, in consultation with its legal counsel.

A consultant does not have authority to decide whether or not they are a public official; and WHEREAS, the Stadium Authority also hereby provides the Executive Director with the authority to add any new positions when required under the Political Reform Act.

WHEREAS, the Stadium Authority has reviewed and considered administratively 17169999.3
suggested changes to the listing of designated positions of Stadium Authority officials and employees, along with assigned disclosure categories, in the Conflict of Interest Code.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the Santa Clara Stadium Authority's Conflict of Interest Code, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted and includes the following:
(a) The Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code, which can be incorporated by reference and which may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act after public notice and hearings.

Therefore, the terms of 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Appendix A in which officials and employees are designated and Appendix B in which disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Stadium Authority, which is considered the agency within the purview of this code. The Conflict of Interest Code so adopted amends and replaces any Conflict of Interest Code previously in effect to conform to this newly adopted code. (b) Designated officials, employees, and consultants shall file statements of economic interests with the City Clerk, who shall be and perform the duties of filing officer for the City of Santa Clara and its authorities.

2. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

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

AND ADOPTED BY THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, AT A REGULAR MEETING - 3 -
THEREOF HELD ON THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: BOARD MEMBERS:

NOES: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: BOARD MEMBERS:

ATTEST:

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

SECRETARY OF THE STADIUM AUTHORITY

SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Santa Clara Stadium Authority Conflict of Interest Code with Appendices A and B - 1 -

SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
SECTION 1: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - ADOPTED
The Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard Conflict of Interest Code, which can be incorporated by reference and which may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act after public notice and hearings. Therefore, the terms of 2 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Appendix A in which officials and employees are designated and Appendix B in which disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (Stadium Authority), which is considered the agency within the purview of this code. The Conflict of Interest Code of the Stadium Authority so adopted amends and replaces any Conflict of Interest Code of the Stadium Authority previously in effect to conform to this newly adopted code.

SECTION 2: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE - STATEMENTS
Designated employees shall file statements of economic interests with the Santa Clara City Clerk, who shall be and perform the duties of filing officer for the Stadium Authority.

SECTION 3: SAVINGS CLAUSE
Any change provided for in this conflict of interest code shall not affect or excuse any offense or act committed or done or omission or any penalty or forfeiture incurred or accruing under any other conflict of interest code; nor shall it affect any prosecution, suit, or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered in connection with any other conflict of interest code.

Appendix A: On file in City Clerk’s Office
Appendix B: Attached
- 2 -

APPENDIX A

DESIGNATED POSITIONS REQUIRED TO FILE
Officials Who Manage Public Investments
Pursuant to Government Code section 87200, officials who manage public investments as defined by 2 California Code of Regulations § 18701(b) are also subject to the disclosure requirements of the Political Reform Act and are required to file full Statements of Economic Interests. It has been determined that the positions listed below manage public investments and will file a statement of economic interests pursuant to Government Code Section 87200. These positions are listed for informational purposes only:
 Board Members
 Executive Director
 Stadium Authority General Counsel
 Stadium Authority
 Stadium Authority Treasurer
 Stadium Authority Auditor
An individual holding one of the above-listed positions may contact the Fair Political Practices Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligations if they believe their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes the final determination whether a position is covered by Government Code Section 87200.

Designated Positions Disclosure Categories
Deputy City Manager 1
Senior Management Analyst 1
Consultant/New Positions* 1, 5
*Consultants/New Positions are included in the list of designated positions and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code, subject to the following limitation: the Executive Director may determine in writing that a particular consultant or new position, although a “designated person,” is hired to perform a range of duties that are limited in scope and thus is not required to comply with the disclosure requirements described in this section.

Such determination shall include a description of the consultant's or new position's duties, and based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Executive Director's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest code. (Gov. Code Sec. 81008.) In addition, Consultants include all natural persons who are independent contractor consultants or such members, officers or employees of companies who by contract with the Stadium Authority make decisions on behalf of the Stadium Authority that may foreseeably have a - 3 -
material effect on any of their financial interests as further specified in 2 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 18700.3. Consultant specifically includes, but is not limited to, such members, officers or employees of the Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC who pursuant to a contract with the Santa Clara Stadium Authority have made or continue to make decisions on behalf of the Stadium Authority which may foreseeably have a material effect on any of their financial interests. This designation includes the following officers or employees of Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC:

Consultant Position Categories
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC President 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC Executive Vice President and General Manager 1, 5
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC Chief Financial Officer 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC Chief Revenue Officer 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC General Counsel 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC Director of Procurement 1, 5 Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC
Any other individual officer or employee
who is determined by the Executive
Director as satisfying the definition of
consultant in 2 Cal. Code of Regs.

Section 18700.3
1, 5
- 4 -

APPENDIX B

MASTER LIST OF DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all sources of income, including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments, investments, interests in real property within the jurisdiction of the Stadium Authority, and business entities in which he or she has an investment or is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or holds any position of management.

Category 2 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all sources of income, including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments, investments, and business entities in which he or she has an investment or is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or holds any position of management.

Category 3 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all interests in real property within the jurisdiction of the Stadium Authority.

Category 4 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all sources of income, including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments, investments, and business entities in which he or she has an investment or is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or holds any position of management if the business entity or source of income is of the type which provides services, equipment, lease space, materials or supplies to the Stadium Authority.

Category 5 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all investments and business positions in business entities, and income, including receipt of gifts, loans, and travel payments, from, sources that filed a claim with or against the Stadium Authority during the previous two years, or have a claim pending with or against the Stadium Authority. - 1 -

SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY

Appendix A: On file in City Clerk’s Office
Appendix B: Attached
- 2 -

APPENDIX A

Section 18700.3
1, 5
- 4 -

APPENDIX B

Category 3 - All designated positions in this category shall disclose all interests in real property within the jurisdiction of the Stadium Authority.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-1040 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Route Approval for the Silicon Valley Power 115 kilovolt Transmission Line from the Northern Receiving Station to the Kifer Receiving Station (Continued from October 8, 2024)

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High-Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2024, City Council was asked to (1) approve Route A for a new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) to Kifer Receiving Station (KRS); and (2) adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (RTC 24-751, Attachment 2). Route A begins at NRS exiting southeast toward Lafayette Street and continues southeast within the median of Lafayette Street to Agnew Road, where it transitions to the east side of Lafayette Street until Montague Expressway. From there, Route A shifts and enters Bassett Street proceeding southeast down the west side of Bassett Street to Bayshore Freeway, where the route crosses Bayshore Freeway and continues south along Duane Avenue interconnecting to KRS from the north side.

At the October 8 City Council meeting members of the public expressed concerns regarding Route A and the health impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMF). The City Council continued the item for a later date, so that staff can provide the City Council with additional information regarding the health effects of electromagnetic fields. This action did not limit the future discussion to only electromagnetic fields, as a continuation postpones action by the City Council, and all options and alternatives of the original item can be considered when the item returns to the City Council.

Additional feedback was provided by the community and City Council at the October 22, 2024, City Council meeting regarding interest in having more information presented regarding Route C feasibility and Route C EMF impacts.

DISCUSSIO
The SVP evaluation team identified and evaluated three routes for the new 115kV Transmission Line prior to selection of the final route. These routes are described below. · Route A begins at NRS exiting northeast toward Lafayette Street continuing southeast within the median of Lafayette Street to Agnew Road where it transitions to the east side of Lafayette Street until Montague Expressway, where Route A enters Bassett Street. Route A proceeds southeast down Bassett Street to Bayshore Freeway, where the route crosses Bayshore Freeway and continues south along Duane Avenue interconnecting to KRS from the north.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 5 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1040 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024
· Route B begins at NRS and parallels Route A within the median of Lafayette Street, proceeding southeast, crossing Bassett Street near the intersection with Montague Expressway, continuing southeast to the intersection of George Street. Route B continues southeast within Bassett Street until the intersection of George Street, where it crosses the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) southeast, entering Lafayette Street and entering an existing utility corridor along the UPRR. The route proceeds southeast, crossing Bayshore Freeway and continues along the railroad before turning west onto private commercial properties and parking lots before exiting onto Comstock Street. The route proceeds west on Comstock Street before crossing Lafayette Street and entering KRS.
· Route C begins at NRS traveling west toward San Tomas Aquino Creek. The route turns south and follows the Creek for just over 1.5 miles. Route C then turns east and travels along Central Expressway before continuing along Comstock Avenue. The route follows Comstock Avenue and turns north into KRS.

After completing a draft alternative route analysis report, the SVP evaluation team assessed the three routes, considering their impact on existing transportation routes, conflict with utilities, land use and easement requirements, constructability, cost, schedule, and environmental considerations.

Following a comprehensive comparison and evaluation, Route A emerged as the recommended route for a number of reasons including:
· Overall feasibility
· Ability to meet the schedule
· Flexibility in power delivery
· Ease of maintaining the system
· Reduced construction disruption to the public
Route B, while similar to Route A, has additional constructability and easement acquisition concerns and enters the UPRR right-of-way. At this location, the UPRR right-of way is narrow and would not allow for an overhead transmission line to be located at a safe distance from the track. For these reasons, Route B was excluded.

The main challenges with Route C include: (1) easement acquisition along most of the alignment, (2) permitting requirements of Santa Clara Valley Water District on the San Tomas Aquino Creek levee, and (3) the presence of existing transmission lines which would need to be rebuilt and incorporated into the proposed transmission line. These issues would significantly impact the project schedule; therefore, Route C was not preferred.

Staff also evaluated an underground option for a section of Route A. To assess feasibility the team conducted preliminary utility potholing and ground-penetrating radar surveys to investigate potential conflicts with underground utilities. The SVP evaluation team compared overhead and underground alternatives between NRS and Agnew Road, considering near-term construction and access constraints, long-term operational factors, power delivery and line rating, and aesthetic benefits. The findings favored the overhead option for the following reasons:
· Ability to meet schedule.
· Flexibility in power delivery.
· Ability to accommodate future growth.

City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 5 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1040 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024
· Ease of maintaining the system.
· Reduces construction disruption to the public.

Additional details and information can be found in previous Council reports and included as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 of this report.

EMF Information.

In response to the request of City Council at their October 8 meeting, SVP staff and their consultants have prepared more in-depth information on EMF to present to the City Council and the public. This presentation is included as Attachment 1.

The information will be presented by:

Gary Johnson Ph.D. (Focus on EMF)
· Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1979 · M.S., Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1976 · B.S., Engineering Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1974 Gabor Mezei, M.D., Ph.D. (Focus on Health)
· Ph.D., Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 1995 · M.D., Medicine, Semmelweis University of Medicine, 1990 Route C Feasibility
It is unknown if Route C is feasible due to easement and permit requirements; however, SVP staff had completed a draft Route Analysis Report and determined that if the route is feasible, the project would require an estimated 5 years more to complete than Route A. It is staff’s estimation, based on previous projects that require the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) easements and permits, the Route C project would require changing the completion date from 2028 to approximately 2033. The Route C’s main challenges include:
· Easement acquisition along most of the alignment for the SCVWD. Even if feasible, acquisition of these easements would be a multi-year process. · Permitting requirements of SCVWD on the San Tomas Aquino Creek levee. This would add additional years to the project.
· The presence of existing transmission lines which would need to be rebuilt and incorporated into the proposed transmission line.
· Proximity to the creek could require construction be limited to the dry months (April to October).

There is also existing residential development in proximity to Route C (Attachment 4). Staff completed a review of residential addresses within 450 feet of Route C. See Table 1 below. It should be noted Table 1 does not include the approved Greystar Development that will be constructed adjacent to Route C. This development will include approximately 1,000 new units. The Greystar Development is currently in the building permit stage.

Table 1
Residential Addresses within 450 ft of New line
Total Addresses
Route C 653
Route A 1000
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 5 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1040 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024 Residential Addresses within 450 ft of New line Total Addresses
Route C 653
Route A 1000
Route C EMF Study
Staff completed preliminary EMF calculations for Route C and the results are included in Attachment 1 as part of the presentation. As no conceptual design has been prepared for Route C, assumptions have been made to facilitate the EMF calculations (pole heights, alignment, and phasing). Further due to the time constraints, EMF has only been calculated in residential areas along Route C. This analysis is not to the same level of detail or certainty as Route A which benefited from a more complete engineering design. It would be expected that the Route C results could change in the future if any additional analysis is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The MND and MMRP were prepared for the Project in conformance with CEQA. These documents and Notice of Availability were posted on the City’s website at <http://www.santaclaraca.gov/ceqa> and circulated for 30-day review from July 31, 2024, to August 30, 2024.

The MND examined environmental impacts associated with the Project. The MND identified potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water, noise, and traffic/transportation. However, the MND and MMRP incorporates mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant impacts to less-than -significant.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for adopting the MND and MMRP other than administrative staff time and expense. The anticipated construction costs for the Project are currently budgeted within the Electric Utility Capital Fund.

The completion of the 115kV line will increase SVP’s system capacity to approximately 1300 MW.

Until the 115kV line is completed SVP’s system capacity will be limited to 819 MW. This addition of 481 MW of needed capacity will also significantly increase SVP sales. It is estimated that, based on 2024 rates, sales would be increased by approximately $500 million a year and the General Fund contribution would be increased by approximately $25 million a year. For any number of years the project is delayed, these annual revenue increases would be lost.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department, City Manager’s Office, and City Attorney’s Office.

City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 5 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1040 Agenda Date: 11/12/2024

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the New 115kV Transmission Line Project between the Northern Receiving Station and Kifer Receiving Station; and

2. Approve Route A, Option 1, for an entirely overhead alignment of the New 115kV Transmission Line, with authorization to Silicon Valley Power staff to make minor alignment adjustments based on final project engineering and design.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council Presentation

2. RTC 24-751 - Action on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Route Approval for the Silicon Valley Power 115 kilovolt Transmission Line from the Northern Receiving Station to the Kifer Receiving Station

3. RTC 24-1614 with Attachments - Informational Report Regarding Route Analysis for 115kV Transmission Line from Northern Receiving Station to Kifer Receiving Station

4. Route C Residential Overview

5. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

6. Resolution
City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 5 Printed on 11/8/2024
powered by Legistar™
Item #5: IS/MND/MMRP and
Route Approval for the SVP
115kV Transmission Line
from NRS to KRS
RTC 24-1040
November 12, 2024
Key Items For Discussion
Agenda – Per October 8 and October 22 Council Meetings
• Introductions
• Project Need
• Summary of Routes
• Residential along Route C
• Preliminary EMF results on Route C
• EMF Presentation
Introductions
• SVP Staff
• ECI Staff – Engineers and EMF modeling
– Oliver Beres, Associate Engineer
• Aspen Staff – Environmental Consultants
– Hedy Koczwara, Vice President/Senior Environmental Scientist – Chuck Williams, Principal/Transmission Engineer
• Exponent – EMF Presentation
– Gary Johnson Ph.D.
• Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1979 • M.S., Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1976 • B.S., Engineering Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1974 – Gabor Mezei M.D., Ph.D.
• Ph.D., Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 1995 • M.D., Medicine, Semmelweis University of Medicine, 1990 • Multidisciplinary scientific research program at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for health effects associated with exposure to power frequency and radiofrequency EMF 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
115kV Transmission Line
Northern to Kifer Receiving Station
• Project Scope: Construct a new 115kV overhead
transmission line of approximately 2.24 miles between
Northern Receiving Station and Kifer Receiving Station. • Needed to accommodate approved and under construction load growth and reliability
• Transfer additional power and redistribute loads
• System Operating Limit will be limited to ~819MW if
transmission line is not constructed
• System Operating Limit with it ~ 1300MW
• Key Items: schedule, constructability, and power delivery • Construction is estimated to take approximately 14 months and be completed by early 2028.

Project Need
• Recorded a new peak load of 705MW in July 2024 and again 718MW and 720MW in October 2024
• 5 Key projects all with 2028 Completion dates:
– Kifer Receiving Station (KRS) Rebuild
– Scott Receiving Station (SRS) Rebuild
– Northern Receiving Station (NRS) Upgrades
– LS Power Transmission Line (CAISO Project)
– 115 kV Transmission Line
• Needed to accommodate approved and under construction load growth and reliability
– Includes large industrial users such as data centers and corporate headquarters
– Includes large residential
– With 115 kV line ~ capacity 1300 MW
– Without 115 kV line ~ capacity 819MW
– Approximately $500 million in sales annually
– $25 million General Fund annually
115 kV - Three Routes Considered
• Council Information Session March 2024
• An assessment was prepared to determine the preferred route for the Proposed Project.
• Route B (considered and eliminated)
• UPRR right of way is too narrow (concerns with
inductive interference 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
• Even if it was feasible, it would not meet 2028 schedule 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
Three Routes Considered
• 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
• Would not meet 2028 schedule
• Route A (Proposed Project) – Analyzed in IS/MND
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
Three Routes Considered
Route A (Underground Option for Northern Segment)
• Constraints with constructability, schedule, and power deliverability
• 25 existing utilities crossing or conflicts with
underground alignment in Lafayette
• High water table and may require excavations greater
than 20’ deep
• Utility spacing requirements may not be met
• Requires relocation of 300 feet of two transmission gas mains for PG&E and DVR
• The DVR shutdown scheduled twice a year
• Will require extensive PG&E construction activities, on PG&E schedule, and will not meet 2028 schedule
Route A (Proposed Project) – Analyzed in IS/MND
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
Comparison of Northern Segment
Overhead Underground
Ability to meet 2028 schedule. Can not meet 2028 schedule • Relying on PG&E for utility relocation
• DVR shut-down
Maximum transmission capacity Reduced transmission capacity Ability to accommodate future growth Lack of provisions for future growth Reduces construction disruption to the public Extended construction timelines with extended lane closures and traffic control
Ease of maintaining the system Longer restoration times in emergency situations Northern Segment Costs: ~$9.5 Million
Total Project Costs: ~$36 Million
Northern Segment Costs: ~$19 Million
Total Project Costs: ~$45.5 Million
Lafayette Street Renderings
Facing North near Eisenhower Drive Facing South near Hope Drive Residential Considerations
Residential Addresses within 450 ft of
New Transmission Line
Total Addresses
Route C 653
Route A 1,000
Route C – Would also expect similar feedback
• Assumes construction on farthest side of the creek -
residential numbers on Route C would increase
• Route C numbers do not include the planned residential development for Freedom Circle
Route C Preliminary EMF Study
Route A
Route C
Residential Existing 2024 Future 2028
Segment Approx.

Distance (ft) *
Normal – Peak
Load (mG)
Normal – Peak
Load (mG)
1C 100-110 0.0 – 1.4 5.9 – 8.7
2C 210-220 21.2 – 31.9 21.6 – 32.4
3C 40-50 4.9 – 12.8 18.0 – 29.1
4C 170-180 0.0 – 0.9 2.1 – 2.9
Residential Existing 2024 Future 2028
Segment Approx.

Distance (ft) *
Normal – Peak
Load (mG)
Normal – Peak
Load (mG)
2 60 6.4 – 8.0 14.3 – 17.9
3 60 0.9 – 1.1 14.2 – 17.7
• Approximate distance to nearest residential building
• Values would increase if constructed on opposite side of creek Schedule
Task Timeframe
Design Feb. 2023 – May 2026
Easement Acquisition Jan. 2024 – May 2026
CEQA Process
Identify Project Need Jan. 2024
Preparation of conceptual design and start of CEQA Jan. 2024 – Mar. 2024 CEQA Community Outreach (Scoping) April 8 – May 29, 2024 Publication of Draft IS/MND and 30-day Public
Review Period
July 31, 2024 – August 30, 2024
Publish Final IS/MND September 24, 2024
City Council Consideration October 8, 2024, November 12, 2024 Permits Feb. 2024 – Nov. 2025
Material Procurements Oct. 2024 – Nov. 2026
Anticipated Construction Nov. 2026 – Mar. 2028
2410256.000 - 8629 1414
Overview of Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF)
November 12, 2024
Gary Johnson, Ph.D.

Gabor Mezei, M.D., Ph.D.
2410256.000 - 8629
Speakers
Senior Managing Scientist
Electrical Engineer & Computer
Science Practice
Gary Johnson, Ph.D.

Principal Scientist
Health Science Practice
Gabor Mezei, M.D., Ph.D.
15 2410256.000 - 8629
Who We Are
Exponent is a multi-disciplinary engineering and scientific firm dedicated to solving important science, engineering, and regulatory issues for clients.
1 6
2410256.000 - 8629 17
Nature and Sources of EMF
2410256.000 - 8629
What are Electric and Magnetic Fields
• Electric and magnetic fields are produced by anything that:
– Generates
– Transmits, or
– Uses electricity
18 2410256.000 - 8629
Electromagnetic fields
• Key Characteristic is FREQUENCY
• Frequency refers to the number of times per second that the field changes direction – Measured in units of Hertz (Hz)
Low Frequency High Frequency
19 2410256.000 - 8629
Electromagnetic Spectrum
20 Source: National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov) Focus of our presentation: Extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields (EMF) – 50-60 Hertz (Hz), Alternating current (AC)
– Also referred to as power frequency EMF
2410256.000 - 8629
Properties of Power Frequency EMF
Electric Fields
• Produced by voltage
• Measured in units of volts per meter
(V/m) or kilovolts per meter (kV/m)
• Strength decreases quickly with
distance from the source
• Blocked by conductive objects (e.g.,
trees, buildings, and fences
Magnetic Fields
• Produced by the flow of electric
current
• Measured in units of milligauss (mG)
or gauss (G); also microtesla (µT)
or tesla (T)
• Strength decreases quickly with
distance from the source
• Unlike electric fields, not blocked by
common conductive objects
21 2410256.000 - 8629
Typical Profile of Magnetic Field Levels from a Transmission Line 22 2410256.000 - 8629
Common Sources of Power Frequency EMF
– Electrical appliances
– Power tools
– Building wiring
– Grounding systems (e.g., water pipes)
– Nearby distribution and transmission lines
23 2410256.000 - 8629
Household Sources of Magnetic Fields
• Indoors, the primary sources of magnetic fields in most homes and buildings are the electrical wiring and appliances
AC Magnetic-field levels (mG) in the Home*
Distance from Source
Source 6 inches 1 foot 2 feet
Hair dryer 300 1 --
Electric shaver 100 20 --
Blender 70 10 2
Can Opener 600 150 20
Electric range 30 8 2
Vacuum cleaner 300 60 10
Power saw 200 40 5
*Values represent median magnetic field levels, measured in units of milligauss (mG) Source: Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Institutes of Health, June 2002 24 2410256.000 - 8629 25
EMF Health Research
2410256.000 - 8629
Research on Health Effects of Power Frequency EMF
• Research on the possible health effects of power frequency EMF has been on-going since the late 1970s
• Since that time, thousands of studies have been published in this area
• Research has been regularly and repeatedly reviewed by many national and international public health and scientific agencies – Assemble panels of experts to comprehensively review the literature – Results of relevant studies are assessed together to form a conclusion 26 2410256.000 - 8629
Overview of the Scientific Review Process
• All research studies have strengths and limitations
• Scientific process involves consideration of all the evidence – Human studies (epidemiology studies)
– Animal studies (in vivo)
– Laboratory studies of cells and tissues (in vitro)
• Each study can be considered a piece of the puzzle
– When examined all together, provides a more complete picture of the exposuredisease relationship 27 Cannot draw a valid scientific conclusion from a single study! 2410256.000 - 8629
Agency Reviews of Power Frequency EMF
Scientific Organization Country / Agency Publication Dates Federal-Provincial-Territorial Radiation Protection
Committee (FPTRPC) Canada 1998, 2005
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) International 1998, 2010
National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) United States 1998
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) United Nations 2002 National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) United Kingdom 2004 Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) Sweden 2007, 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) United Nations 2007
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly
Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) European Commission 2007, 2009, 2015, 2023 Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN) Netherlands 2009 Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) Sweden 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024
The European Health Risk Assessment Network on
Electromagnetic Fields (EFHRAN) European Commission 2010, 2012 28 2410256.000 - 8629
Summary of Scientific Consensus
• None of the reviewing agencies have concluded that power frequency EMF, at the levels we typically encounter in our daily lives, cause or contribute to adverse health effects
29 “Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals.” “Despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health.” – World Health Organization (2024)
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields 2410256.000 - 8629 30
EMF Exposure Guidelines
2410256.000 - 8629
Limits on Exposure to Power Frequency EMF
• No federal standards or guidelines for
limiting exposure to power frequency
electric and magnetic fields
• No exposure limits set in the State of
California
• Several states have developed limits
for electric fields and/or magnetic fields
– Not based upon health-based risk
assessments
• Two international scientific
organizations developed limits to
protect workers and the public
– Based on review of the health research
• Limits are set to be much lower than
the lowest levels for which there are
known effects of exposure
– Acute effects that occur at very high
exposure levels
– No established effects of long-term
exposure
31 2410256.000 - 8629
International Exposure Guidelines for General Public
Exposure to Magnetic Fields
32 Organization Magnetic Field Limit
(mG)
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)1 2,000
International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES)2 9,040 1 International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric and magnetic fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz). Health Phys 99: 818-36, 2010.
2 International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES). IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz (IEEE Std. C95.1): Corrigenda 2. New York: IEEE, 2020. 2410256.000 - 8629 33
Summary
2410256.000 - 8629
Summary
• EMF are present nearly everywhere in our modern society • Research on power frequency EMF has been on-going since the 1970s, resulting in thousands of published studies in this area • Agency reviews of this large body of research have not concluded that exposure to power frequency EMF are a source of adverse health effects • Health-based exposure guideline limits have been developed for power frequency EMF
– These limits are protective against the only established effects from exposure (i.e., acute effects that occur at very high field levels)
34 35
Thank You!
© 2024 Exponent, Inc.

Item #5: IS/MND/MMRP and
Route Approval for the SVP
115kV Transmission Line
from NRS to KRS
RTC 24-1040
November 12, 2024
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-751 Agenda Date: 10/8/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

BACKGROUND
On September 28, 2021, City Council accepted Silicon Valley Power’s (SVP) Three-Year System Growth Strategy Plan (RTC 21-871). The Three-Year System Growth Strategy Plan identified proposed projects for both near-term and long-term capital improvement projects needed to support anticipated system growth and to replace end-of life equipment to ensure system reliability. One of the necessary near-term projects is the construction of a new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). Constructing the 115kV transmission line will allow energy to be balanced and redistributed within SVP's transmission receiving stations and allow SVP to serve the new load growth projected based on the SVP Resource Load Forecast. The three receiving stations [NRS, Scott Receiving Station (SRS), and KRS] within the City of Santa Clara (City) are all interconnected. As approved by the City Council, SRS and KRS are being fully rebuilt and NRS is being upgraded and expanded to replace obsolete infrastructure and accommodate future growth.

The NRS and SRS sites are currently directly connected via two 115kV lines, which are owned by PG&E. The NRS site is connected to PG&E’s system via three 115kV transmission lines and one 230kV transmission line. The KRS site has two 115kV transmission lines connected with PG&E. A second 230kV transmission line is being designed to connect to NRS which will be owned and operated by LS Power and rated for 500MW (recently updated to a 1000MW line that will be considered for approval November 2024). To transfer this additional power and balance loads between the receiving stations, a new 115kV transmission line between NRS and KRS is required. If this new 115kV transmission line is not constructed or delayed, SVP future peak capacity would be reduced from approximately 1300 MW to approximately 819 MW.

On March 19, 2024, the City Council received an informational Report to Council (Attachment 1, RTC 24-1614) regarding the new 115kV transmission line from NRS to KRS. This informational report identified three possible routes which SVP evaluated. The preferred alignment, Route A, begins at NRS exiting southeast toward Lafayette Street, continuing southeast within the median of Lafayette Street to Agnew Road, where it transitions to the east side of Lafayette Street until Montague Expressway, there the route shifts and enters Bassett Street proceeding southeast down the west side of Bassett Street to Bayshore Freeway, where the route crosses Bayshore Freeway and continues south along Duane Avenue interconnecting to KRS from the north side (the New 115kV Transmission Line).

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-751 Agenda Date: 10/8/2024
The SVP evaluation team for the New 115kV Transmission Line consisted of internal SVP staff, design, and environmental engineering consultants, and program management staff for the System Expansion Program. The SVP evaluation team conducted a comprehensive analysis and evaluation, employing various methodologies such as potholing and GPR surveys. This in-depth assessment took into consideration SVP’s load growth and system planning projections, schedule, cost estimation, required easements and permits, and engineering judgment. The goal was to determine feasible route alignments, identify a preferred route, and explore potential overhead and underground options within the preferred route.

The findings favored the New 115kV Transmission Line/Option 1 which is the all-overhead option set forth in Attachment 2 of RTC 24-1614. These findings were based on the following key items:
· Ability to meet the schedule
· Flexibility in power delivery
· Ability to accommodate future growth
In addition, the following items were also considered:
· Ease of maintaining the system
· Reduced construction disruption to the public
· Reduction in total cost

DISCUSSION
The preferred project, which was analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is the proposed all-overhead option for the New 115kV Transmission Line (“Project”). The environmental review of the Project was conducted by the City as the lead agency under CEQA. The City held a 50-day public scoping period. There are no CEQA requirements for a public scoping period for an Initial Study/Mitigative Negative Declaration (IS/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. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was also prepared with the IS/MND to mitigate and reduce any significant environmental impacts to less than significant. The CEQA document also analyzed a hybrid option which includes undergrounding the northern segment of the New 115kV Transmission Line, but this option is not preferred as further discussed below.

Community Outreach, Noticing, and Scoping
The scoping process and results are an initial step in the environmental review process. The City issued a notice of a public scoping meeting on April 10, 2024, that outlined the Project, stated the City’s intention to prepare an IS/MND, and requested comments from interested parties. The notice was mailed to 3,626 people (using a list compiled with GIS data) within a 1,000+ foot radius around the proposed 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 have an additional public scoping meeting, extend the scoping period an additional three weeks, re -send the notices, and electronically notify people as well.

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 (1) news email lists for SVP (8,177 subscribers) and the City (7,552 subscribers), (2), City/SVP Facebook subscribers (2,400), and (3) Nextdoor members (52,860). Additionally, as part of the AB 52 process, two Native American tribes City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-751 Agenda Date: 10/8/2024
on the City’s tribal consultation list were contacted; however, we received no responses from them.

The notice was also posted on the City and SVP’s webpages.

The first meeting was attended by eight (8) people and the second meeting was attended by 18 people.

Comments Received
In total, 87 comment letters were received during the scoping period. Most of these comments (83 out of 87) were identical “form” letters, which included the same text in the body of the comment but were signed by the sender. Eleven individuals sent in more than one comment letter, several comments were received from the same address, and 50 comments were submitted from different addresses within the noticed area. 86 comments were received from residents, and one comment was received from a nearby business.

These letters are included in the Scoping Report of the Final IS/MND (Appendix F, Scoping Report).

Oral and written comments were considered in the drafting of the IS/MND. The comments fell into five categories:
(1) Health concerns - electromagnetic fields (EMF) further discussed below and Section

4.15, Electric and Magnetic Fields Summary of the Final IS/MND; (2) Increased risk for catastrophic accidents and fire hazards - see Final IS/MND Section

5.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), Section 5.17 (Transportation), and Section

5.20 (Wildfire);
(3) Impact on home insurance costs and property value - not within the scope of CEQA, see Final IS/MND, Appendix F, Scoping Report;
(4) Aesthetics - see IS/MND Section 5.1 (Aesthetics); and (5) Complexity and inconvenience - see Final IS/MND Section 5 for a discussion of constructions impacts for each environmental resource.

EMF Analysis
The main concern from commentors was related to EMF emitted by transmission lines. They expressed concern about the health risks correlated with EMF exposure, especially due to the proximity of the line to residential communities along Lafayette Street. The commentors stated 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 conducted an EMF study. This study is included in the Final IS/MND (Appendix G, EMF Report). The EMF Report broke up the Project into 19 segments and presents EMF calculations for the current year modeling existing conditions, 2024, and for the anticipated in-service year, 2028, for normal and peak loads. The EMF Report measured EMF 60 feet east of the Project centerline. Segments 1 through 3 are located adjacent to the residential community where the majority of comments were sent from.

The EMF Report analyzes the increase in EMF (measured in milliGauss (mG)) when the new 115kV Transmission Line is in-service. According to the report, Segments 1 through 6 in the new 115kV Transmission Line will increase EMF from approximately 8 mG to 16 mG during normal loads.

During peak loads, it is projected that EMF will increase from 10 mG to 16 mG. Over the entire 19 segments in the alignment, the largest increase in EMF is 24.4 mG during normal loads and 30.5 mG during peak loads. There is no defined or adopted threshold for EMF impacts, since there is no agreement among scientists that EMF creates a potential health risk. It should be noted that the City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-751 Agenda Date: 10/8/2024
estimated EMF values of average household appliances exceed the amount of EMF from the proposed Project (that is, at 60 feet from the proposed Project centerline). For example, EMF levels approximately range: (1) 20 mG near portable heaters and (2) 60 mG near vacuum cleaners for measurements at 1 foot distance. The Final IS/MND also includes recommended EMF Design Guidelines by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to be considered during final engineering. Based on these guidelines to reduce the magnetic field strength levels from the proposed transmission line, SVP considered and implemented the following measures in project design development:
(1) Increase the distance from electrical facilities by:
(a) Increasing structure height or trench depth
(b) Locating power lines closer to the centerline of the corridor; (2) Reduce conductor (phase) spacing; and
(3) Phase circuits to reduce magnetic fields.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Draft IS/MND was published and circulated for review on July 31, 2024. Based upon the Initial Study, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures have been incorporated into the MMRP.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) was mailed out and noticed to the same lists as the public scoping document. The NOA was also published on the State Clearinghouse Website, which initiated the 30- day public review period that ended on August 30, 2024.

During the comment period for the Draft IS/MND, SVP held an in-person public meeting on August 22, 2024, at the Northside Branch Library. The meeting was attended by twelve people. Verbal comments, which were received during the public meeting, were similar to those received during the Project scoping. SVP staff and SVP’s engineering and environmental design consultants were all in attendance to answer questions.

During the public review period, the City received 78 total comments on the Draft IS/MND. This included four agency comments from the San Jose International Airport, Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and 74 comments from individuals.

Although Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written responses to comments received, the City prepared a “Responses to Comments” document, which is included in Section 7 of the Final MND. This document addresses all comments received during the Draft IS/MND 30-day review period. Minor changes were made to the IS/MND in response to these comments, which are identified in the “Response to Comments” section and are tracked in the Final IS/MND. The comments received during the public comment period from individuals generally fell into seven categories and were similar to comments received during the scoping period. In response, the City prepared seven general responses to address the comments. (1) General Response #1 - Human Health and Scope of CEQA - not within the scope of CEQA, see Final IS/MND Section 7 (Response to Comments); (2) General Response #2 - Electric and Magnetic Fields - see Final IS/MND Section 4.15 City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-751 Agenda Date: 10/8/2024
(Electric and Magnetic Fields Summary), and Appendix G (EMF Report); (3) General Response #3 - Corona and Induced Currents - see Final IS/MND Section 5.21 (Corona and Induced Current Effects);
(4) General Response #4 - Property Values and Costs - not within the scope of CEQA, see Final IS/MND Section 7 (Response to Comments);
(5) General Response #5 - Aesthetics - see IS/MND Section 5.1 (Aesthetics); (6) General Response #6 - Noise - see Final IS/MND Section 5.13 (Noise); and (7) General Response #7 - Hazards - see Final IS/MND Section 5.7 (Geology and Soils), Section 5.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials), Section 5.15 (Public Services), Section 5.17 (Transportation), and Section 5.20 (Wildfire) Most of these comments were addressed in the Draft IS/MND. The Response to Comments section summarizes the comments and explains where the comments are addressed in the Final IS/MND.

None of the comments identified additional environmental effects that may be significant.

All-Overhead Alignment Recommendation
Based on the analysis and evaluation completed to date, staff recommends the all-overhead alignment (Project Route A, Option 1, from the informational report, RTC 24-1614) for the following key reasons:

Schedule
The overhead alignment has an anticipated energization date of the first quarter of 2028. On the other hand, the conceptual underground alignment would require relocation of two transmission gas lines (one SVP and one Pacific Gas and Electric [PG&E] owned). The underground option will require a shutdown of Donald Von Raesfeld (DVR) power plant and coordination with PG&E to relocate. In addition to the two gas transmission lines, there are 23 utility relocations or crossings that would need to be coordinated to meet minimum vertical and horizontal clearances. In some instances, the depth of the transmission line would need to be 20 plus feet deep to accommodate required clearances. Therefore, for these reasons, the underground option has an unknown energization date, and it is certain energization would not occur in 2028.

Flexibility in Power Delivery
The overhead transmission line option can deliver more power due to better heat dissipation than the underground alternative. Overhead systems can be designed to satisfy any current rating requirements by changing variables such as conductor type, structure/pole height, etc. The underground transmission line option is anticipated to be able to deliver only about 83% of the power that the overhead option would be able to provide at 115kV. This value drops to 79.9% at 230kV.

Future Growth
New pole locations for the overhead option will be able to accommodate a future underbuilt 60kV transmission line, and these poles will be designed to accommodate voltages of 230kV but energized for 115kV. Future upgrades in voltage would allow for more power transfer through the proposed route without major additional capital investment or disruptions. The underground option could also be designed to accommodate voltages of 230kV. That said any future 60kV lines would necessitate a new alignment and trench, leading to additional disturbances and costs at a later date. For the underground option, a new alignment with separation from the existing trench would be required to City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-751 Agenda Date: 10/8/2024
accommodate the necessary heat dissipation emitted from the multiple sets of cables at the different voltage levels. This may not be feasible due to the number of existing utilities and minimum vertical and horizontal clearances required.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department, City Manager’s Office, and City Attorney’s Office.

RECOMMENDATION

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. RTC 24-1614 with Attachments

2. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

3. Resolution
City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 6 Printed on 10/4/2024
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
24-1614 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Informational Report Regarding Route Analysis for 115kV Transmission Line from Northern Receiving Station to Kifer Receiving Station

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To meet the increasing demand and electric service growth within the City of Santa Clara (City), Silicon Valley Power (SVP) has determined the need for a near term project for a 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line to connect the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) and Kifer Receiving Station (KRS). By connecting these two receiving stations, SVP will be able to transfer additional power and balance the electric load throughout the three receiving stations within the City.

SVP conducted a draft analysis of three potential transmission routes, assessing their impact on existing transportation routes, conflict with utilities, land use and easement requirements, constructability, cost, schedule, and environmental considerations. Following a comprehensive comparison and evaluation, the route connecting NRS and KRS through Lafayette Street, Bassett Street, and Duane Avenue was recommended. The proposed route underwent further assessment to determine whether portions could be installed overhead or underground. After considering various factors, including potholing and ground-penetrating radar surveys, load growth, system planning, required easements, permits, and engineering judgment, SVP has concluded that the recommended route should be installed overhead for the entire alignment for various reasons, such as reduced transmission capacity, reliance on external agencies, increased costs, and other factions, that are outlined later in this report.

This is an informational report only and no decisions are being requested at this time. SVP anticipates returning to City Council in Fall 2024 for the consideration of the final recommended project route and CEQA determination.

BACKGROUND
SVP has provided electric service for over 127 years and is experiencing significant continued growth. In 2021, SVP recorded a peak load of nearly 600 Megawatt (MW) and delivered approximately 4,100 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) to customers. In 2022, SVP’s recorded peak load increased to 702 MW, and energy delivery rose to 4,550 GWh. This represents an approximate 10% increase in energy delivery and represents the largest year-over-year growth in the last 30 years.

On September 28, 2021, City Council accepted SVP’s Three-Year System Growth Strategy Plan (RTC # 21-871). The Three-Year System Growth Strategy Plan identified $300 million in proposed projects for both near-term and long-term capital improvement projects needed to support anticipated system growth and to replace end-of life equipment to ensure system reliability. One of the necessary near-term projects is the construction of a new 115kV transmission line between NRS and City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 7 Printed on 3/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1614 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
KRS (New 115 kV Transmission Line). Constructing the New 115 kV Transmission Line 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.

At its November 15, 2022, meeting, City Council accepted the report of the SVP System Expansion Plan for the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO) Transmission Planning Process FY2023/24 (RTC # 22-1172).

In March 2023, the CAISO selected LS Power as the developer, owner, and operator of two new 500 MW transmission lines to the South Bay with an estimated cost of over $1.0 billion. vSVP has been focusing on one of the 500 MW transmission lines that will link Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) existing Newark Substation in Fremont to NRS.

The three receiving stations [NRS, Scott Receiving Station (SRS), and KRS] within the City are all interconnected. The NRS and SRS sites are currently directly connected via two 115kV lines, which are owned by PG&E. The NRS site is connected to PG&E’s system via three 115kV transmission lines and one 230kV transmission line. The KRS site has two 115kV transmission lines connected with PG&E. A second 230kV transmission line is being designed to connect to NRS which will be owned and operated by LS Power and rated for 500MW. To transfer this additional power and balance loads between the receiving stations, a new 115kV line between NRS and KRS is required.

SVP's Three-Year Growth Plan Strategy report indicated that the existing PG&E 115kV transmission lines are not sufficient to adequately meet forecasted peak load and ensure reliability, and it recommended the New 115 kV Transmission Line between NRS and SRS. The New 115kV Transmission Line addresses the need for capacity and reliability upgrades and will ensure that SVP's electrical system is able to withstand an unexpected failure of the existing PG&E transmission lines.

The SVP evaluation team identified and evaluated three routes for the New 115kV Transmission Line prior to selection of the final route. These routes are shown in Attachment 1 and described below. · Route A begins at NRS exiting northeast toward Lafayette Street continuing southeast within the median of Lafayette Street to Agnew Road where it transitions to the east side of Lafayette Street until Montague Expressway, where Route A enters Bassett Street. Route A proceeds southeast down Bassett Street to Bayshore Freeway, where the route crosses Bayshore Freeway and continues south along Duane Avenue interconnecting to KRS from the north. · Route B begins at NRS and parallels Route A within the median of Lafayette Street, proceeding southeast, crossing Bassett Street near the intersection with Montague Expressway, continuing southeast to the intersection of George Street. Route B continues southeast within Bassett Street until the intersection of George Street where it crosses the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) southeast, entering Lafayette Street and entering an existing utility corridor along the UPRR. The route proceeds southeast, crossing Bayshore Freeway and continues along the railroad before turning west onto private commercial properties and parking lots before exiting onto Comstock Street. The route proceeds west on Comstock Street before crossing Lafayette Street and entering KRS.
· Route C begins at NRS traveling west toward San Tomas Aquino Creek. The route turns south and follows the Creek for just over 1.5 miles. Route C then turns east and travels along Central City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 7 Printed on 3/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1614 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Expressway before continuing along Comstock Avenue. The route follows Comstock Avenue and turns north into KRS.

Following a comprehensive comparison and evaluation, Route A emerged as the recommended route.

Route B, while similar to Route A, has additional constructability and easement acquisition concerns and enters the UPRR right-of-way. At this location, the UPRR right-of way is narrow and would not allow for an overhead transmission line to be located at a safe distance from the track. For these reasons, Route B was excluded.

DISCUSSION
Route A spans 2.24 miles from NRS to KRS. Due to the proximity to residential areas along the northern segment (between NRS and Agnew) of Route A, the SVP team examined underground and overhead alternatives for the northern segment. The northern segment starts from NRS to the intersection of Lafayette Street with Agnew Road and covers approximately 0.74 miles. South of Agnew the team only explored overhead options.

To assess feasibility of either Route A options, the team conducted preliminary utility potholing and ground-penetrating radar surveys to investigate potential conflicts with underground utilities. The SVP evaluation team compared overhead and underground alternatives between NRS and Agnew Road, considering near-term construction and access constraints, long-term operational factors, power delivery and line rating, and aesthetic benefits. See Attachment 2 for the options analyzed within Route A, which is described below. The alignment outside of the northern segment (south of Agnew) is summarized further below and will not change based on the selection of Option 1 or 2.

Northern Segment (NRS to Agnew)
Option 1 - Overhead
Under Option 1, Route A would be entirely overhead and generally consists of nine (9) new poles with foundations spaced approximately every 350 feet (on average) and located within the right-ofway (median or sidewalks) or easements obtained by SVP. Any installed overhead poles are anticipated to be 90 to 125 feet tall. The poles range in height as the overhead wires cross over other existing transmission lines. The current conceptual cost estimate for this overhead segment is $9.5M which includes City utility relocation but does not include any potential PG&E relocation costs due to pole locations.

Option 2 - Underground
Option 2 includes both overhead and underground transmission lines within the alignment of Route City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 7 Printed on 3/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1614 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
A. The underground option will include nine 6-inch conduits for electrical and four 2-inch conduits for communications. The underground alignment would also require a portion to be installed overhead between NRS and the Lafayette median as well as two large overhead riser structure poles and two large below grade transmission vaults spaced approximately 100 feet apart near Hope Drive. The current conceptual cost estimate for this underground segment is $19M which includes City utility relocation but does not include PG&E relocation costs.

The evaluation summary for the variance between Option 1 and 2 along the northern segment of Route A is provided below. Additional details including constructability considerations, existing utilities, power delivery and line rating considerations, potential growth, aesthetics, tree removals, maintenance, cost, and schedule are provided in Attachment 3.

Option 1 Overhead Alternative Discussion
Option 1 includes nine (9) poles installed within the median. This option has moderate traffic control issues and potential for lane closures associated with utility relocations. Currently, the potential relocation of existing utilities occurs at three pole locations which could change as design work progresses. Option 1 has several advantages. · The construction schedule is under City control, shorter and is scheduled to meet the anticipated energization date of 2028.
· An overhead transmission line can deliver more power and accommodate future growth with the option for a future underbuilt 60kV or 115kV transmission line. · The alignment will be built for 230kV but energized for 115kV. · Currently, there are no overhead transmission lines in this segment, but the poles would be located in the median and placed to limit tree removals. · Maintenance on an overhead transmission line and outage time is relatively less than an underground line.
· The overall cost of Option 1 is 50% less than Option 2.

Option 2 Underground Alternative Discussion
The most significant concerns regarding Option 2 are the conflicts with existing utilities and schedule. There are total of 25 utilities in the corridor including gas, sewer, storm, water, and electric lines. There are some significant issues including:
· The relocation of approximately 300 feet of two existing transmission natural gas lines (12” SVP and 6” PG&E) to facilitate the installation of two large underground vaults (12’ x 25’). · The underground duct bank, which will cross the majority of existing utilities within Lafayette Street just south of Agnew Road, may not meet the minimum required vertical pipe clearances. If vertical clearances cannot be met, the duct bank would dive below the existing sanitary sewer line, which is ~12’ deep creating a significant excavation and major disturbance in Lafayette. Likely the transmission line would need to be approximately 20’ deep.
· The relocation of the high-pressure gas line of the Donald Von Raesfeld Power Plant (DVR) would cause significant schedule constraints. It would require a full shutdown of DVR which can only occur during very limited periods.
· The relocation of a PG&E gas transmission line would also have undetermined, but likely City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 7 Printed on 3/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1614 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
significant, impact on project delivery. Likely, the New 115kV Transmission Line will not meet the anticipated energization date in the first quarter of 2028. · Option 2 will only deliver up to 83% of the power of Option 1 at 115kV due to heat dissipation requirements. The power delivery amount further declines at the 230kV level to

79.9%. This will limit future load growth.
· Option 2 does not allow for additional transmission lines within the duct bank. If, after the construction of the New 115kV Transmission Line, additional capacity is required, a new trench or overhead alignment would need to be constructed. · This option would involve more lengthy traffic control and lane closures and could involve the complete shutdown of portions of Lafayette Street.
· Includes two (2) riser poles where the conductor transitions from overhead to underground.

These riser poles typically have a larger visual impact than a typical overhead transmission pole (see Attachment 4 for typical pole types).

South of Agnew Segment
In the Route A alignment south of Agnew Road segment, there are existing 60kV transmission lines present on both the east side of Lafayette Street and the west side of Bassett Street. The alignment south of Agnew Road will be an overhead alignment. From Agnew Road to Montague Expressway, the alignment would shift from the median to the east side of Lafayette Street replacing one of the existing 60kV transmission lines to accommodate the new 115kV transmission line. Just north of Montague Expressway, the alignment would transition into Bassett Street. This portion would replace the existing 60kV transmission line on Bassett Street to facilitate the construction of the New 115kV Transmission Line. Between Norman Avenue and Bayshore Freeway, there are currently no transmission lines for approximately half a mile. At this portion all new overhead transmission lines will be installed. For the final 980 feet from just north of Bayshore to KRS, an existing 60kV transmission line will be replaced to facilitate the construction of the New 115kV Transmission Line.

At locations where transmission lines are being rebuilt, a future underbuilt alignment is not feasible; however, the 115kV conductor will be constructed to facilitate future use at 230kV. A new alignment would need to be evaluated at a later date for future growth on the 60kV system. The current conceptual cost estimate for this overhead segment is $26.5M.

Summary
The SVP evaluation team consisted of SVP staff, engineering consultants for the design and environmental work, and program management staff for the System Expansion Program. The SVP evaluation team conducted a comprehensive analysis and evaluation, employing various methodologies such as potholing and GPR surveys. This in-depth assessment took into consideration SVP’s load growth and system planning projections, schedule, cost estimation, required easements and permits, and engineering judgment. The goal was to determine feasible route alignments, identify a preferred route, and explore potential overhead and underground options within the preferred route.

The findings favored Option 1 (the overhead option) for the following reasons:
· Ability to meet schedule.
· Flexibility in power delivery.
· Ability to accommodate future growth.

City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 7 Printed on 3/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1614 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
· Ease of maintaining the system.
· Reduces construction disruption to the public.
· Total cost (including southern segment): $36M.

In contrast, Option 2 (the underground option), while it could be technically feasible, presents challenges such as:
· Relying on external agencies for utility relocation and faces an undetermined and extended timeline for DVR high-pressure gas line and PG&E transmission gas line relocation. · Reduced transmission capacity (compared to Option 1). · Lack of provisions for future growth.
· Extended construction timelines with extended lane closures and traffic control. · Inability to meet the anticipated energization date for the New 115 kV Transmission Line. · Total cost (including southern segment): $45.5M.

Recognizing the urgency to support SVP’s load growth and forecast, the New 115 kV Transmission Line is crucial, aiming for operational readiness by early 2028 to align with LS Power’s transmission line interconnection. Based on the analysis and evaluation completed to date, staff will be recommending Option 1 for a complete overhead alignment along Route A. However, Council will make the final determination when staff returns for consideration in Fall 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(1) as it does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City Council.

A CEQA determination will be made later (likely, fall 2024) when the City Council makes a final determination regarding the route and options.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item other than administrative staff time.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file the informational report on the route analysis for the New 115kV Transmission Line from Northern Receiving Station to Kifer Receiving Station.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 7 Printed on 3/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
24-1614 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Routes Overview

2. Attachment 2 - Route A Map Options 1 and 2

3. Attachment 3 - Option 1 and 2 Route Details

4. Attachment 4 - Typical Pole Types - Transmission and Riser

5. Attachment 5 - List of Potential Utility Conflicts - Underground Alignment City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 7 Printed on 3/15/2024
powered by Legistar™
RTC # 24-1614
ATTACHMENT 1

ROUTES OVERVIEW
")S
")S
£¤101
Guadalupe River
San Tomas AquinasCreek

SCOTT TO
DUANE 115 kV

NORMAN AVENUE
TO PALM 60 kV

PALM TO NORMAN
AVENUE 60 kV

AGNEW TO NORTH
RECEIVING STATION 60 kV

JULIETTE TO
CENTRAL 60 kV

NORMAN AVENUE
TO KIFER 60 kV

NORTHWESTERN TO
KENNETH 60 kV

CENTRAL TO
RAYMOND 60 kV HOMESTEAD TO KENNETH 60 kV
TRIMBLE TO AGNEW 115 kV
KIFER TO NEWARK 115 kV

KIFER RECEIVING

STATION

NORTH RECEIVING

STATION
Seg B-4
Seg C-1
Seg B-5
Seg C-3
Seg A-4
Seg B-2
Seg A-2
Seg C-3
Seg C-2
Seg B-1
Seg A-1
Seg B-5
Seg A-3
Seg B-3
Seg C-4
Montague Expy
de la Cruz Blvd
Lafayet
et St
de la Cruz Blvd
Mission College Blvd
Sa
n
Tomas
Expy
Lick Mill Blvd
Montague Expy
Lafayette St
Central Expy
Agnew Rd
Bayshore Freeway
Bassett St
Duane Ave
George St
Comstock St
Union Pacific Railroad
California
Alameda
County
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
San Mateo
County
\^[680
\^[280
\^[880
Redwood City
San Jose
San Francisco
Bay
Source: ECI, SVP, USGS, NHD, HIFLD, US Census Bureau, USDOT, CADPR, CA_GIS; Aerial Source: Sanborn Map Company, Maxar Path: N:\Shared\01 ECI\Silicon Valley Power\02 Projects\SVP-039 NRS-KRS 115kV Project\2300 Environmental\2311 GIS\2322 MXD\SVP_NRS_KRS\SVP_NRS_KRS.aprx Silicon Valley Power
NRS to KRS
115 kV Transmission Line
City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara County, CA
Overview
“Engineering with Distinction”
ELECTRICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
")S Existing Substation
")S New Substation
Route A
Route B
Route C
Route A Segment Division
Route B Segment Division
Route C Segment Division
Existing Transmission Line
60 kV
115 kV
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
¯
Project Location
RTC # 24-1614
ATTACHMENT 2
ROUTE A OPTION 1 & 2
")S
")S
")S
£¤101
Guadalupe River
San Tomas AquinasCreek

SCOTT TO
DUANE 115 kV

NORMAN AVENUE
TO PALM 60 kV

PALM TO NORMAN
AVENUE 60 kV

AGNEW TO NORTH
RECEIVING STATION 60 kV

JULIETTE TO
CENTRAL 60 kV

NORMAN AVENUE
TO KIFER 60 kV

NORTHWESTERN TO
KENNETH 60 kV

CENTRAL TO
RAYMOND 60 kV
TRIMBLE TO AGNEW 115 kV
KIFER TO NEWARK 115 kV

KIFER RECEIVING

STATION

NORTH RECEIVING

STATION

PALM SUBSTATION
Montague Expy
de la Cruz Blvd
Lafayet
et St
n Dr
de la Cruz Blvd
Mission College Blvd
Sa
n
Tomas
Expy
Lick Mill Blvd
Montague Expy
Lafayette St
Central Expy
Agnew Rd
Bayshore Freeway
Bassett St
Duane Ave
George St
Comstock St
Union Pacific Railroad
California
Alameda
County
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
San Mateo
County
\^[680
\^[280
\^[880
Redwood City
San Jose
San Francisco
Bay
Source: ECI, SVP, USGS, NHD, HIFLD, US Census Bureau, USDOT, CADPR, CA_GIS, CA Energy Commission; Aerial Source: Sanborn Map Company, Maxar Path: N:\Shared\01 ECI\Silicon Valley Power\02 Projects\SVP-039 NRS-KRS 115kV Project\2300 Environmental\2311 GIS\2322 MXD\SVP_NRS_KRS\SVP_NRS_KRS.aprx Silicon Valley Power
NRS to KRS
115 kV Transmission Line
City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara County, CA
Preferred Route
Option 1
“Engineering with Distinction”
ELECTRICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
")S Existing Substation
")S New Substation
Deadend Pole <120 ft
Tangent Pole <120 ft
Deadend Pole 120+ ft
Tangent Pole 120+ ft
Proposed Transmission Line
New Transmission Line
Double Circuit existing 60kV w/ New 115kV (same poles)
Existing Transmission Line
60 kV
115 kV
Easement Needed
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
¯
Project Location
ATTACHMENT 2 - OPTION 1
(ALL OVERHEAD)
")S
")S
")S
£¤101
Guadalupe River
San Tomas AquinasCreek

SCOTT TO
DUANE 115 kV

NORMAN AVENUE
TO PALM 60 kV

PALM TO NORMAN
AVENUE 60 kV

AGNEW TO NORTH
RECEIVING STATION 60 kV

JULIETTE TO
CENTRAL 60 kV

NORMAN AVENUE
TO KIFER 60 kV

NORTHWESTERN TO
KENNETH 60 kV

CENTRAL TO
RAYMOND 60 kV
TRIMBLE TO AGNEW 115 kV
KIFER TO NEWARK 115 kV
Montague Expy
de la Cruz Blvd
Lafayet
et St
an Dr
de la Cruz Blvd
Mission College Blvd
Sa
n
Tomas
Expy
Lick Mill Blvd
Montague Expy
Lafayette St
Central Expy
Agnew Rd
Bayshore Freeway
Bassett St
Duane Ave
George St
Comstock St
Union Pacific Railroad

KIFER RECEIVING

STATION

NORTH RECEIVING

STATION

PALM SUBSTATION
California
Alameda
County
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
San Mateo
County
\^[680
\^[280
\^[880
Redwood City
San Jose
San Francisco
Bay
Source: ECI, SVP, USGS, NHD, HIFLD, US Census Bureau, USDOT, CADPR, CA_GIS, CA Energy Commission; Aerial Source: Sanborn Map Company, Maxar Path: N:\Shared\01 ECI\Silicon Valley Power\02 Projects\SVP-039 NRS-KRS 115kV Project\2300 Environmental\2311 GIS\2322 MXD\SVP_NRS_KRS\SVP_NRS_KRS.aprx Silicon Valley Power
NRS to KRS
115 kV Transmission Line
City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara County, CA
Preferred Route
Option 2
“Engineering with Distinction”
ELECTRICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
")S Existing Substation
")S New Substation
Deadend Pole <120 ft
Tangent Pole <120 ft
Deadend Pole 120+ ft
Tangent Pole 120+ ft
Riser Pole <120 ft
Proposed Transmission Line
Overhead Transmission Line
Double Circuit existing 60kV w/ New 115kV (same poles)
Underground Transmission Line
Existing Transmission Line
60 kV
115 kV
Easement Needed
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
¯
Project Location
ATTACHMENT 2 - OPTION 2
(OVERHEAD & UNDERGROUND)
RTC # 24-1614
ATTACHMENT 3
OPTION 1 & 2 ROUTE DETAILS
Attachment 3
The following lists summarize the key items associated with the overhead and underground options (Option 1 and 2, respectively) for the northern Lafayette Street segment from NRS to Agnew Road.

Option 1 - Overhead Alternative along Northern Lafayette Street Segment • Constructability considerations:
o Segment includes 9 poles installed in the median.
o Consistent with typical City residential design standards and installations. o Moderate traffic control and potential lane closures for required utility relocations outside of the median.
o Isolated excavation and pole installation within the median. • Existing utilities:
o Depending on the exact location of the poles in this segment, we anticipate the need for minimal existing underground utility relocations at three locations. Utility relocation work would need to be completed prior to the anticipated construction start in Q4 2026. With Lafayette Street currently under a pavement moratorium through December 2025, the Project would have approximately 9 months to complete this work.
o Potential Relocations of Existing Utilities:
 PG&E-owned natural gas transmission lines – One Location  Sanitary Sewer – One Location
 Water line – Two Locations
• Power delivery and line rating considerations:
o The overhead transmission line option can deliver more power due to better heat dissipation than the underground alternative. Overhead systems can be designed to satisfy any current rating requirements by changing variables such as conductor type, structure/pole height, etc. • Potential growth:
o New pole locations will be able to accommodate a future underbuilt 60kV transmission line.
o Poles will be designed to accommodate voltages of 230kV but energized for 115kV.
o Future upgrades in voltage would allow for more power transfer through this section of the Lafayette corridor without major additional capital investment or disruptions.
• Aesthetic considerations:
o No overhead transmission lines currently exist along this segment. o New overhead transmission line installed in the median of Lafayette Street (representative of typical steel poles in SVP’s system, Attachment 4). • Tree removals:
o None are anticipated at this time however as design progresses, there may be a need for tree removal. If that is considered, trees will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Location and species will be determined with the City arborist. • Additional Maintenance considerations:
o Restoration time for an overhead transmission line is shorter and requires less resources than an underground line.
o With poles being placed in the median, the risk for car strikes to poles is present.
o If significant damage occurs to an overhead pole, SVP can perform emergency work to restore service in a matter of hours. • Estimated construction cost:
o $36M
 North of Agnew Road: $9.5M (overhead)
• Includes potential City utility relocation: $0.25M
 South of Agnew Road: $26.5M (overhead – consistent with Option 2, includes easement costs)
o Does not include PG&E costs.
• Estimated duration/schedule:
o Anticipated Energization Q1 2028 (dependent on completion of utility relocation work).

Option 2 - Underground Alternative along Northern Lafayette Street Segment • Constructability considerations:
o Relocation of ~300 feet of two existing transmission natural gas lines (owned by SVP and PG&E) would be necessary to facilitate the installation of two underground vaults, each measuring 12’ by 25’, which are required to facilitate pulling and splicing of the underground conductor near Hope Drive.

These vaults would require the relocation of:
 SVP natural gas line that supplies Donald Von Raesfeld (DVR) Power Plant. This work would have to be coordinated to occur during off-peak times of the year, November through March.
 PG&E natural gas line is a transmission line. It is unknown the timing that PG&E could take on the relocation of this alignment including design and construction. The impacts to the overall schedule are unknown.
o Potential violations of the minimum vertical pipe clearances between utilities are anticipated at the duct bank crossing Lafayette south of Agnew Road.

This involves traversing the majority of existing utilities within Lafayette. This utility crossing will need to be reviewed in more detail. If the minimum clearances are not met, an alternative option involves installing the duct bank below the existing sanitary sewer pipe which is ~12 feet below grade.

This excavation could be up to 20 feet deep and duct bank installation would be a major disturbance to traffic with prolonged construction time frames.
o Extended traffic control on the southbound lanes along the entire alignment on Lafayette Street which could involve completely shutting down portions of Lafayette Street.
o Prolonged excavation and shoring along entire alignment. • Existing utilities:
o Multiple utility relocation and crossing will be required. Utility relocation work would need to be completed prior to the anticipated construction start in Q4 2026. With Lafayette Street currently under a pavement moratorium through December 2025, the Project would have approximately 9 months to complete all of the necessary utility relocations.
o The Project would have an even shorter window of 3 months from January 2026 to March 2026 to complete the work for the 300’ high pressured gas line relocation for DVR due to operational constraints which the Project team believes to be an infeasible schedule.
o Required Crossings of Existing Utilities
 Communication line – Three Locations
 Electric line – Five Locations
 PG&E-owned natural gas line – Four Locations, including PG&E gas transmission lines
 SVP-owned natural gas line – Two Locations
 Sanitary Sewer – Four Locations
 Storm Drain – One Location
 Water line – Three Locations
o Required Relocations of Existing Utilities
 PG&E-owned natural gas line – One Location (~300 feet)  SVP-owned natural gas line – One Location (~300 feet) o Attachment 5 provides a table of the potential underground utility crossings and relocations associated with the alternative underground route. • Power delivery and line rating considerations:
o The underground transmission line option is anticipated to be able to deliver only about 83% of the power that the overhead option would be able to provide at 115kV. This value drops to 79.9% at 230kV.
o The cable and configuration proposed is at the maximum size for solid dielectric cable in the industry. If any additional capacity is required, a gas insulated transmission line would be required which adds significant complexity and costs to the Project.
• Potential growth:
o The underground option will be designed to accommodate voltages of 230kV but energized for 115kV.
o Future upgrades in voltage would allow for more power transfer through this section of the Lafayette corridor without major additional capital investment or disruptions at 79.9% of the capacity as the overhead alternative. o Any future 60kV lines in this corridor would necessitate a new alignment and trench, leading to additional disturbances and costs at a later date. A new alignment with separation from the existing trench would be required to accommodate the necessary heat dissipation emitted from the multiple sets of cable at the different voltage levels and may not be feasible due to the number of existing utilities and minimum vertical and horizontal clearances required.
• Aesthetic considerations:
o A portion of this alignment will still be overhead from inside NRS to the median of Lafayette.
o Two overhead transmission riser poles on either end of the underground segment are required to transition from overhead to underground. These riser poles typically have a larger visual impact than a typical overhead transmission pole as the conductor material transitions from bare overhead conductor to an insulated underground cable including additional hardware required for a riser pole that are not found on typical overhead poles (terminators, arrestors, and conductor shrouds). This hardware would also require additional structural appurtenances (see Attachment 4 for representation of a typical riser pole).
• Tree removals:
o None are anticipated at this time however as design progresses, there may be a need for tree removal. If that is considered, trees will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Location and species will be determined with the City arborist. • Additional Maintenance considerations:
o Restoration time for an underground transmission line will be significantly longer and require more resources than for a comparable overhead transmission line.
o If significant damage occurs to an underground riser pole, the work required to splice new cable and bring the line back into service could take days to complete.
o Future access to the underground vaults for cable pulling would require a lane closure.
• Estimated construction cost:
o $45.5M
 North of Agnew Road: $19M (underground)
• Includes potential City utility relocation: $0.5M
 South of Agnew Road: $26.5M (overhead – consistent with Option 1, includes easement costs)
o Does not include PG&E costs.
• Estimated duration/schedule:
o Unknown.
o This option requires extensive relocation of a PG&E gas transmission line which will not meet the Q1 2028 time frame.
o The relocation of the DVR gas line is also limited to a 3 month schedule which the Project team believes to be infeasible.
o The Project is required to be complete in early 2028 to support the interconnection with LS Powers transmission line.

RTC # 24-1614
ATTACHMENT 4

TYPICAL POLE TYPES
n Dr
California
Alameda
County
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
San Mateo
County
\^[680
\^[280
\^[880
Redwood City
San Jose
San Francisco
Bay
Silicon Valley Power
NRS to KRS
115 kV Transmission Line
City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara County, CA
Riser Structure
“Engineering with Distinction”
ELECTRICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Project Location

OVERHEAD SHIELD WIRE

OVERHEAD CONDUCTOR
(TWO SUB-CONDUCTORS

PER PHASE)

ARRESTOR
(ELECTRICAL PROTECTION

FOR UNDERGROUND CABLE)

TERMINATOR
(TRANSITION BETWEEN

OVERHEAD BARE CONDUCTOR

TO UNDERGROUND CABLE)

UNDERGROUND CABLE
(TWO CABLES PER PHASE)

CABLE SHROUD
(PHYSICAL PROTECTION FOR

EXPOSED UNDERGROUND CABLE)

VARIOUS SUPPORT HARDWARE
(ARMS AND CABLE CLAMPS TO

SECURE CABLES AGAINST

MOVEMENT DURING OPERATION)

CONCRETE FOUNDATION
(SUPPORT FOR STRUCTURE AND

ENTRANCE OF CABLES INTO

UNDERGROUND DUCTBANK)

DEADEND/STRAIN INSULATORS
(INSULATED ATTACHMENT

POINT FOR OVERHEAD

CONDUCTOR TO STRUCTURE)

RISER STRUCTURE

LOCATION

SOUTHBAY FWY

N FIRST ST

NORTECH PKWY
ATTACHMENT 4 - TYPICAL POLE TYPES
230 kV RISER POLE
n Dr
California
Alameda
County
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
San Mateo
County
\^[680
\^[280
\^[880
Redwood City
San Jose
San Francisco
Bay
Silicon Valley Power
NRS to KRS
115 kV Transmission Line
City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara County, CA
“Engineering with Distinction”
ELECTRICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.

Project Location

OVERHEAD SHIELD WIRE

OVERHEAD CONDUCTOR
(TWO SUB-CONDUCTORS PER PHASE)

CONCRETE FOUNDATION
(CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS ARE TYPICALLY ONLY SPECIFIED

AT DEADEND STRUCTURES UNLESS THERE ARE MITIGATING

FACTORS REQUIRING THEM AT TANGENT STRUCTURES)

BRACED POST INSULATOR
(INSULATED ATTACHMENT POINT FOR OVERHEAD

CONDUCTOR SUPPORT AT TANGENT STRUCTURES)

DEADEND STRUCTURE

LOCATION

SOUTHBAY FWY

N FIRST ST

NORTECH PKWY
ATTACHMENT 4 - TYPICAL POLE TYPES
230 kV TANGENT AND DEADEND POLES

DEADEND/STRAIN INSULATORS
(INSULATED ATTACHMENT POINT FOR OVERHEAD

CONDUCTOR TO DEADEND STRUCTURES)

TANGENT STRUCTURE

LOCATIONS
Tangent and Deadend Structures
RTC # 24-1614
ATTACHMENT 5

LIST OF POTENTIAL UTILITY

CONFLICTS
Attachment 5
The table below provides a list of the potential utility crossings and relocations associated with Option 2, the alternative underground route along the Northern Segment.

Utility
Conflict # Existing Utility Quantity/Size Approximate Location Along Lafayette ST.
1 Electric Ductbank with five 5” conduits
and one 4” conduit South of Agnew Rd.
2 Communication
Unknown * typically one or
more pipes, each ranging from
1” to 4”
South of Agnew Rd.
3 Communication
Unknown * typically one or
more pipes, each ranging from
1” to 4”
South of Agnew Rd.
4 Natural Gas (PG&E) 12” South of Agnew Rd.
5 Sanitary Sewer 30” South of Agnew Rd.
6 Natural Gas (PG&E) 6” South of Agnew Rd.
7 Water 12” South of Agnew Rd.
8 Natural Gas (SVP) 12” South of Agnew Rd.
9 Electric Ductbank with five 5” conduits
and one 4” conduit South of Agnew Rd.
10 Electric Ductbank with four 5” conduits
and one 4” conduit North of Agnew Rd.
11 Communication 4” North of Agnew Rd.
12 Natural Gas (PG&E) 6”-24” * Between Hope Dr. and Agnew Rd. 13 Sanitary Sewer 8” Between Hope Dr. and Agnew Rd.
14 Storm Drain 15” South of Hope Dr.
15 Water 12” Intersection of Hope Dr.
16 Natural Gas (SVP) 12” Between Eisenhower Dr. and Hope Dr.
17 Natural Gas - Transmission
(PG&E) 6”-24” * Between Eisenhower Dr. and Hope Dr.
18 Electric 1.5” Streetlight conduit * South of Eisenhower Dr. 19 Electric 1.5” Streetlight conduit * Intersection of Eisenhower Dr. 20 Sanitary Sewer 21” North of Eisenhower Dr.
21 Electric 1.5” Streetlight conduit * North of Hogan Dr. 22 Sanitary Sewer 15” Between Fairway Glen Dr. and Hogan Dr.
23 Natural Gas (PG&E) 24” * Between Fairway Glen Dr. and Hogan Dr.
24 Water 8” Between Fairway Glen Dr. and Hogan
Dr.
25 Natural Gas (SVP) 12” South of Fairway Glen Dr.
* Utility size is estimated, accurate record information is unavailable.

REV: DATE: BY: CHK: APP: SHEET: SCALE: NORTHERN RECEIVING STATION TO KIFER RECEIVING STATION TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE C RESIDENTIAL AREAS NRS TO KRS TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT ROUTE C RESIDENTIAL AREAS 1" = 1000' AGD JRT JJC 1 OF 1 4 SCALE FEET 0 500' 1000' 11/5/2024 NOTE: THIS IS NOT A SURVEY; DATA IS PRELIMINARY; AERIAL IMAGERY IS SUBJECT TO ACCURACY LIMITATIONS Northern Receiving Station Lafayette Street Kifer Receiving Station LEGEND ROUTE C TRANSMISSION CENTERLINE RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AREAS Bayshore Fwy Montague Expy FINAL

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND SUPPORTING INITIAL STUDY
NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project

ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
September 2024
Lead Agency Project Sponsor Technical Assistance
Silicon Valley Power
FINAL

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND SUPPORTING INITIAL STUDY
FOR
SILICON VALLEY POWER’S
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
LEAD AGENCY:

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

SILICON VALLEY POWER
881 MARTIN AVENUE
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:

ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
235 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 640
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
SEPTEMBER 2024
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2024 i ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

1.5. Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................. 1-2

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

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

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

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

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

3.2. Environmental Process........................................................................................................... 3-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.7. Zoning 4-2

4.8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ....................................................................................... 4-2

4.9. Project Overview.................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.9.1. Overhead and Underground Options......................................................................4-2

4.10. Project Objectives.................................................................................................................. 4-3

4.11. Project Components............................................................................................................... 4-3

4.11.1. 115 kV Transmission Line ........................................................................................4-3

4.11.2. Replacement of Existing Distribution and Telecommunication Lines.....................4-4

4.11.3. Substation Modifications.........................................................................................4-4

4.12. Project Construction Activities............................................................................................... 4-8

4.12.1. Staging Areas ...........................................................................................................4-8

4.12.2. Work Areas ..............................................................................................................4-8

4.12.3. Construction Access.................................................................................................4-9

4.12.4. Overhead 115 kV Transmission Line Construction................................................4-10

4.12.5. Underground 115 kV Transmission Line Construction ..........................................4-12

4.12.6. Water Use ..............................................................................................................4-15

4.12.7. Construction Workforce and Equipment...............................................................4-16

4.12.8. Construction Traffic and Circulation......................................................................4-17 NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2024 ii ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4.12.9. Vegetation Clearance ............................................................................................4-17

4.12.10. Erosion and Sediment Control and Pollution Prevention......................................4-17

4.12.11. Cleanup and Post Construction Restoration..........................................................4-18

4.12.12. Construction Schedule...........................................................................................4-18

4.13. Operations and Maintenance ..............................................................................................4-18

4.14. Other Permits and Approvals............................................................................................... 4-18

4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields Summary ................................................................................4-19

4.15.1. Electric and Magnetic Fields..................................................................................4-19

4.15.2. EMF in the Proposed Project Area.........................................................................4-20

4.16. Alternatives.......................................................................................................................... 4-22

5. Environmental Analysis................................................................................................. 5-1

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

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

5.1.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................5.1-9

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

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

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

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

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

5.3.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................5.3-3

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

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

5.4.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................5.4-8

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

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

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

5.6. Energy 5.6-1

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

5.6.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................5.6-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.9.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................5.9-10

5.10. Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................5.10-1 NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2024 iii ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

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

5.10.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................5.10-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.13. Noise 5.13-1

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

5.13.2. Regulatory Background ......................................................................................5.13-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.15.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................5.15-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.19.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................5.19-4

5.20. Wildfire 5.20-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Mitigation Monitoring Plan........................................................................................... 6-1 NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2024 iv ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

7. Response to Comments ................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1. Introduction to Comments and Responses Section...............................................................7-1

7.2. Summary of Comments Received .......................................................................................... 7-1

7.3. General Responses to Common Comments ..........................................................................7-3

7.3.1. General Response #1 – Human Health and Scope of CEQA ....................................7-3

7.3.2. General Response #2 – EMF ....................................................................................7-4

7.3.3. General Response #3 – Corona and Induced Currents............................................7-7

7.3.4. General Response #4 – Property Values and Cost ..................................................7-7

7.3.5. General Response #5 – Aesthetics...........................................................................7-7

7.3.6. General Response #6 – Noise ................................................................................7-10

7.3.7. General Response #7 – Hazards ............................................................................7-10

7.4. Responses to Comment Set A1 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)........7-10

7.5. Responses to Comment Set A2 - SFPUC Water Enterprise..................................................7-16

7.6. Responses to Comment Set A3 - San Jose International Airport.........................................7-16

7.7. Responses to Comment Set A4 - California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).......7-17

7.8. Responses to Comment Set B1 through B74 .......................................................................7-17 TABLES
Table 4-1. Summary of Approximate Pole Metrics............................................................................4-10 Table 4-2. Anticipated Personnel and Equipment Required for Project Construction (based on typical estimates).........................................................................................................4-16 Table 4-3. Permits that May Be Required for the Proposed Project .................................................4-18 Table 5.1-1. Visual Impact Significance Criteria.................................................................................5.1-10 Table 5.3-1. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................5.3-1 Table 5.3-2. Attainment Status for San Francisco Bay Area ................................................................5.3-2 Table 5.3-3. Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) .....................................5.3-4 Table 5.5-1. Cultural Resources Reports Within Project Area .............................................................5.5-3 Table 5.6-1. Electricity Consumption for Load Served by SVP (million kWh per year)........................5.6-1 Table 5.7-1. Significant Active and Potentially Active Faults within 50 miles of the Proposed Project..............................................................................................................................5.7-5 Table 5.9-1. Known Environmentally Contaminated Sites within 0.25-mile of the proposed Project..............................................................................................................................5.9-2 Table 5.13-1. Typical Noise Levels for Individual Construction Equipment.........................................5.13-4 Table 5.14-1. Year 2017 Existing Conditions – Population, Housing, and Employment: City of Santa Clara and County of Santa Clara ..........................................................................5.14-1 Table 5.17-1. Existing Local Roadway Conditions................................................................................5.17-2 Table 5.19-1. Utility Providers .............................................................................................................5.19-1 Table 5.19-2 Landfill Capacities ..........................................................................................................5.19-2 Table 6-1. Mitigation Monitoring Plan.................................................................................................6-2 Table 7-1. Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND.........................................................................7-1 NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT CONTENTS
SEPTEMBER 2024 v ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Project Overview ............................................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-2. Typical Pole Types, 230 kV Riser Pole................................................................................ 4-6 Figure 4-3. Typical Pole Types, 230 kV Tangent and Deadend Poles .................................................. 4-7 Figure 5.1-1. View Near NRS looking North.........................................................................................5.1-5 Figure 5.1-2. Wall Separating Residences and Lafayette Street..........................................................5.1-6 Figure 5.1-3. Bird’s Eye Illustration of Project Poles on Lafayette Street............................................5.1-7 Figure 5.1-4. View from Bassett Street of Crossing at Montague Expressway ...................................5.1-8 Figure 5.4-1. Vegetation and Land Cover............................................................................................5.4-3 Figure 7-1. View of Lafayette Street from the east side of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Fairway Glen Drive, looking west............................................................................... 7-8 Figure 7-2. View of Lafayette Street from the east side of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Hope Drive, looking south .......................................................................................... 7-9 Figure 7-3. View of Lafayette Street from a motorist’s perspective, adjacent to the Mission Gardens community, looking north .................................................................................. 7-9

APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Preparers
Appendix B References
Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Appendix D Draft Arborist Report
Appendix E Biological Resources
Appendix F Scoping Report
Appendix G EMF Report
Appendix H Public Comments on Draft IS/MND
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT LIST OF ACRONYMS SEPTEMBER 2024 vi ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACE Altamont Commuter Express
ADT Average daily traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
ARB Air Resources Board
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMPs Best Management Practices
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCJPA Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDOC California Department of Conservation
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CLG Certified Local Government
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon monoxide
CPRC California Public Resources Code
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRRD Community Risk Reduction Division
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies
CVC California Vehicle Code
CWA Clean Water Act
DHS Department of Health Services
DOC Department of Conservation
DPM Diesel particulate matter
DPR Department of Pesticide Regulation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control
DVR Donald Von Raesfeld Power Plant
EAP Energy Action Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMF Electric and magnetic fields
EOC Emergency Operations Center
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT LIST OF ACRONYMS SEPTEMBER 2024 vii ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHG Greenhouse gas
GO General Order
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HMCD Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
IBC International Building Code
ICC International Code Council
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
ISA International Society of Arboriculture
IWMB Integrated Waste Management Board
KRS Kifer Receiving Station
LOS Level of service
LUST Leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most likely descendant
MM Mitigation measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MOU Memorandum of understanding
MRDS Mineral Resources Data Systems
MRR Mandatory reporting rule
MRZ Mineral resource zone
MSL Mean sea level
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NCP National Contingency Plan
NESC National Electric Safety Code
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NIMS National Incident Management System
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NRS Northern Receiving Station
NSH National Seismic Hazard
NWIC California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center NWI USFWS National Wetlands Inventory
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
OMR Office of Mine Reclamation
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT LIST OF ACRONYMS SEPTEMBER 2024 viii ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM10 Particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) PM2.5 Fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) POU Publicly owned utility
PRC Public Resources Code
PRMP Paleontological Resources Management Plan
PSHM Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RMP Risk Management Plan
ROG Reactive organic gases
ROW Right-of‐way
RPI Rare plant inventory
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWF Regional Wastewater Facility
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SBWR South Bay Water Recycling
SCCDEH Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health SCFD Santa Clara Fire Department
SCP Scientific collecting permit
SCPD Santa Clara Police Department
SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SGMP Soil and Groundwater Management Plan
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
SMGB State Mining and Geology Board
SRRE Source Reduction Recycling Element
SVP Silicon Valley Power
SWGS Solid Waste Generation Study
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs Toxic air contaminants
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPZ Tree Protection Zone
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
URMP Urban Runoff Management Plan
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage tank
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
VOC Volatile organic compounds
VTA Valley Transportation Authority
WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements
WEAP Worker environmental awareness program
WHO World Health Organization
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
FINAL
Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study
for
Silicon Valley Power’s
NRS-KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project

1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

1.1. Project Information
Project: NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project
City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California
Project Sponsor: City of Santa Clara, Silicon Valley Power 881 Martin Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 615-6600
General Plan: NRS is located on land with the general plan designation of Regional Commercial, and the KRS is on land designated as Light Industrial Zoning: NRS and KRS are located on land zoned as Public or Quasi Public

1.2. Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clara (City) must prepare an Initial Study (IS) for the Proposed Project to determine if any significant adverse effects on the environment would result from project implementation. The IS utilizes the significance criteria outlined in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. If the IS for the project indicates that a significant adverse impact could occur, the City would be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report.

According to Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process) and Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration) of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, it has been determined that all project-related environmental impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of feasible mitigation NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
measures. Therefore, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will satisfy the requirements of CEQA. The mitigation measures included in this MND are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described in the Initial Study. Where a measure described in this document has been previously incorporated into the project, either as a specific project design feature or as an Applicant-Proposed Measure, this is noted in the discussion. Mitigation measures are structured in accordance with the criteria in Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.3. Project Description
Silicon Valley Power (SVP) proposes to construct the NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project (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.

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

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

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

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

Clear signage regarding idling shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at SVP or its designee regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Mitigation Measures for Special-Status Wildlife Species MM BIO-1 Implement Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to and for the duration of any vegetation removal and trimming and any ground disturbing activities, SVP or its designee shall provide Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to all new personnel prior to beginning work on the Project. The training may be presented in the form of a video. The training program shall be developed by a qualified biologist to educate Project personnel about the Project’s sensitive biological resources. The name and credentials of the qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior to the surveys for review and approval. A draft of the training program (i.e., video and written materials) shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior for approval prior to implementation. The WEAP shall include, at a minimum:
 An overview of the sensitive biological resources that are known or have the potential to occur in the Project area and surrounding habitat. This shall include nesting birds and special- plants and wildlife.
 An overview of the Project and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and the consequences of non-compliance with these requirements.  An overview of the federal and State Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, pertinent Fish and Game Code sections, and other applicable regulatory requirements and the consequences of non-compliance with these requirements.
 Functions, responsibilities, and authority of the biological monitor(s) and how they interact with Project personnel.
 Identify clear points of contact for the biological monitor(s) and construction personnel including who to contact should workers have questions regarding compliance with environmental documents and permit conditions.
 Project restrictions, such as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), setbacks from sensitive biological resources, and avoidance buffers.  Requirements to remain within authorized work areas and on approved access routes, with examples of flagging and signage used to designate these areas.  Information on compliance with Project speed limits, control of litter and micro trash, smoking restrictions, wildfire minimization measures, spill containment and clean up, and the implementation of Best Management Practices.
 Explanation that wildlife must not be harmed or harassed including procedures for abiding by Project speed limits, covering pipes, securing excavations, and installing exit ramps to prevent wildlife entrapment.

Training acknowledgement forms shall be signed by each person attesting that they understand and will abide by Project requirements. Upon request, SVP or its designee NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
shall provide the City the WEAP training acknowledgement forms for persons who have completed the training in the prior month and a running total of all persons who have completed the training to date.

MM BIO-2 Biological Monitoring. SVP or its designee shall retain a qualified biologist as biological monitor on the Project, to be approved by the City. If sensitive biological resources are identified during preconstruction surveys or incidentally, the qualified biologist will monitor Project work locations in proximity to sensitive biological resources weekly until biological resources are not found for one consecutive month, at which point weekly monitoring will cease. The qualified biologist shall be notified immediately if any nesting birds or other biological resources are discovered once construction begins. The qualified biologist will be the point of contact for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a special-status species or anyone who finds a dead, injured, or entrapped animal. The qualified biologist or biological monitor shall have the authority and responsibility to halt any Project activities that are not in compliance with applicable mitigation measures, permit conditions, or other Project requirements, or will have an unauthorized adverse effect on biological resources.

MM BIO-3 Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Wildlife and Implement Avoidance Measures. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for each of the species identified below. These surveys can be combined if they meet the requirements outlined in this measure. The name and credentials of the qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior to the surveys for review and approval.

Within 14 days of completion of the surveys, the City shall be provided with a report describing the findings, including the date, time, and duration of the surveys; identity of the surveyor(s); a list of all common and special-status species observed; locations of any special-status species identified, including any established avoidance buffers; and any actions taken at the direction of the City in coordination with CDFW, and/or USFWS.

Bumble Bee: A preconstruction survey for Crotch’s bumble bee and western bumble bee shall be conducted during the colony active period for each species (April through August) prior to project vegetation management and ground disturbing activities. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified entomologist or biologist familiar with the life history and ecology of special-status bumble bee species. The preconstruction survey for special-status bumble bees shall focus on the ruderal habitat within the utility right-of-way adjacent to the Northern Receiving Station and landscaped and ruderal land at the Montague Expressway interchange. The survey shall identify any potential foraging, nesting, and/or overwintering resources present within the Project work areas and a 50-foot buffer where legal access is available. If a potential active special-status bumble bee nest site is identified, a 50-foot avoidance buffer shall be clearly delineated with staking, flagging, and/or signage and Project activities will be prohibited from the area until it is determined that the nest is no longer potentially active. The qualified biologist shall notify the City for coordination with CDFW within 24 hours as further coordination may be required to avoid or mitigate impacts.

Burrowing Owl: No later than seven days prior to start of project vegetation management and ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl. The survey shall include the focus areas (described below) plus a 250-foot buffer where legal access is available. The survey for burrowing owl shall focus on the ruderal habitat described for bumble bees above. If burrows or other structures are identified that contain signs of use by burrowing owl, or if burrowing owl(s) is observed, an avoidance buffer area shall be clearly delineated with staking, flagging, and/or signage.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
If during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a 250-foot avoidance buffer shall be established, and Project activities will be prohibited from the area until a qualified biologist determines it is occupied either by a non-mated pair or the young have fledged.

If outside the nesting season, a 160-foot avoidance buffer shall be established. The prescribed buffers may be adjusted by the qualified avian biologist in coordination with the City and CDFW based on existing conditions around the burrow, planned construction activities, tolerance of the species at a given location, and other pertinent factors.

If avoidance of burrowing owls is not feasible and work will be conducted outside the nesting season, a Burrowing Owl Passive Relocation Plan shall be developed to provide detailed methods and guidance for passive relocation of burrowing owls. The Burrowing Owl Passive Relocation Plan shall be submitted to the City for approval in coordination with CDFW prior to conducting passive relocation. An occupied burrow may not be disturbed during the nesting season, unless a qualified biologist determines, by noninvasive methods, that it is not occupied by a mated pair. Passive relocation would include installation of one-way doors on burrow entrances that would let owls out of the burrow but would not let them back in. Once owls have been passively relocated, burrows will be carefully excavated by hand and collapsed by, or under the direct supervision, of a qualified biologist.

Within 14 days of completion of the surveys, the City shall be provided with a report describing the findings, including the date, time, and duration of the surveys; identity of the surveyor(s); any established avoidance buffers in the event burrowing owls are documented to be present; and any actions taken at the direction of the City and/or CDFW.

Western Pond Turtle: No later than seven days prior to start of project vegetation management and ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for western pond turtle. The survey for western pond turtle shall focus on the ruderal habitat within the utility right-of-way southeast adjacent to the Northern Receiving Station.

Western pond turtle or other special-status wildlife found within the Project site during the surveys shall be allowed to leave on its own volition prior to the onset of construction.

If species of special concern are found within the Project site during surveys and will not leave on its own volition, the species will be relocated to the nearest suitable habitat outside of the Project site. Species of special concern will only be handled by qualified personnel as authorized by CDFW and/or USFWS under an issued state scientific collecting permit (SCP), memorandum of understanding (MOU), or federal recovery permit.

Impacts to federally or state-listed species or state-listing candidate species are not authorized. If any State or federally listed, candidate, or proposed species are detected work will be stopped and the applicant shall notify the City for coordination with CDFW and or USFWS, within 24-hours for further direction.

MM BIO-4 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Nest Protection. During the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted on the site and vicinity by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before any work activities, including any vegetation removal or trimming, are performed at a given Project location.

The surveys shall be conducted following the sequential schedule of the linear Project in a manner that minimizes potential for the surveys to expire before the construction crews proceed to a new Project work location. Surveyors will search for all potential nest types (e.g., ground, cavity, shrub/tree, structural, etc.) and determine whether the nest is active. A nest will be determined to be active if eggs or young are present in the nest.

Upon discovery of active nests, the biological monitor will determine if there is need for NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
a buffer or shield to minimize disturbance of the nest. Upon this determination and execution of any required minimization action, work may proceed. The extent of the determination will be based upon: acclimation of the species or individual to disturbance, nest type (cavity, tree, ground, etc.), and level and duration of construction activity. If there is a break in construction at a work location for a period of 14 or more days during nesting season, a new nesting bird survey shall be undertaken before construction is allowed to commence at that location to determine if any nests have been established. Bird surveys are not required outside of the nesting season.

In the unlikely event a special-status or listed species is found nesting nearby, CDFW and USFWS will be notified, and the City will be provided with nest survey results, if requested.

When active nests are identified, monitoring for significant disturbance to the birds will be implemented. Construction will not be allowed to continue unless the qualified biologist determines that no disturbance is occurring.

MM BIO-5 Preconstruction Bat Survey and Implement Avoidance Measures. A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for special-status bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine if bat species are roosting in trees or other vegetation requiring removal or clearance pruning for the Project. The name and credentials of the qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior to the surveys for review and approval. The survey shall occur no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning tree or other vegetation removal or trimming activities. Survey methodology may include visual surveys for bats (e.g., observation of bats emerging from roosts to forage), inspection for suitable roost habitat, bat sign (e.g, guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (e.g., Anabat, etc). Visual surveys shall include all trees or other vegetation requiring removal or clearance pruning for the Project.

If evidence of bat use is observed, the approximate number and species of bats using the roost shall be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts.

Mitigation Measures to Comply with Local Tree Policies and Ordinances MM BIO 6: Tree Protection Measures for Retained Trees. To minimize the potential damage and ensure the long-term health, stability, and survival of retained trees, measures outlined in the Tree Protection Plan below shall be implemented.

Tree Protection Zone
 A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be defined by the City Arborist or City designated ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist for all trees within 50 feet of any excavations that could be affected by project activities and are intended for preservation. A TPZ will not be established for trees within the Project area that are not within this excavation zone. TPZ will be taken down once excavation work is completed within 50 feet. A TPZ will typically include all area within the dripline of trees to be retained.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
 The TPZ will be protected by a fenced enclosure to prevent unauthorized access during project activities. Fencing shall be constructed of sturdy but open material (i.e., orange webbed construction fencing, chain-link) with a minimum height of 4 feet and secured in place. Warning signs (e.g. WARNING – Tree Protection Zone – This fence shall not be moved without approval by the City Arborist or a City designated arborist) shall be prominently displayed and visible from all sides of the TPZ fencing.  TPZ fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, grading, staging, stockpiling, or any other construction activities, and shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete.
 No construction, staging, or storage of materials, equipment or vehicles shall occur within the TPZ without advanced approval and oversight by the City Arborist or a City designated ISA Certified Arborist.
 No excess soil, excess concrete or concrete wash, chemicals, refuse or other waste shall be placed within the TPZ.
 The primary contractor shall be responsible for maintaining TPZ fencing and enforcing all TPZ guidelines outlined above throughout the course of the Project.

Site Grading, Excavation, and Trenching
 Soil disturbance or grade changes within a TPZ are not permitted unless approved by the City Arborist or a City designated arborist. Any approved grading, excavation or trench work within a TPZ will be field staked and inspected by the City Arborist or a City designated ISA Certified Arborist prior to implementation.  All grading, excavation and trenching work within a TPZ shall be performed under the observation of a City Arborist or City designated ISA Certified Arborist.  All grading shall be designed to provide positive drainage away from the base of trees to be preserved and shall not create ponding within a TPZ.  Grade changes in the vicinity of trees to be preserved should remain as close to natural grade as possible.

Canopy Pruning
 To the extent possible, any necessary canopy pruning shall be completed prior to the commencement of construction activities.
 Pruning shall be performed by a qualified tree service worker under the direction of a ISA Certified Arborist following International Society of Arboriculture tree pruning best management practices. Pruning shall not be performed by construction personnel.

Root Pruning
 Any roots one inch and larger requiring removal shall be cut cleanly in sound tissue. No pruning seals or paint shall be used on wounds.
 Roots two inches and greater shall remain in place and undamaged to the extent practicable. If removal is required, cuts shall be made with the approval and under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist.

Communication for Tree Protection Compliance
 A preconstruction meeting shall be arranged for the City Arborist or City designated ISA Certified Arborist to meet with the Project Planner, Project Contractors, Onsite Project NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Supervisors, Tree Pruning and Removal Contractor, and/or other appropriate Project Leads to review and secure a commitment to comply with all tree protection measures.

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

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

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

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
According to the California Health and Safety Code, six (6) or more human burials at one (1) location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and willful disturbance of human remains is a felony (Section 7052).

Mitigation Measure for Seismically Induced Liquefaction MM G-1 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations. Because seismically induced liquefaction-related ground failure has the potential to damage or destroy Project components, SVP shall cause design-level geotechnical investigation for the Project to be performed that shall include investigations designed to assess the potential for geologic and seismic hazards, and specifically include evaluation of the potential for liquefaction and expansive soils to affect the 115 kV line structures. Where liquefaction or expansive soils hazards are found to exist/verified, appropriate engineering design and construction measures shall be incorporated into the Project design as deemed appropriate by the Project engineer.

Finalized Project design incorporating geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to Project construction.

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

The WEAP shall include procedures to follow if paleontological resources are encountered, including:
 A monitoring plan for soils generated from tubular pole foundation excavations that may encounter Pleistocene sediments. Workers may temporarily halt operations to allow for identification and collection of paleontological resources from soil spoil piles.

If a potential significant paleontological resource is noted, a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be called to the site identify and collect the fossil.  A plan for treatment of significant fossils that provides for the treatment of specimens to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.  A specimen identification, analysis, and curation plan that includes identification to the lowest taxonomic level possible; taxonomic, taphonomic, and biostratigraphic analysis; and curation to the standards of the repository where they will be curated.  Paleontological resource collection treatment, and identification shall meet standards set forth in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010).

Mitigation Measure for Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials MM H-1 Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response. SVP shall implement its hazardous substance control and emergency response. procedures as needed. These procedures identify methods and techniques to minimize the exposure of the public and site workers to potentially hazardous materials during all phases of Project construction through NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
operation. They address worker training appropriate to the site worker’s role in hazardous substance control and emergency response. The procedures also require implementing appropriate control methods and approved containment and spill-control practices for construction and materials stored on site. If it is necessary to store chemicals on site, they shall be managed in accordance with all applicable regulations. Material safety data sheets shall be maintained and kept available on site, as applicable.

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

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure for Contaminated Soil and Groundwater MM H-2 Soil and Groundwater Management. Prior to Project construction and ground disturbing activities, SVP shall implement an evaluation of potential soil and groundwater contamination at locations along the Project route where excavation, drilling, auguring, or other significant ground disturbance will occur to prevent mobilization of contaminants and exposure of workers and the public. The evaluation shall be completed at least 60 days prior to the start of Project construction. The evaluation of soil and groundwater shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
 If contaminants below regulatory screening levels are identified, SVP shall coordinate with SCCDEH regarding soil reuse guidelines;
 If contaminants exceeding applicable regulatory screening levels for construction workers and residential users published by the RWQCB, DTSC, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (except for arsenic which is naturally occurring in the area), are encountered during the Soil and Groundwater Characterization Study SVP shall obtain regulatory oversight from SCCDEH and shall prepare a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP); and
 Soils found in concentrations above established thresholds (except for arsenic) shall be removed and disposed of according to California Hazardous Waste Regulations.

If a SGMP is needed, the SGMP shall be prepared to guide activities during excavation and other ground disturbing activities to ensure that identified contaminated soils or groundwater are handled, removed, and disposed of properly. The SGMP shall be prepared by a NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
licensed qualified professional and submitted to SCCDEH at least 30 days prior to Project construction and shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
 Procedures and protocols for the safe handling, storage, stockpiling, and disposal of contaminated soils;
 Contaminated soil excavated from the site shall be hauled off-site and disposed of at a licensed hazardous materials disposal site;
 Protocols to manage and dispose of contaminated groundwater that may be encountered during trenching or subsurface excavation activities, and if dewatering is required; and
 Procedures and protocols to follow in the event soils or groundwater not previously identified as contaminated and suspected of being contaminated (on the basis of visual, olfactory, or other evidence) are identified during site grading or excavation activities or dewatering activities to allow for proper identification and characterization, and subsequent proper handling, removal, and disposal.

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

Implementation of the SWPPP or erosion control plan will help stabilize graded or disturbed areas and reduce erosion and sedimentation. The plan will designate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be adhered to during construction activities. Erosion and sediment control measures, such as straw wattles, covers, and silt fences, may be installed before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events if soils are not stabilized.

Suitable stabilization measures will be used to protect exposed areas during construction activities, as necessary. During construction activities measures will be in place to prevent contaminant discharge.

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

Erosion control measures identified will be installed in an area before construction begins during the wet season and before the onset of winter rains or any anticipated storm events.

Temporary measures such as silt fences or wattles, intended to minimize sediment transport from temporarily disturbed areas, will remain in place until disturbed areas have stabilized. The plan will be updated during construction as required by the SWRCB.

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

Mitigation Measure for Construction Traffic
MM T-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction, SVP or its designee shall prepare and submit an Encroachment Permit which will include the construction Traffic Control Plan for review and approval to the City’s Department of Public Works for NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-12 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
public roads and transportation facilities that would be directly affected by the construction activities and/or would require permits and approvals. SVP shall submit the construction Traffic Control Plan to the City prior to conducting activities covered in the traffic control permits. The construction Traffic Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
 The locations and use of flaggers, warning signs, lights, barricades, delineators, cones, arrow boards, etc., according to standard guidelines outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and/or the California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual.  Additional methods to reduce temporary traffic delays and trips during peak travel hours to the extent feasible.
 Typical access routes between all staging areas and the proposed work areas.  Defining methods to coordinate with the City throughout construction to minimize cumulative lane disruption impacts should simultaneous construction projects affect shared segments/portions of the circulation system.
 Prior to the start of construction, provide (or identify the timing to provide) the City with methods to comply with all specified requirements.  Plans to coordinate in advance with emergency service providers to avoid restricting the movements of emergency vehicles. Police departments and fire departments shall be notified in advance by SVP of the proposed locations, nature, timing, and duration of any roadway disruptions, and shall be advised of any access restrictions that could impact their effectiveness. At locations where roads will be blocked, provisions shall be ready at all times to accommodate emergency vehicles, such as immediately stopping work for emergency vehicle passage, providing short detours, and developing alternate routes in conjunction with the public agencies. Documentation of the coordination with police and fire departments shall be gathered prior to the start of construction.  Plans to coordinate in advance with property owners, if any, that may have limited access to properties due to temporary lane closures. Provisions for ensuring secondary access should be provided.
 Plans to coordinate with Valley Transportation Authority in advance of construction to minimize disruption to mass transit.

Mitigation for Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources
MM TCR-1 Management of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources. During project construction, should subsurface tribal cultural resources be discovered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist and an authorized tribal representative shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Section 21074. If any find is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American groups expressing interest, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, Project reroute or redesign, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 1. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SEPTEMBER 2024 1-13 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in the tribal cultural resource.

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

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION SEPTEMBER 2024 2-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

2.1. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” and requiring implementation of mitigation as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture & Forestry Resources ☒ Air Quality ☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☒ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☒ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☒ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.2. Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. 09/24/2024
Allie Jackman, Project Manager Date
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Silicon Valley Power/City of Santa Clara
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE INITIAL STUDY SEPTEMBER 2024 3-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

3. INTRODUCTION TO THE INITIAL STUDY

3.1. Proposed Project Overview
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. SVP’s primary objective of the new 115 kV 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 SVP evaluation team identified and evaluated three routes for the new 115 kV transmission line prior to selection of the final route. The preferred alignment begins at NRS exiting northeast toward Lafayette Street continuing southeast within the median of Lafayette Street to Agnew Road where it transitions to the east side of Lafayette Street until Montague Expressway, where the route shifts to the west side of Bassett Street. The transmission line proceeds southeast along Bassett Street to Bayshore Freeway (US 101), where the route crosses Bayshore Freeway and continues south along Duane Avenue interconnecting to KRS from the north.

3.2. Environmental Process

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

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared based on the assessment of potential environmental impacts identified in the IS. All potentially significant impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level below significance; therefore, an MND can be adopted by the City in accordance with Section 21080 of the CEQA Public Resources Code.

3.2.2. CEQA Lead Agency
The City of Santa Clara is the lead agency for review of the project under CEQA because it must make a decision whether to adopt the MND and to approve or deny the Proposed Project.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in a trust by statute for all the people of the state.

3.2.3. Initial Study
The IS presents an analysis of potential effects of the Proposed Project on the environment. The IS is based on information provided by SVP, project site visits, comments received during the scoping period and at the project scoping meetings on April 25, 2024 and May 23, 2024, and additional research.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 3. INTRODUCTION TO THE INITIAL STUDY SEPTEMBER 2024 3-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Construction activities and project operation could have direct and indirect impacts on the environment.

The following environmental parameters are addressed based on the potential effects of the Proposed Project and potential growth-inducing or cumulative effects of the project in combination with other projects:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural & Forestry Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology/Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards & Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology/Water Quality
 Land Use/Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Population/Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities/Service Systems
 Wildfire
 Corona and Induced Current
Effects
 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
The IS has been organized into the following sections:
 Section 3: Introduction. Provides an introduction and overview describing the Proposed Project and the CEQA process and identifies key areas of environmental concern.  Section 4: Project Description. Presents the project objectives and provides an in-depth description of the Proposed Project, including construction details and methods.  Section 5: Environmental Analysis and Mitigation. Includes a description of the existing conditions and analysis of the Proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.  Section 6: Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Includes applicant proposed measures (APMs) and mitigation measures that SVP must implement as part of the project, actions required to implement these measures, monitoring requirements, and timing of implementation for each measure.  Appendix A: List of Preparers. Lists the preparers of the IS.  Appendix B: References. Lists the sources of information used to prepare the IS.  Appendix C: AQ/GHG Report. Presents the modeling inputs and outputs used for the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas sections of the IS.
 Appendix D: Draft Arborist Report. Presents an inventory and a general assessment of trees in the Project Area, and a Tree Protection Plan.
 Appendix E: Biological Resources Report. Lists the known and potential occurrences of special-status species within the Project Area.
 Appendix F: Scoping Report. Summarizes the public scoping effort and comments received.  Appendix G: Electric and Magnetic Field Report.
 Appendix H: Public Comments on Draft IS/MND
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Silicon Valley Power (SVP) proposes to construct the NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project (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 (City).

4.1. Project Title
NRS to KRS 115 kV Transmission Line Project (Project)

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

4.3. Lead Agency Contact Person and Phone Number
Allie Jackman, Project Manager
Principal Electric Utility Engineer
Phone: (408) 615--6639
E-mail: [email protected]

4.4. Project Location
The proposed Project is located in the City of Santa Clara within Santa Clara County, CA. The Project area is 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.

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

4.6. General Plan Designation
Due to the linear nature of the Project, there are several general plan designations along the Project route.

These include Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Neighborhood Mixed Use, Parks/Open Space, High Intensity Office/R&D, Low Intensity Office/R&D, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial.

NRS is located on land with the general plan designation of Regional Commercial, and the KRS is on land designated as Light Industrial.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4.7. Zoning
There are several zoning designations along the Project route, including: MH - Heavy Industrial, ML - Light Industrial, R3-25D - Moderate Density Multiple Dwelling, CN – Neighborhood Commercial, PD- Planned Development, R1-6L – Single Family, and PD-MC – Planned Development – Master Community. The land that the NRS and KRS are on are zoned as Public or Quasi Public (City of Santa Clara 2023).

4.8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Land uses within the Project area include residential, commercial, and industrial. Existing SVP transmission and distribution power lines are located near and within the project right-of-way (ROW).

North of Bayshore Freeway/Highway 101, land uses are primarily residential, with single and multi-family homes, and with commercial and industrial uses south of Montague Expressway and west of Lafayette Street. South of Bayshore Freeway/Highway 101, land uses are primarily light industrial uses and low-rise office buildings.

4.9. Project Overview
SVP is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of a new overhead and/or underground 115 kV transmission line. The 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 NRS, south of the intersection of Bill Walsh Way and Stars and Stripes Drive, approximately 0.1 miles southeast of Levi’s Stadium. The transmission line would travel approximately 2.24 miles south along Lafayette Street, Bassett Street, and Duane Avenue and end at the KRS, approximately 0.1 miles northwest of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Central Expressway (See Figure 4-1, Project Overview).

4.9.1. Overhead and Underground Options
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, The overall northern segment is approximately 0.74 miles long.

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 beneath Lafayette Street after a portion of overhead alignment where the line would leave NRS and enter the median of Lafayette, then transition underground using a riser pole. The underground segment would transition to overhead approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, then continue overhead south of Agnew Road to connect to the KRS. South of Agnew Road, the route would be overhead, regardless of the Option chosen.

4.9.1.1. Option 1 - Overhead Route Segment
Under Option 1, the entire Project would be overhead. Between NRS and the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, there would be approximately twelve new poles spaced between approximately 150-500 feet apart, with foundations or directly embedded. Nine of these poles would be constructed within the median in Lafayette Street. The new pole structures would be designed to allow SVP to install 60 kV underbuilt lines as well.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4.9.1.2. Option 2 - Underground Route Segment
Under Option 2, the Project would be underground beneath Lafayette Street from near NRS to approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, and then overhead south of Agnew Road to KRS. The underground option would include nine 8-inch conduits for electrical and three 4-inch conduits for communication. Option 2 would require two large overhead riser structure poles (see Figure 4-2, Typical Pole Types, 230 kV Riser Pole) where the route transitions from overhead to underground near NRS, and from underground to overhead near Agnew Road. Additionally, two large below grade transmission vaults would be installed, spaced approximately 100 feet apart near Hope Drive.

The underground option would be designed to accommodate voltages of 230 kV but would be energized at 115 kV. Based on preliminary analyses, the underground option would only be able to deliver about 83% of the power that the overhead option would be able to provide at 115 kV, due to heat dissipation requirements. The power delivery amount further declines at 230 kV, to 79.9%. Based on the current design, which was determined to be the most efficient for meeting project goals, the underground option would not allow for additional conductors within the duct bank. If additional capacity is required after the construction of the Project, such as future 60 kV lines, a new trench or overhead transmission line would need to be constructed.

4.10. Project Objectives
The objective of the Project is to increase SVP’s system capacity and reliability. The transmission line will allow energy to be balanced and redistributed within SVP's transmission receiving stations. This line will allow SVP to serve load growth projected based on SVP’s forecasted load growth within the City over the next several years.

4.11. Project Components

4.11.1. 115 kV Transmission Line
As illustrated in Figure 4-1, the majority of the new 115 kV transmission line would be constructed along 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. The Project is being designed with enough distance in between the conductor wires, so it will be in compliance with current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines (APLIC, 2006).

New poles are anticipated to range from 85 to 150 feet tall (average height of 115 feet). The poles will be at their tallest where they cross existing distribution facilities north and south of Montague Expressway, where the line crosses Montague Expressway and the Bayshore Freeway, where the line exits NRS, and where the line enters KRS. The distance between poles would vary but they would typically be spaced between approximately 150 to 500 feet apart. The clearance between the ground and the sag of the new 115 kV line between poles is expected to be not less than approximately 32 feet. New transmission structures would consist of tubular steel monopoles with direct embedded foundations, drilled pier foundations, or sub-grade drilled pier foundations.1 Dead-end and angle structures, and tangent structures2 supporting multiple circuits, would require steel monopoles with a galvanized finish. Pole diameters for 1 Sub-grade drilled pier foundations are functionally the same as drilled pier foundations except that the top of the pier and the bottom of the structure are installed below the existing ground level to reduce the above ground footprint. 2 Tangent structures are the most common types of poles that are sequenced in a straight line.

Dead-end structures are a type of power pole where conductors and ground wires are only pulled on one side, and are used when a transmission line ends, turns at a sharp angle, at major crossings such as highways or rivers, or if the line divides into different segments. These structures are designed to handle higher tension and are typically larger than tangent structures.

Angle structures are used when wires come to the pole at an angle.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
tangent structures would be generally 2 feet to 4 feet or less, while custom dead-end poles would have diameters in the range of 4 feet to 6 feet.

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 illustrate examples of typical structure types that would be used for the Project.

The underground segment, if selected, would be installed within Lafayette Street which is approximately 80 feet wide. The conductors would be installed in an approximately 3-foot by 4-foot underground duct bank at least 3 feet from the top of the grade to the top of the duct bank. The underground segment would require riser poles (see Figure 4-2, Typical Pole Types, 230 kV Riser Pole) at the points where the line transitions from overhead to underground, or underground to overhead.

Tangent structures (see Figure 4-3, Typical Pole Types, 230 kV Tangent and Dead-end Poles) would be embedded directly into the soil or on a concrete foundation up to approximately 20 feet deep and backfilled with a pre-engineered crushed rock material or concrete slurry. Alternate foundations would be used only if necessary due to poor soil conditions.

Self-supporting dead-end and angle structures (see Figure 4-3) would require steel-reinforced concrete pier foundations. A typical foundation size is about 5 feet to 8 feet in diameter and can range in depth from 20 feet to approximately 35 feet. The concrete foundations extend above the ground-line by 1 or 2 feet in most cases.

The proposed Project would adhere to National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 95, which define separation of structures from adjacent buildings or other utility facilities. Many of the existing power lines in the project vicinity are located along the edges of roadways, such as in landscaped reas, the perimeters of parking lots, or in sidewalks (CPUC, 2018). The new overhead transmission structures would be in the median of Lafayette Street north of Agnew Road, otherwise they would follow the edge of roadways.

Between Agnew Road and Montague Expressway, nine existing poles would be removed and replaced with seven new poles, which would carry existing circuits as well as the new circuit. The new poles would include an underbuild,3 which will be designed for 115 kV but energized at 60 kV. South of Montague Expressway, four poles would be removed from the existing transmission line (to Norman Avenue) and replaced with four new poles. At some locations the poles will support a new 115 kV circuit as well as an existing 60 kV circuit and distribution and communication lines. Refer to Section 4.11.2 for further details.

4.11.2. 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. The existing, replaced poles would be removed and transported to SVP’s stockyard or to an approved disposal site. In some cases, some existing wood poles may be left in place as an intermediate pole located between two new transmission poles.

Where existing poles are left in place, the tops of these poles would be cut off, resulting in a shorter pole with conductor and/or cables still attached at the lower levels. All of the existing conductors and cables are expected to be reused for the project.

4.11.3. Substation Modifications
The NRS and KRS substations are existing substations that would be expanded or rebuilt prior to the proposed Project. The work to be undertaken at NRS and KRS are not part of the proposed Project. As needed, the substation work will be coordinated with Project designers for the new transmission line. The 3 “Underbuild” means that a transmission or distribution line would be supported underneath a transmission circuit, on the same pole.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
only change to NRS and KRS that will occur as part of the proposed Project is the placement of new poles within the substation to bring the new circuit to the appropriate substation rack.

Figure 4-1. Project Overview
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Figure 4-2. Typical Pole Types, 230 kV Riser Pole
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Figure 4-3. Typical Pole Types, 230 kV Tangent and Deadend Poles NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4.12. Project Construction Activities

4.12.1. Staging Areas
Up to two temporary staging areas would be used during project construction. Staging areas would be located within the project vicinity and would be the assembly point for project personnel. The staging areas would also be the location for: temporary portable bathroom facilities; equipment storage during off work hours and weekends; materials storage; construction trailers; employee parking; and a meeting area as needed for project management.

Staging would occur at existing SVP substations or yards or in areas that are already disturbed. One example of a potential staging area would be SVP’s storage yard, located at 1715 Martin Avenue, Santa Clara, CA. The staging area size may vary depending on negotiations with third-party property owners for temporary construction easements or property owner agreements. For the purpose of analysis, each staging area is expected to have a footprint of up to approximately 1 acre.

A secured, fenced location with access by an existing road is preferable. Preparation for site use is expected to include little or no grading at the staging areas aside from minor scraping to achieve an even grade or to remove any weeds that may be present. Gravel or rock may be temporarily added to the staging area as needed to address wet or muddy site conditions or reduce dust or track out from construction equipment.

If there is no driveway into a site with a curb, temporary access (steel plates or cold patch over a culvert) may be placed to minimize potential damage to the curb. If there is no fence, a temporary fence would be erected. Any temporary fencing would typically be chain link with gates secured by a lock. A typical security light would be installed on site in a downcast position. After project completion, temporary security and access and site stabilization installations would be removed unless the property owner requests that they remain in place.

4.12.2. Work Areas

4.12.2.1. Substations
No new substations would be constructed as part of this project. Minimal work would be needed at the existing substations into which the new 115 kV transmission circuits would connect. The existing substations are undergoing rebuild or expansion efforts to modernize them. That work is not part of the proposed Project. New racks would be installed by those projects to support connections with the new conductors. Work at the substations would take place within the existing fenced areas.

4.12.2.2. Transmission and Distribution Power Poles
Pole work would include foundation excavation (i.e., subsurface drilling for either a direct embedded pole or construction of a concrete pier foundation), power pole assembly and installation, and installation of travelers (stringing blocks) to support wire stringing. Some segments of the power line would require transferring wires from existing poles to the newly installed poles and then removing the existing steel and wood poles. Work areas for new poles are expected to be located approximately every 150 to 500 feet.

Where final design allows, power and distribution pole work would overlap. Final design would determine final pole locations.

Individual work areasfor pole installation would typically be within the road ROW and SVP easements and extend approximately 50 feet in length. The width of Project encroachment into the public ROW and/or SVP’s easement during pole installation and conductor stringing will be based on multiple factors, such as location of the pole in relation to the curb and private property lines.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Work areas would be accessed primarily from adjacent paved roads. Construction vehicles and equipment would be staged or parked alongside the road in the project ROW unless other arrangements have been made with the property owner.

Site preparation is not expected to be required for the majority of the project’s pole work areas. However, some vegetation and tree removal or tree trimming may be required. Disturbed areas would be restored.

Site restoration may include repairing any damage to sidewalks, paved parking areas, roadways, or curbs.

Site restoration may also be needed in landscaped planters and lawns.

Project plans have been made to minimize any removal of the trees located beneath the proposed transmission line however if the removal or trimming of a tree is deemed necessary as the project progresses, care will be taken (see Section 4.12.9, Vegetation Clearance). Existing distribution power lines along some segments of the ROW would be partially removed or relocated and underbuilt on the new structures and the existing poles would be removed. Some existing distribution poles would be left in place, such as poles that skip-span with colinear transmission line, while some existing structures may be topped to leave a distribution-only structure remaining.

4.12.2.3. Pull and Tension
Pull and tension activities would require guard structure installation where required (such as at road crossings), pull and tension equipment staging, and temporary pole anchor installation, followed by pulling and tensioning of the conductor. Most pull and tension work areas are expected to be located within the ROW and may be located at most of the larger angle points of the transmission line route. It may be necessary to access areas in the ROW away from a pole work area to support pull and tension activities.

Pull and tension site locations are preliminary and are subject to change based on final engineering and other factors. If pulling is required through an angle, or at the start of a new direction of the route, the site may be located outside the ROW or off the end of a ROW corner.

A pull and tension site to install conductor is typically located at a 1:3 ratio from a pole (pole height determines distance from the pole — for example, the pull and/or tension site for a 50-foot-tall pole would be located approximately 150 feet from the pole location). Temporary pull and tension work areas would typically be approximately 75 feet wide 150 feet long. Depending on the location, this temporary use area may be in the road ROW and/or in an easement obtained by SVP on private property.

Guard structures would be installed when the conductor is being pulled across a road or railroad tracks.

Guard structures are temporarily installed during construction and removed after stringing of the conductor. A work area of approximately 40 feet by 50 feet would be used to install the guard structures.

Final design would determine guard structure work area locations.

Construction vehicles and equipment needed at the pull and tension sites would be staged or parked within the project ROW or alongside access roads. Site preparation would not be needed for most of the project’s pull and tension sites. Some vegetation removal or tree trimming may be required for vehicle access and to minimize the risk of fire. Site restoration may include repairing any damage to sidewalks, paved parking areas, roadways, or curbs. Site restoration may also be needed in landscaped planters and lawns.

4.12.3. Construction Access
Work areas along the route during construction and during subsequent operation and maintenance would be parallel and adjacent to existing roads and/or other paved parking areas.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4.12.4. Overhead 115 kV Transmission Line Construction
The following power line construction sections describe activities associated with the new transmission line construction, including associated installation, relocation and/or removal of existing taps, distribution lines, and the shoo-fly.

4.12.4.1. Pole Transportation
A line truck with trailer and a second transport vehicle (crew cab truck or half ton pickup) would be used to transport construction personnel to a pole work area. A line truck would haul new tubular steel poles to the site on a trailer and haul away any removed transmission or distribution poles. A line truck with a trailer would likely deliver one tubular steel pole per trip. Typically, a second transport vehicle would accompany the delivery truck during pole staging. Multiple removed distribution poles would likely be transported from work areas as part of the return trip, when feasible.

4.12.4.2. Transmission and Distribution Pole Removal
The existing transmission and distribution poles to be removed would likely be removed with a small crane. A power outage would be needed while the existing conductors are detached from the pole and while the pole is lifted out of its current location with the crane. Some poles may only have their tops removed; leaving the lower previously underbuilt cables in place. In this case, the same crane would remove the pole top after the pole has been cut with a chain saw. All removed poles or pole segments would be loaded onto a trailer and transported to a designated storage or disposal area.

4.12.4.3. Pole Installation
Expected dimensions for tubular steel poles are provided in Table 4-1, Summary of Approximate Pole Metrics. The line would be designed with approximately 40 poles total. Pole installation would occur during daylight hours. Typically, 4 to 5 truck trips would be required to set a new power pole and remove an old transmission or distribution pole from a work area.

Table 4-1. Summary of Approximate Pole Metrics
Structure Feature Approximate Metrics
Tubular Steel Pole
Diameter 2–6 ft. (typical range, pole height dependent) Foundation depth 20 to 35 ft. (typical range, pole height dependent) Individual permanent footprint 50 sq. ft. (typical range), for a typical pole auger diameter of 8 ft.

Approximate number to be installed 40
Average work area at each site 4,000 sq. ft.

Total permanent footprint Approximately 2,000 sq. ft.

Installation of tubular steel poles (TSPs) would include the following steps for site preparation, foundation installation, and pole installation. To prepare the site, the pole location would be staked. The work area would be flagged and required stormwater best management practices (BMPs) installed. If required, a crane pad would be prepared, which may require surface blading to create a level surface. TSP foundation installation would include:
 Excavating the hole;
 Installing forms, rebar, and anchor bolts;
 Pouring concrete;
 Removing forms; and
 Grooming the base area, including any landscape restoration.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
After the new TSP is installed, any transmission or distribution line would be moved to the new pole and the old transmission or distribution pole would be removed. Excess soil onsite would be feathered around the work area if there is natural ground present and/or transported to an area Service Center or other appropriate facility for disposal.

TSP concrete pier foundations would be approximately 5 to 8 feet in diameter and would extend approximately 20 to 35 feet below the ground surface. A line truck would be used to haul foundation forms, anchor bolts, rebar, and pole structures to work areas. The line truck with a boom would be used to place foundation forms, anchor bolts, and rebar in place prior to pouring concrete for the foundation and to remove the forms following completion of the foundation.

A concrete mixer truck capable of delivering 9 to 10 yards of concrete would be used to deliver and pour concrete for the TSP foundations. Concrete trucks would not be washed out at pole locations but rather would be rinsed using portable stations established for concrete clean-up at project staging areas. If applicable, a backhoe or skid loader would be used to place gravel around the TSP after formwork has been removed and to groom the area surrounding the pole installations. A crane would be used to place the TSP on the finished foundation.

4.12.4.4. Pull and Tension Work Areas
A line truck with a trailer and a second transport vehicle (crew cab truck and/or half ton pickup) would be used to transport construction personnel to each pull and tension work area. A line truck would haul reel trailers and mounted reel stands holding the conductor to the site. An 18-wheeled truck with a trailer may be used to transport more than 1 reel to the work area. Pullers would be mounted on the line truck or trailer to install the conductor. Old transmission or distribution lines that would not be reused would be removed from the sites on a line truck with a trailer. Temporary pole anchors may be installed in the natural ground to stabilize poles when pulling the conductor into place.

4.12.4.5. Conductor Installation
Typically, the following seven (7) steps would be taken to install new conductor (wire stringing):

1. Travelers (pulleys) would be installed on the ends of insulators on each pole frame. A line truck with a bucket would be required to install the pulleys. Installation of pulleys may be phased to correspond with the specific section of wire stringing.

2. A truck, an all-terrain vehicle (ATV), or a worker would pull a light rope (sock line) in line with the route and lace it through the travelers. For this operation, a line truck with a bucket would be used or a worker may climb the structure.

3. When the sock line is laced through the travelers for the length of the pull, the sock line would be connected to a hard line (steel cable). The hard line would be on a reel that would be on a tensioner.

Typically, the reel and tensioner would be located on a line truck or semi-truck trailer.

4. The sock line would be pulled back with a truck, an ATV, or a worker pulling the hard line into place.

The sock line would be removed from its connection to the hard line.

5. That end of the hard line would be connected to a conductor. A trailer-mounted tensioner would then pull the hard line and connected conductor in the reverse direction.

6. The conductor would be sagged (tightened) into place using the tensioner.

7. The conductor would be clipped into the insulators and the travelers would be removed by using the line truck with a bucket or a worker may climb the structure.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-12 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4.12.4.6. Guard Structures
Prior to stringing conductors, temporary guard structures would be installed at railroad and road crossings, and other locations where the new conductors may otherwise come into contact with electrical, communication, or rail facilities or vehicular traffic during installation. Guard structures would be positioned and configured to catch and support the weight of the conductor if it unexpectedly drops or sags excessively during the tensioning process. These structures would be placed on one side or on each side of the road or other location being crossed. For example, the temporary structures are expected to be installed adjacent to the Union Pacific railroad tracks as the transmission line crosses the tracks along Lafayette Street near NRS, near Agnew Road, and near Montague Parkway. Major road crossings include Lafayette Street, Montague Expressway, and the Bayshore Freeway.

Each temporary structure would typically consist of a wood pole with a frame at the top that resembles a “Y” or “H”. Methods for installation and removal of the clearance structures would be similar to those described for wood poles and would be installed approximately 6 to 10 feet deep. Foundations and grading would not be required. Netting would be installed between the 2 Y-frame or H-frame structures, as needed, to prevent contact between the new conductor and an existing facility. Where necessary, traffic control would be provided during installation and removal of these temporary guard structures and as specified in encroachment permits.

4.12.4.7. Existing Pole Removal
The existing wood transmission poles on the east side of Lafayette Street between Agnew Road and Montague Expressway, some wood poles along Bassett Street and some poles along Duane Avenue would be removed after the transmission and/or distribution line is transferred to the new structures. The old conductor would not be replaced and would be transferred to the new structures. Next the removal would consist of the above and below-ground portions of the pole. Any holes left from removing the poles would be backfilled with spoils that may be available as a result of the excavation for new poles and using imported fill as needed. If poles are removed from paved areas, paving will be replaced to match existing surfaces.

4.12.5. Underground 115 kV Transmission Line Construction This section describes the proposed construction methods for construction of the underground transmission line for Option 2, which would occur for approximately 0.74 miles within the southbound lanes of Lafayette Street from near NRS to Agnew Road. Installation of the underground transmission line, duct banks, and splice vaults would be completed using a cut-and-cover method (open trenching) along the route. The major underground construction activities would begin with vault installation, followed by trenching and duct bank installation, and, finally, cable installation. In addition, riser poles would be constructed at each end of the underground segment.

4.12.5.1. Trenching/Duct Bank Installation
Prior to trenching, SVP would notify other utility companies (via the Underground Service Alert [USA]) to locate and mark existing underground structures along the proposed alignments, and also would conduct exploratory excavations (potholing) to prove the locations for proposed facilities as needed.

After the route is marked, the pavement within the trenchline would be removed. Trenching activity requires one work crew progressively excavating and hauling off material. Upon reaching final trench excavation depth, a second work crew secures the trench walls via shoring. Once the shoring process is complete, a third installs PVC conduit to provide a raceway for the electrical cable. Upon completion of PVC conduit laydown, the trench is backfilled and the trench alignment temporarily paved. Final roadway restoration NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-13 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
and asphalt paving would be completed once the cable is fully installed, tested and released for operation.

This avoids having to break the final pavement to replace any section of cable should it fail during testing.

Trenching would progress at an approximate rate of 50 feet per day. The length of open trench at any one time would typically range from 150 feet to 300 feet. Steel plating would be placed over the trench to maintain vehicular and pedestrian traffic across areas that are not under active construction. Traffic controls would also be implemented to direct local traffic safely around the work areas (see Section 5.17, Transportation). The total surface of the trench plates over backfilled areas would vary between approximately 100 to 500 feet in length each day until it has reached a surface large enough (typically 300 feet) for temporary pavement restoration. Temporary trench paving would likely occur once a week to minimize the amount of trench plates on the road.

No long-term road closures would be expected during trenching, although one-way traffic controls as well as short-term road closures of road segments up to 1,500 feet would be necessary to allow for certain construction activities and to maintain public safety.

As the trench for the underground 115 kV cable is completed, SVP would install PVC conduits and concrete encasement around the duct bank. The duct bank cover would measure at least 3 feet wide by 3 feet deep, including a thermal backfill and asphalt or dirt surfaces. The typical dimensions of a single circuit reinforced duct bank are approximately 3 feet 7 inches wide by 3 feet 4 inches deep, although typical dimensions may vary depending on soil stability and the presence of existing structures. The trench would be widened or shored where needed to meet California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety requirements.

Where the electrical transmission duct bank would cross or run parallel to other substructures (which have operating temperatures at earth temperature), a minimum radial clearance of 12 inches would be required. These substructures include gas lines, telephone lines, water mains, storm lines, and sewer lines.

In addition, a 5-foot minimum radial clearance would be required where the new duct bank crosses another heat-radiating substructure at right angles. A 15-foot minimum radial clearance would be required between the duct bank and any parallel substructure whose operating temperature significantly exceeds the normal earth temperature. Such heat-radiating facilities may include other underground electric transmission circuits, primary electric distribution cables (especially multiple-circuit duct banks), steam lines, or heated oil lines.

SVP would identify other utilities during final design, evaluate their proximity and potential for induced current and/or corrosion, and in coordination with the utility-system owner, determine whether steps are necessary to reduce the potential to induce current or cause corrosion. SVP would take the necessary steps in coordination with those utility system owners to minimize any potential effects through measures, such as increased cathodic protection or utility relocation. The steps are summarized as follows:
 During final design, prepare study of corrosion and induced currents.  Send results of study to each affected utility system owner for review and comments.  Owners submit requirements for protection of each of their facilities.  SVP makes changes accordingly or compensates owner for future protection measures, per the owner’s preference.

Once the PVC conduits are installed, thermal-select or controlled backfill would be transported, placed, and compacted. A road base backfill or slurry concrete cap would be installed, and the road surface would be restored in compliance with the City requirements. While the completed trench sections are being restored, additional trenchline would be opened farther down the street. This process would continue until the entire conduit system is in place.

All backfilling material would be engineered material called flowable thermal concrete (FTC), and flowable thermal backfill (FTB). Each has unique properties specific to its application, while both are designed to NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-14 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
have thermal characteristics for heat displacement. For a typical trench, the bottom 2 feet encases the PVC conduit with FTC, while the remainder of the trench would be filled with “diggable control density fill” FTB to the roadway sub-base level. From that point, all restoration would be based upon matching the street’s existing sub-base and surface, i.e., asphalt, concrete, or combination of the two. The excavated material would not be used as backfill. The estimated total amount of excavated materials to be removed for trenches, duct banks, and vaults is 6,000 cy. The final volume of excavated materials may vary, depending on what work is required to avoid existing underground utilities.

The total duration of trench excavation and manhole installation is estimated to take approximately four months. Cable pulling, discussed in Section 4.12.5.3, is a standalone operation that would be performed after the vaults are installed, the duct bank is fully poured, and the trench backfilled and temporarily paved. Final paving restoration would be scheduled after the cable is fully installed and operative. The City encroachment permit would likely require a full lane of pavement restoration which in turn would require a two-lane closure over a 1,500-foot work area. Final paving would take approximately 15 days along Lafayette Street, and the total duration of paving and cleanup would take around 6 weeks.

Equipment necessary for trenching in closed lanes include pavement saw cutting equipment, pavement grinder, excavators, and dump trucks. Section 4.12.7 lists all equipment expected to be used during construction. SVP expects four dump trucks to be used to haul trench and excavation materials and import backfill to the project. The number of daily total haul truck trips would depend upon the rate of the trenching, which is estimated to progress at an approximate rate of 50 feet per day over 6 months.

Jackhammers would be used when needed to break up sections of concrete that the saw-cutting and pavement-breaking machines cannot reach. Other miscellaneous equipment would include a concrete saw, various paving equipment, and pickup trucks. In general, no equipment would be left at the trench site overnight, with the exception of an excavator.

4.12.5.2. Vault Installation
The underground segment would require two (2) splice vaults to be installed: the first vault would be installed approximately 1,575 feet measured from the riser pole near Agnew Road and heading north/ northwest along Lafayette Street, and the second vault would be installed approximately 100 feet further north/northwest from the first one. The typical complete pre-cast vault installation would take 4 to 7 days, working 10 hours per day from breaking ground to finishing grade. For each vault, the excavation would be approximately 34 feet long, 14 feet wide and up to 15 feet deep. Excavation for vaults of this size would require shoring components such as driven sheet piles or slide rail steel sheeting. Once the initial excavation and shoring is installed, preparation of the sub-base would consist of the installation of crushed rock for leveling purposes. If present, groundwater would be tested and either pumped out to a controlled containment or discharged as would occur during trenching.

Once the vault preparation steps (excavation, shoring and finish grade leveling) are completed, setting the vault is performed via sectional lifts of the three vault pre-cast sections using either a hydraulic or a lattice type crane. With all sections of the vault set in place, backfilling can start as the shoring is removed.

Lane closures would be required at each vault location according to the following sequence:

1. Vault installation would be performed prior to trenching/duct bank installation and would require an approximately 4- to 7-day multi-lane closure for each vault.

2. Conduit cleaning/proofing would be performed after the duct bank is completely installed and backfilled. This requires an approximately 2-day lane closure.

3. Cable pulling would require an approximately 2-day lane closure per cable phase (approximately 6 total days of lane closure).

4. Racking/splicing would require approximately 2 to 3 days at each of the two vaults.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-15 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
The major equipment required for vault installation would consist of an excavator, pickup trucks, end dump trucks, stake trucks for material, 75-ton crane, crane riggers truck, tractor trailers for sheet piling delivery, tractor trailers for delivery of precast concrete manhole sections, and possibly water trucks and/or containment water tanks (see also Section 4.12.7).

4.12.5.3. Cable Pulling, Splicing, and Termination
The proposed cable system would consist of three major components: the cable, splices that connect cable sections, and terminators that connect the cable to the equipment at the substations. Cable installation would occur after the underground vaults and duct banks are installed.

Cable Pulling
The cable for the proposed Project would consist of six individual cables (two per electrical phase) and a communication fiber optic cable. Pulling between one riser structure and one vault typically would take approximately 2 to 3 days, working 10 hours per day. To pull each cable through the duct bank, a cable reel would be placed at the end of a duct bank section at the riser structure, and a pulling rig would be placed at the other end of the duct bank section at the vault. With a small rope called a “fish line,” a larger rope would be pulled into the duct. The large rope would be attached to pulling eyes on a conductor end, and the large rope would pull the conductor into the duct. To ease pulling tensions, a lubricant would be applied to the conductor as it enters the duct. The three electric phases and one communication cable would be pulled through their individual ducts at the rate of two of the three sections between the riser and vault per day. The project would require the pulling between riser and vault to be repeated twice for each vault. One pull would be from the northern riser to the vault and the second pull would be from the southern riser to the vault. At the vault location the two cable pulls would be spliced together.

Cable Splicing
Prior to starting the actual splicing, the splice vaults would be outfitted with steel racks that would ensure the cable splices are securely affixed to the vault’s inner walls. A splice trailer would be positioned adjacent to the vault manhole openings, and a mobile power generator would be located directly behind the trailer. The vaults must be kept dry to prevent water or impurities contaminating the unfinished splices. Racking and splicing is estimated to take approximately 2 to 3 days at each vault.

Termination
At the southern end of the underground segment (Option 2), the conductors would transition to overhead on riser poles approximately 120 tall. Self-supporting riser structures require steel-reinforced concrete pier foundations. A typical foundation is about 5 feet to 8 feet in diameter and can range in depth from 20 feet to approximately 35 feet. The concrete foundations extend above the ground-line by 1 or 2 feet in most cases.

4.12.6. Water Use
Water may be used during construction of the drilled concrete pier foundations for the tubular steel poles.

One method to stabilize the hole while it is being excavated is to temporarily fill it with a slurry consisting of water and a stabilizing agent, such as a polymer-blend or bentonite. The water would be transported to the pole location and likely mixed with the stabilizing agent as the water is poured into the excavated hole. As the concrete is placed in the hole, the slurry is displaced by the concrete and pumped out of the hole and into a holding tank. The collected slurry in the tank would then be transported away from the work area to an approved disposal site. For a foundation 8 feet in diameter and 35 feet deep, about 1,758 cubic feet of water would be required at each foundation site.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-16 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4.12.7. Construction Workforce and Equipment
Table 4-2, Anticipated- Personnel and Equipment Required for Project Construction (based on typical estimates), lists the expected equipment and personnel by construction activity. Not all equipment and personnel may be used during all portions of the activity. This is a preliminary equipment list; other equipment may be identified when project design is finalized or during construction if unexpected conditions require additional equipment. Construction of Option 2 would include underground construction, as well as overhead construction, and therefore may use all the equipment listed. Option 1 would only include overhead construction, and therefore would only use the equipment listed as overhead construction.

Designated fueling areas would be identified as part of the final design when project staging areas are identified.

Table 4-2. Anticipated Personnel and Equipment Required for Project Construction (based on typical estimates)
Activity People Quantity of Equipment
Overhead Construction
Survey 1 to 2 1 Pickup truck
Auger Holes for Poles 3 1 Line truck with auger attachment 1 Pickup truck
1 Backhoe or skid loader
Concrete Pier Foundation
Installation
4 1 Line truck
1 Backhoe or skid loader
1 Drill rig
1 Crane
1 Water truck
1 Pickup truck
3 Cement trucks
Material Haul 3 1 Line truck with trailer
Pole Delivery 3 1 Pole delivery truck
1 Pickup or light SUV
Install Tubular Steel Poles 5 per
crew
1 Line truck with boom
1 Crane
2 Crew-cab pick-up truck
1 Light-duty pick-up truck
1 Backhoe or skid loader
Steel Pole Installation and
Transmission/Distribution Pole
Removal (Ground access, per
crew; construction would
include 2 crews)
5 per
crew
2 Crew cab truck
2 Line trucks with bucket and trailer
(transports boom and auger)
1 Backhoe or skid loader
Conductor Installation (includes
moving transmission/distribution to new pole, up to 3 crews may be present during wire
stringing activities)
5 per
crew
1 Line truck or semi-truck with
wire reel
2 Pickup trucks
2 Line truck with bucket/crane
1 Line truck with wire puller
1 Line truck with wire tensioner
Substation Modifications
(equipment expected is for
each substation)
3 1 Line truck with bucket
1 Pickup truck
Underground Construction
Underground Delivery and
Set-Up
2 1 Rigging truck
1 Small mobile crane
1 Mechanics truck (as needed)
2 Shop vans
1 Two-ton flatbed truck
Underground Transmission Line 5 per
crew
4 to 10 Pickup trucks
2 Two-ton flatbed trucks
2 Flatbed boom trucks
1 Rigging truck
1 Mechanic truck
1 Winch truck
1-2 Large mobile crane(s)
2 Cable reel trailers
1 Splice trailer (40-foot)
1 Rollers
1 Paver
1 to 3 Portable generators
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-17 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Activity People Quantity of Equipment
1 Cable puller truck
2 Cement trucks
2 Shop vans
2 Crawler backhoe
2 Large backhoe
4 Dump trucks
1 Small mobile crane
As needed:
• Air compressors
• Air tampers
• Baker (water) storage tanks
• Pumps
• Shoring boxes
• Tank trucks

4.12.8. Construction Traffic and Circulation
Construction would require temporary lane closures along various public and private roads within the project area over the approximately 14-month construction duration for the overhead alignment (Option 1).

Temporary lane closures would be coordinated with local agencies. SVP would obtain encroachment permits to conduct work in public ROWs in accordance with applicable City requirements. The underground alignment for the northern segment (Option 2) would require a longer construction duration and greater traffic control and longer lane closures.

4.12.9. Vegetation Clearance
Some vegetation and tree removal or tree trimming may be required for pole installation and vehicle access and to minimize the risk of fire by providing clearance between conductors and trees. In general, trees would be avoided where feasible; isolated tree trimming, or removal would be coordinated with the property owner or operator. The new transmission line would be routed along the edges of city streets or in the median of Lafayette Street (see Figure 4-1, Project Overview) where many trees currently exist.

Most of the tree trimming would take place between power poles to ensure there is adequate electrical clearance between the conductors and tree branches during all types of weather conditions. The lowest conductor height would be approximately 32 to 40 feet above the ground. In general, trees that are located below the 115 kV transmission line would need to be trimmed so that they are no taller than about 25 feet to 30 feet above ground. Tree branches that are closer than 5 feet vertically or 10 feet horizontally to any conductor or wire (with or without wind) would be trimmed to meet the minimum clearance. The project is being designed to limit tree removal as much as possible and the existing trees are within the 25-30 feet height range.

Trees would also be trimmed to maintain adequate clearance to the lower voltage conductors and various cables that would be attached to the poles below the 115 kV conductors. However, these conductors and cables are existing wires that would be transferred to the new poles at roughly the same height as their current position; therefore, the route segments that have existing power lines should already have adequate clearance to trees, and tree trimming should be minimal for these segments.

4.12.10.Erosion and Sediment Control and Pollution Prevention A small, temporary stockpile of excavated dirt may be located near a pole hole excavation until it is loaded into a truck and transported offsite or until it is used as backfill for the hole. Stockpiles would be located away from and/or down-gradient of waterways. Sediment control BMPs would be implemented to manage temporary stockpiles.

Construction debris and waste would be transported to the staging area(s) or to an area Service Center as needed for recycling or disposal. Existing wood poles would be removed to an area Service Center or staging area collection bin for transport with other materials for disposal at a licensed Class I or Class II landfill or a composite lined portion of a solid waste landfill. SVP would comply with all laws and regulations regarding the disposal of the existing wood and steel poles.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-18 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
If underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are found to be located along the project route and the route cannot be adjusted to avoid disturbance, the tanks would be removed prior to project construction or segregated from the work area and not disturbed. If it is determined that removal of tanks is necessary, a separate work plan describing the proper decommissioning and removal of the tanks and removal of any associated impacted soil would be prepared prior to removal.

4.12.11.Cleanup and Post Construction Restoration
During construction, construction debris would be picked up daily from line work job site areas and hauled back to a staging area or an area Service Center for recycling or disposal. Construction debris would be picked up from substation construction areas, stored in approved containers on site, and hauled away for recycling or disposal periodically during construction. SVP would conduct a final survey to document that clean-up activities have been successfully completed as required.

Work areas where vegetation management and/or tree trimming occurred are expected to revegetate naturally due to the limited disturbance. If trees are removed, it would likely be because the final condition of the project requires it and not because of temporary construction activities.

4.12.12.Construction Schedule
The construction phase is expected to take approximately 14 months for the overhead option and is anticipated to be completed by early 2028. The underground option would take significantly longer.

Construction would start with mobilizing construction equipment, crews, and materials to the staging areas. In general, construction would then begin with below grade work (excavating holes for poles and concrete pier foundations) and would be followed by pole installation and wire stringing. Construction sequencing and coordination of power outages may require that some route segments of the line be built first, with the construction of other segments later. All types of construction activities may occur simultaneously.

4.13. Operations and Maintenance
Once the new NRS to KRS 115 kV transmission line is built and energized, SVP’s existing maintenance and operations group would assume inspection, patrol, and maintenance duties, as needed. No additional staff would be required after project construction work is completed.

4.14. Other Permits and Approvals
SVP would obtain permits for the Project, as needed, from federal, State, and local agencies. Table 4-3, Permits that May be Required for the Proposed Project, lists permits and approvals that may be required for Project construction.

Table 4-3. Permits that May Be Required for the Proposed Project Agency Jurisdiction Requirements
Federal
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)
Potential impacts to federally
listed species or critical habitat.
 Section 7 consultation (through federal
review process, likely not required)
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)
Potential impacts to air traffic  An FAA Part 77 Notice would need to be filed for objects affecting navigable airspace,
allows FAA to identify potential hazards in
advance.

Union Pacific Railroad Railroad ROW  Railroad encroachment permit NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-19 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Agency Jurisdiction Requirements
State
Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Region 2
(San Francisco Bay)
Consistency with state water
quality standards
 401 Certification
 Storm Water Construction General Permit
99-08-DWQ
 National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit
 Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs)
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Protection of state-listed species  Incidental Take Permit (likely not required) CDFW Protection of waters of the State  1601/1602 Permits (likely not required) Local/Regional Agencies
City of Santa Clara Construction, modification, or
alteration of power line facilities
 New or expanded ROW Grant
 Encroachment Permit including Traffic
Control Plans

4.15. Electric and Magnetic Fields Summary

4.15.1. Electric and Magnetic Fields
Recognizing that there is a great deal of public interest and concern regarding potential health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) from power lines, Appendix G, EMF Report, provides information regarding EMF associated with electric utility facilities and the potential effects of the proposed Project. Potential health effects from exposure to electric fields from power lines (produced by the existence of an electric charge, such as an electron, ion, or proton, in the volume of space or medium that surrounds it) are typically not of concern since electric fields are effectively shielded by materials such as trees, walls, etc.; therefore, the majority of the following information related to EMF focuses primarily on exposure to magnetic fields (invisible fields created by moving charges) from power lines. However, this Initial Study does not consider magnetic fields in the context of the CEQA and does not make a determination of environmental impact. This is because (a) there is no agreement among scientists that EMF does create a potential health risk, and therefore, (b) there are no defined or adopted CEQA standards for defining health risk from EMF. As a result, EMF information is presented for the benefit of the public and decisionmakers.

After several decades of study regarding potential public health risks from exposure to power line EMF, research results remain inconclusive. Several national and international panels have conducted reviews of data from multiple studies and state that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that EMF causes cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) both classified EMF as a possible carcinogen (WHO, 2001; DHS, 2002).

In addition, the 2007 WHO [Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) 238] report concluded that:

Evidence for a link between Extremely Low Frequency (ELF, 50–60 Hz) magnetic fields and health risks is based on epidemiological studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of increased risk for childhood leukemia. However, “…virtually all of the laboratory evidence and the mechanistic evidence fail to support a relationship between low-level ELF magnetic fields and changes in biological function or disease status.…the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal but sufficiently strong to remain a concern.”
“For other diseases, there is inadequate or no evidence of health effects at low exposure levels.” Currently, there are no applicable regulations related to EMF levels from power lines or substations.

However, due to input received during the public scoping process, this discussion has been added, which NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-20 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
discusses the results and impacts from the EMF study that was prepared. See Appendix F, Scoping Report, for a summary of the comments received during the scoping process, and Appendix G for the EMF Report.

4.15.2. EMF in the Proposed Project Area
Residents near the proposed Project have expressed concerns about the location and the close proximity to their homes of the overhead 115 kV transmission line (See Appendix F, Scoping Report for a summary of comments received). These concerns are focused on the east side of Lafayette Street, near the northern portion of the Project that is proposed in the median of Lafayette Street. SVP does not have adopted practices regarding EMF, so this section discusses general practices regarding EMF as well as guidance provided by CPUC as part of General Order 131-D.

Magnetic field strength is a function of both the electric current carried by the wires, and the configuration and design of the three conductors that together form a single circuit of an electric transmission line.

Magnetic field strengths for typical transmission power line loads at the edge of an overhead transmission system right-of-way generally range from 10 to 30 milliGauss (mG) (NIEHS, 2002). Exposure to EMF occurs in the community from sources other than electric transmission lines. Research on ambient magnetic fields in homes indicates that levels below 0.6 mG could be found in half of the studied homes in the centers of rooms, and that the average levels in the homes away from electrical appliances was 0.9 mG.

Immediately adjacent to appliances (within 12 inches), median field values are much higher, for example:
4 to 8 mG near electric ovens and ranges, 20 mG for portable heaters, or 60 mG for vacuum cleaners (NIEHS, 2002).

Table 4-4. Estimated Magnetic Field Data for Household Electronics Item Magnetic Field Measurements at 1 foot distance* (mG) Ceiling Fans 3 to 30
Electric Ovens 4 to 5
Electric Ranges 8 to 30
Electric Can Opener 40 to 300
Microwave Ovens 4 to 200
Washing Machines 7 to 30
Portable Heaters 20 to 40
Vacuum Cleaners 60 to 200
Source: NIEHS 2002
* Values shown are presented for the median EMF value, to the highest EMF value.

SVP has prepared an EMF Study, included as Appendix G to this IS/MND, which presents calculations conducted along the proposed Project route to estimate the magnetic fields strength when measured 1 meter above ground at various distances, ranging from directly underneath to 60 feet away, from the proposed route centerline. The EMF study analyzes the existing conditions of currently operating power facilities, as well as future conditions after installation of the proposed transmission line. The EMF values presented represent the highest expected magnetic field strength for all conditions represented in each segment. Due to this, only Option 1, Overhead, was analyzed in the EMF report, because EMF values are lower for buried transmission lines, especially for lines that would be buried deeper than 5 feet.

The impacts of EMF from the proposed Project are described based on load data for existing conditions (2024) and 2028, when the Project would be energized.

The EMF study breaks the Project into 19 segments for analysis. Segments 1 through 6 are the nearest segments to residential land uses, so this discussion will focus on those segments, as this is where the most sensitive receptors are located. Additionally, the majority of the scoping comments came from NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-21 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
residents located to the east of the line, so the data in Table 4-4, below is presented for locations 60 feet to the east of the Project’s centerline. See Appendix G for more details on the methodology used and the full set of data.

Table 4-5. Estimated Magnetic Field Data for Sensitive Receptor Community to East of Project Segment Existing 2024 Future 2028
Normal Load (mG) Peak Load (mG) Normal Load (mG) Peak Load (mG) 1 0.0 0.0 16.0 20.0
2 6.4 8.0 14.3 17.9
3 0.9 1.1 14.2 17.7
4 0.4 0.5 13.5 16.8
5 1.8 2.3 11.9 14.8
6 1.8 2.3 11.9 14.9
Source: Appendix G, EMF Report
Notes:

1. "Peak Load" is defined as 100% of the estimated peak load as reported by SVP under typical system operations. "Normal Load" is defined as 80% of the estimated peak load.

2. The Magnetic Field Values are the estimated resultant RMS magnetic field at 60 feet east from Project centerline, at a height of 1 meter above the ground.

As shown in Table 4-4, the Proposed Project, operating at Peak Load, would result in an increase of EMF ranging from approximately 10 mG (in segment 2) to 16 mG (in segment 3). Operating at normal load, this increase would range from approximately 8 mG (in segment 2) to 16 mG (in segment 1).

As stated above, there is no defined or adopted threshold for EMF impacts, since there is no agreement among scientists that EMF creates a potential health risk. However, comparing the estimated EMF values of average household appliances presented in Table 4-4, with the EMF values presented in Table 4-5, reveals that the EMF values present within homes can exceed the amount of EMF that is emitted at the edge of the right of way.

4.15.3. EMF Management Plan for the Proposed Project
The proposed Project is not required to mitigate EMF. However, due to extensive public concern, SVP has reviewed the recommendations by the CPUC for EMF Design Guidelines (CPUC 2006). The CPUC requires utilities to implement “no-cost” and “low-cost” measures to reduce public exposure to EMF. Although SVP is not required to follow CPUC guidelines, SVP has agreed to implement the EMF Design Guidelines below in the project to the extent feasible to reduce EMF within residential areas.

The EMF Design Guidelines include the following measures, any or all of which may be selected to reduce the magnetic field strength levels from the proposed transmission line:
 Increasing the distance from electrical facilities by:
• Increasing structure height or trench depth
• Locating power lines closer to the centerline of the corridor  Reducing conductor (phase) spacing; and
 Phasing circuits to reduce magnetic fields.

Final engineering of pole locations and pole spacing would include seeking opportunities to strategically reduce EMF through implementation of the measures listed above.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SEPTEMBER 2024 4-22 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

4.16. Alternatives
The purpose of an alternatives analysis pursuant to CEQA is to identify options that would feasibly attain the project’s objectives while reducing the significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project. CEQA does not require the inclusion of an alternatives analysis in a Mitigated Negative Declaration because the Initial Study concluded that, with incorporation of mitigation measures, there would be no significant adverse impacts resulting from the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063(d) and 15071). Therefore, no alternatives analysis is provided.

However, in developing the proposed Project, SVP did consider multiple possible route alternatives and options in the project area that would achieve the project objectives. The proposed Project was chosen for the following reasons:

1. the chosen route options have good reliability from an operational and power delivery perspective;

2. the selected route options best meet the objectives of the project, including schedule considerations, by transferring the power flow from the various substations to the desired transmission line circuit(s);

3. the chosen route options have fewer engineering design challenges and fewer permitting challenges than the other possible routes; and

4. the route options provide the best solutions for avoiding construction that is outside of City ROW, near the San Jose International Airport or along the railroad ROW.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

5.1. Aesthetics

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.1.1. Setting
The evaluation of aesthetics under CEQA considers the visual aspects of a project and how they affect the visible environment in which they are proposed to be placed. This aesthetics section describes the existing visual character of the Project area, the visual characteristics of the proposed Project, and the visual changes that would be associated with the construction and operation of the Project.

Regional Context. The Project would install an approximately 2.24-mile-long transmission line in the City of Santa Clara. The line would extend from SVP’s Northern Receiving Station (NRS) on Centennial Boulevard southeast of Levi’s Stadium to SVP’s Kifer Receiving Station (KRS) on Lafayette Street between the Bayshore Freeway (US 101) and the Central Expressway. The majority of the route would be along Lafayette Street and Bassett Street except where it approaches KRS, where the alignment would cross over Hwy 101 to reach KRS on the south side of the freeway. Two options are being considered for the line. Under Option 1 the line would be entirely overhead on tubular steel poles. Under Option 2, the line would be underground for 0.74 miles, from NRS south to Agnew Road, where it would return to aboveground and continue to KRS on tubular steel poles. The only difference in the options is on Lafayette Street between NRS and Agnew Road, where the alignment would be either overhead or underground.

South of Agnew Road the alignment would be overhead under both options.

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

Visual resources at and near the Project site and potential visual changes due to project activities were evaluated. Visual resources of the project area were investigated based on the following criteria: (1) existing visual quality and scenic attributes of the landscape; (2) location of sensitive receptors in the landscape; (3) assumptions about receptors’ concern for scenery and sensitivity to changes in the landscape; (4) the magnitude of visual changes in the landscape that would be brought about by construction and operation of NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
the proposed Project; (5) the extent to which changes would be visible and the duration of views, and (6) compliance with State, County, and local policies for visual resources. The evaluation of potential changes in the area’s visual character is presented below.

5.1.1.2. Existing Landscape Setting and Viewer Characteristics This section discusses the existing visual character of the region, existing visual quality in the Project area, and viewer concern and exposure to the proposed Project, leading to a rating of overall visual sensitivity.

Also discussed are the existing sources of light and glare within the project area.

Aesthetic Context of the Project and Vicinity. Viewers of the Project would be primarily motorists on Lafayette Street, workers and patrons at commercial and light industrial facilities along the street, and residences fronting on Lafayette Street.

As shown in Figure 4-1, the proposed Project would be located at existing substation properties and along an existing road network in an urbanized area of the City. The figure also shows other existing transmission lines in the area. The project vicinity is highly developed, with primarily residential properties (apartments and townhouses) along the northern end of the alignment and primarily commercial and light industrial properties along the southern end of the alignment.

The Project originates at NRS. Levi’s Stadium and tall tubular steel transmission towers are dominant visual features at and around NRS. The upper portions of existing poles and other structures within NRS are visible behind a surrounding wall. The NRS is bounded on the north by a fence and landscaping separating it from the San Francisco 49ers training facilities and Levi’s Stadium. On the west side of NRS is a fence, a parking lot with storage facilities, water tanks, and San Tomas Aquino Creek. To the east, the NRS site is within a masonry wall with a parking area outside of the wall. A rail line, Lafayette Street, and residences are farther east, with the housing approximately 225 feet from the substation wall. On the south side of NRS is a masonry wall, with an 80-foot underground water utility right-of-way separating the NRS wall and the rear of residences on Gianera Street. The residences to the east and south face away from the NRS, with access by way of interior roads.

The transmission line from NRS would extend south along Lafayette Street, which is 4 lanes wide with a median divider and a fenced rail line on its west side. Figure 5.1-1 shows the view looking north from near an existing pole outside of the wall surrounding NRS. The slightly elevated rail line is fenced off, and an existing tubular steel pole located on the east side of Lafayette Street is visible in the center of the image.

Overhead street lighting on tubular poles is also located along the east and west sides of the street. At controlled intersections, arms supporting traffic signals and street signs are free standing or extend from the light standards. Just south of NRS, the rail line and Lafayette Street are separated from residences to the west by existing vegetation and an approximately 12-foot-high wall. Figure 5.1-2 shows the wall separating the rail line and Lafayette Street from the residences west of the Project alignment in this area.

This barrier extends approximately 0.5 miles from NRS to 2nd Street near Agnew Road. On the east side of Lafayette Street are residential areas that primarily back on the street and are separated from the street by fencing and vegetation. Existing wooden poles on the east side of Lafayette Street between NRS and Hogan Street support a distribution line and underbuilt communication lines on wooden poles. At Hogan Street the distribution line transitions to underground and the communication lines continue for another approximately 300 feet. At Payne Lane, the distribution line emerges from underground and continues south on wooden poles on the east side of the street. Between NRS and Eisenhower Street most residences along the east side of Lafayette Street do not front on the street; their rear or side yards face Lafayette Street. South of Hope Drive the existing distribution line again transitions underground. Nearing Agnew Road, multi-story apartment and condominium buildings face Lafayette Street on the east side of the street but are set back approximately 30 feet from the curb, often with trees or other landscaping between the buildings and the street. At Agnew Road and Lafayette Street, existing overhead lines enter NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
and exit Palm Substation on two existing tubular steel poles. The substation is surrounded by a concrete block wall. South from the substation, the existing transmission lines continue on tall wooden poles on both sides of Lafayette Street, continuing over Montague Expressway and leading to the KRS. Commercial land uses are also intermixed on the east side of Lafayette Street south of Agnew Road.

Under Option 1, tubular steel poles would be installed in the median of Lafayette Street, from NRS to the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road. After this point, the transmission line would transition to the east side of Lafayette Street and enter Bassett Street and continue south.

Under Option 2, the alignment would begin overhead at NRS to the median of Lafayette Street where it would transition underground in the median of Lafayette Street continuing south to the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road. The alignment would transition to overhead just south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, on the east side, then continue overhead to KRS. The underground duct bank for the transmission line would be at least 6 feet below grade at the top of the duct bank. It would be constructed using cut and cover techniques, with the duct work constructed in an open trench and then covered and the ground surface restored to its previous condition. Vaults to provide access to the ducts would be located along its length. In some locations, such as south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, existing lower voltage circuits would be attached to the new NRS-KRS poles and existing poles would be removed.

Figure 5.1-3 illustrates the placement of poles in the median of Lafayette Street under Option 1. Typical distance between poles is approximately 350 feet, depending on final engineering. The poles would be approximately 85 to 150 feet tall. Tangent structures supporting the line would be generally 2 feet to 4 feet in diameter, while dead-end poles would be 4 feet to 6 feet in diameter. The bird’s eye view in Figure

5.1-3 if looking north from near Hope Drive at Lafayette Street toward NRS and Levi’s Stadium and illustrates how the 115 kV poles would appear in the existing urban setting. In some locations, such as south of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Agnew Road, existing lower voltage circuits would be attached to the new NRS-KRS poles and some existing poles would be removed. The poles to be removed would be determined during final engineering. As shown in Figure 5.1-3, many of the residences on the west side of Lafayette Street are screened from the street by an existing wall separating them from the rail line. On the east side of the street, the majority of residents along the street would have views of the poles from their side or rear windows. The final positioning of poles (approximately 300 feet apart) would determine which units would be facing a pole.

For both Option 1 and Option 2, the remainder of the line would be built overhead. South of Agnew Road, the overhead line would be located on the east side of Lafayette Street. To the east is Agnews Historic Park and associated office uses set back from the road, with most of the area closest to Lafayette Street used for parking. To the west, Lafayette Street is separated from residences by the rail line, a sparsely vegetated open area, and a local street parallel to Lafayette Street. These residences are approximately 200 feet from the Lafayette Street median.

The alignment continues on the east side of Lafayette Street until it is just north of the Montague Expressway, where it would transition to the west side of Lafayette Street and cross over the expressway on taller poles and continue on the west side of Bassett Street and the rail line, extending south along Bassett Street, which parallels Lafayette at this location. Figure 5.1-4 is an image from Bassett Street looking north. The rail line, with Lafayette Street beyond are visible through the overpass supports. Along Bassett Street to the west are commercial or light industrial uses. To the east, on the east side of Lafayette Street is a mix of residential, commercial and light industrial uses. Bassett Street and the transmission line turn south through an area of commercial and light industrial uses before the transmission line crosses over US 101 (Bayshore Freeway) and enters KRS.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
The proposed Project is not located in an area designated as a protected scenic resource and is therefore not subject to scenic protection standards. In addition, the proposed site is not located near an officially designated scenic highway (Caltrans, 2021).

Existing Views in the Project area. Potential views of the proposed Project are often limited by the existing structures, walls, and vegetation along the alignment. The most prominent views would be to motorists on Lafayette Street. NRS and KRS are behind screening walls and set back from nearby roads.

These facilities are already visual elements of the local viewscape, as is the rail line and the existing transmission lines, communication lines, street lighting, and traffic signals found along the route. The few additional poles and structures needed between the NRS and KRS facilities to accommodate the transmission line would be consistent with, and similar to those poles and structures already in place.

However, with the overhead option, the tall tubular steel poles would be in the street median for much of the route. Distant views of the proposed transmission line itself would be limited by the presence of buildings and vegetation which would screen views from most locations perpendicular to the alignment. (In particular, see Figures 5.1-2 and 5.1-3). The visual complexity of this urban setting includes transportation infrastructure (roads and a rail line), vertical elements (existing poles, lighting, traffic signals, and signs), and buildings. Motorists on Lafayette Street would view the new poles in the context of a developed complex urban environment, and their experience would be fleeting as they drive. For residences fronting on Lafayette Street, the poles and conductor would be a more prominent visual experience, but the poles would be widely spaced with conductors relatively high (lowest conductor is 60+ feet in this area) and would not represent a substantial change in the existing urban visual context. In most cases the poles would be only visible to motorists and pedestrians on Lafayette Street and to residents with views out their rear or side windows.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Figure 5.1-1. View Near NRS looking North
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Figure 5.1-2. Wall Separating Residences and Lafayette Street NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Figure 5.1-3. Bird’s Eye Illustration of Project Poles on Lafayette Street NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Figure 5.1-4. View from Bassett Street of Crossing at Montague Expressway NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Regulatory Background
This section includes a description of the aesthetic resources’ regulatory framework. There are no federal or state regulations or policies related to aesthetic resources applicable to the Project.

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

5.1.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Visual Impact Assessment Methodology
This visual analysis considered visual sensitivity and visual change to assess the visual effects of the proposed Project on the existing urban landscape. This approach includes a characterization of the visual sensitivity of the existing landscape, the characteristics of existing visual changes occurring and apparent in the landscape, and the characteristics of the proposed Project.

Visual sensitivity consists of three components: visual quality, viewer concern, and viewer exposure.

Visual quality notes the existing built structures and natural landscape features that contribute to overall visual quality. Viewer concern can be described as the personal expectations for the landscape that are held by the viewing public. Viewer exposure also affects a landscape’s overall visual sensitivity. Landscapes that have very low viewer exposure, based on visibility, viewing distance, number of people who view the landscape, or duration of time that the landscape can be viewed, will tend to be less sensitive to overall visual change. Landscapes with higher viewer exposure are more sensitive to overall visual changes.

Overall visual sensitivity can be rated as Low, Moderate, or High.

Project-induced visual change could result from aboveground facilities, vegetation removal, component size or scale relative to existing landscape characteristics, and the placement of project components relative to existing developed features. Visual change can also be affected by the degree of available screening by vegetation, landforms, and/or structures; distance from the observers; atmospheric conditions; and angle of view. Visual change describes the degree of actual visible change introduced by a project. The fundamental elements of visual change include visual contrast, visual dominance, and scenic view obstruction. Components of visual change include contract, dominance, and obstruction. Visual contrast refers to visual discrepancies of form, line, color, or texture of a project against the existing landscape. Visual dominance refers to the degree to which this contrast would demand the attention of casual viewers. Scenic view obstruction refers to the degree to which the project would block or intrude upon scenic view corridors, particularly those identified in public policies. Overall visual change is rated on a scale of Low, or Moderate, or High.

Given the highly developed and complex visual environment within which the Project would occur, the visual sensitivity along the alignment is considered low to moderate. The spacing of visual elements (poles), the limited duration of views by motorists, and the limited number of views from residences results in the visual change being low to moderate.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
In addition, the Project is evaluated for conformance with applicable local plans and policies. Adopted expressions of local public policy pertaining to visual resources are given great weight in determining both visual quality and viewer concern.

The determination of which aesthetic changes cross a threshold of “substantial adverse effect” or degradation is based upon the criteria described above and in Table 5.1-1, Visual Impact Significance Criteria. This table was used primarily as a consistency check, as determinations of visual sensitivity and visual change were based primarily on analyst experience and site-specific circumstances.

Implicit in this rating methodology is the acknowledgment that for a visual impact to be considered significant two conditions generally exist: (1) the existing landscape is of reasonably high quality and is relatively valued by viewers; and (2) the perceived incompatibility of one or more elements or characteristics of the project tends toward the high extreme, leading to a substantial reduction in visual quality.

Table 5.1-1. Visual Impact Significance Criteria
Visual
Sensitivity
Visual Change
Low Low to Moderate Moderate Moderate to High High
Low No impact1 No impact Less Than
Significant2
Less Than
Significant Less Than Significant
Low to
Moderate No impact Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated3
Moderate Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Moderate to
High
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Potentially
Significant Impact4
High Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Potentially
Significant
Impact4
Potentially
Significant Impact
1 No Impact – Impacts may or may not be perceptible but are considered minor in the context of existing landscape characteristics and view opportunity. 2 Less Than Significant – Impacts are perceived as negative but do not exceed environmental thresholds. 3 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated – Impacts are perceived as negative and may exceed environmental thresholds depending on project and site-specific circumstances but are Less Than Significant with mitigation incorporated. 4 Potentially Significant Impact – Impacts with feasible mitigation may be reduced to levels that are not significant or avoided all together. Without mitigation, significant impacts would exceed environmental thresholds.

Aesthetics Impacts
(a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The flat topography and developed character of this part of the City does not provide scenic vistas, which typically are views of open spaces or views from elevated topographic positions. The nearest mountains or areas of high elevation that would provide panoramic views that could include the Project site are over 5 miles away. Views from these locations would overlook the highly developed urban landscape, within which the transmission line would be indiscernible among the buildings, trees, and existing power lines in the city. The project elements are consistent with the visual character of a highly developed urban area and are similar in nature to existing transmission infrastructure in the NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.1. AESTHETICS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.1-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
City, which results in a low level of visual change to the Project would therefore result in a less than significant impact to a scenic vista.
(b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would require vegetation and limited tree removal or trimming. The Project site is not near or visible from a scenic highway. Based on these conditions, there would be no impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway. (c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The Project is in a highly urbanized area with primarily residential, light industrial, and low intensity office/R&D land uses, as defined in the City’s General Plan. The transmission line alignment would follow existing roads and a rail line.

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

Some tree removal or trimming overhanging vegetation may be required to accommodate the Project and comply with safety requirements. During the final Project development processes, in consultation with the City arborist or City-designated arborist, it would be determined what specific trees may need to be removed for the Project or that with special protection measures are needed, such as by adjusting a pole location, to avoid a tree removal. Initial evaluation indicates that for Option 1 (Overhead), an estimated 2 trees would need to be removed and 33 trees pruned. Under Option 2 (Partial Underground), an estimated 2 trees may need to be removed and 32 trees pruned. SVP consults with the City arborist to determine whether trees need to be replaced and where any replacements would be located. Vegetation removal and trimming would not be a significant change within the overall landscape, due to the highly urbanized character of area, which is dominated by buildings, infrastructure, and roadways.

The proposed Project would be consistent with applicable zoning, regulations and the applicable policies of the City of Santa Clara General Plan, as noted in Section 5.1.1 and in Section 5.11 (Land Use); thus, the impact would be less than significant.
(d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Construction activities would occur during daylight hours and would not include nighttime work that would necessitate the use of lighting within work areas. The surfaces of new structures and enclosures would be non-reflective and would not create glare. This would include poles, conductors, and any required ancillary equipment such as transformers or switchgears. The substations are existing facilities with existing lighting. The streets along the alignment have existing street lighting and adjacent buildings have private residential and commercial lighting.

There is existing lighting from the residential, commercial, and industrial developments along the project alignment. No new lighting is expected to be required by the Project. However, if new lighting were required due to the Project’s proximity to the airport, it would occur in the vicinity of the KRS, extending north of Bayshore Freeway. This lighting would be minimal and would be intended to be viewed from an airplane for safety reasons. The visual change would be low, because of existing sources of light in the area, and it would not create a new source of substantial light. Final required lighting would be subject to final design and FAA review. If required during construction, any lighting would be minimal and would not adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area for an extended period, therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.2-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code §12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
§51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.2.1. Setting
The proposed Project is located in a fully developed area and there is no agricultural activity or forestry resources along the proposed Project transmission line route and substations. The project area is not zoned for agricultural or forestry uses, nor is there agricultural or forestry activity in the vicinity of the proposed route (City of Santa Clara, 2014). The surrounding lands are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land under the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which identifies various categories of farmland throughout the State (DOC, 2022).

The properties in the areas along the proposed Project route are not under California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (referred to as the Williamson Act) contracts (DOC, 2017).

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.2-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP was established in 1982 to identify various categories of farmland throughout California and to assess the location, quantity, and quality of agricultural lands and conversion of these lands to other uses. Every even-numbered year, FMMP issues a Farmland Conversion Report. FMMP data are used in elements of some county and city general plans, in regional studies on agricultural land conversion, and in environmental documents as a way of assessing project-specific impacts on Prime Farmland.

The DOC classifies lands as follows (DOC, 2016):
 Prime Farmland: Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical properties for the production of crops  Farmland of Statewide Importance: Similar to Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings (e.g., steeper slopes, inability to hold water)
 Unique Farmland: Land of lesser quality soils, but recently used for the production of specific high economic value crops. Land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California
 Farmland of Local Importance: Land essential to the local agricultural economy  Grazing Land: Land on which existing vegetation is suitable for livestock grazing.  Urban and Built-Up Land: Land that is occupied by buildings or other structures at a minimum density of one unit to 1.5 acres (or approximately six structures to 10 acres). These lands are used for development purposes, including residential, commercial, industrial, construction, public administration, institutional, transportation yards, airports, cemeteries, golf courses, sewage treatment, sanitary landfills, and water control structures.  Other Land: Land that is not in any other map category, such as waterbodies smaller than 40 acres; low density rural developments; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; and brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing.  Water: Perennial waterbodies that are a minimum of 40 acres.

Williamson Act. The Williamson Act is intended to help preserve farmland by allowing counties to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use in return for a reduction in assessed property taxes. The contracted land is then restricted to agricultural and compatible uses through a rolling-term, 10-year contract between the private landowner and the local government, which has the discretion to determine uses compatible with Williamson Act enrollment. As stated in Section 51222 of the California Government Code, the minimum acreage requirement for individual parcels to enter into Williamson Act contracts is 100 acres.

5.2.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as Shown on the Maps Prepared Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to Non-agricultural use? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project route and the land in the project vicinity are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land on the FMMP maps and are not designated Farmland. Agriculture is not practiced in the area. The proposed Project would not result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.2-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
(b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The minimum acreage requirement for individual parcels to enter into Williamson Act contracts, as stated in Section 51222 of the California Government Code, is 10 acres. In addition, State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 does not regard the cancellation of less than 100 acres of land from Williamson Act to be of statewide, regional, or areawide significance.4
NO IMPACT. The City of Santa Clara does not participate in the Williamson Act. There is no designated zoning for agricultural use, and the City of Santa Clara General Plan does not include an Agriculture Element. The proposed Project route would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use. (c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project route is in an urban area and is not forested. The proposed Project would not conflict with zoning for forest land, timberland, or timber production. (d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not affect any forest land since the proposed route is located in an urban area that is not forested. There would be no conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? NO IMPACT. There is no Farmland, agriculture, or forestland along or near the proposed Project route. The proposed Project would not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion to non-agricultural or non-forest uses.
4 Section 15206(b)(3) states that projects of statewide, regional, or areawide significance include, “[a] project which would result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) for any parcel of 100 or more acres.”
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY SEPTEMBER 2024 5.3-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.3. Air Quality

AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.3.1. Setting
Criteria Pollutants. Air quality is determined by measuring ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants.

Air pollutants are those pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which standards have been set. The degree of air quality degradation is then compared to the current National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS and CAAQS). Unique meteorological conditions in California and differences of opinion by medical panels established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) cause considerable diversity between State and Federal standards currently in effect in California. In general, the CAAQS are more stringent than the corresponding NAAQS. The standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 5.3-1.

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

0.09 ppm

0.070 ppm
—

0.075 ppm
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hour
Annual Mean
50 µg/m3
20 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
—
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hour
Annual Mean
—
12 µg/m3
35 µg/m3
15 µg/m3
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour
8 hour
20 ppm

9.0 ppm
35 ppm

9.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour
Annual Mean

0.18 ppm

0.030 ppm
—

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

0.25 ppm

0.04 ppm
—
—
—

0.14 ppm

0.5 ppm

0.03 ppm
Notes: ppm=parts per million; µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter; “—“ =no standard Source: CARB (http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf), November, 2016.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY SEPTEMBER 2024 5.3-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Table 5.3-2. Attainment Status for San Francisco Bay Area Attainment Status and Air Quality Plans. The
U.S. EPA, Air Resources Board (ARB), and the
local air district classify an area as attainment,
unclassified, or nonattainment of a pollutant,
and these designations dictate the air quality
management planning activities needed make
future air pollutant reductions. The classification
depends on whether the monitored ambient air
quality data show compliance, insufficient data
available, or noncompliance with the ambient
air quality standards, respectively. Table 5.3-2
summarizes attainment status in the San Francisco Bay Area air basin for the criteria pollutants under both the state and federal standards.

Regulatory Background
U.S. EPA/CARB Off-Road Mobile Sources Emission Reduction Program. The California Clean Air Act mandates that CARB achieve the maximum degree of emission reductions from all off-road mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards. Off-road mobile sources include construction equipment. Tier 1 standards for large compression-ignition engines used in off-road mobile sources went into effect in California in 1996. These standards and ongoing rulemaking jointly address emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and toxic particulate matter from diesel combustion. CARB is also developing a control measure to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions as well as NOx from in-use (existing) offroad diesel equipment throughout the State.

CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program. This program allows owners or operators of portable engines and associated equipment commonly used for construction or farming to register their units under a statewide portable program that allows them to operate their equipment throughout California without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.

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

Similar thresholds exist for a project during operation along with a threshold for localized concentrations of CO greater than 9 ppm (8-hour average) or 20 ppm (1 hour average). For PM10 and PM2.5 related to fugitive dust during construction, the BAAQMD recommends that each project should include best management practices rather than achieve specific fugitive dust emissions thresholds. The basic construction emissions control measures appear in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD, 2023).

Pollutant
California
Designation Federal Designation
Ozone (1 hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone (8 hour) Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Attainment Attainment
CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 California
Designation
Federal Designation
Source: BAAQMD, 2023.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY SEPTEMBER 2024 5.3-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.3.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – CONSTRUCTION. The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for managing local air quality and administering other California and federal programs ensuring implementation of the air quality management plan. The 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan is the BAAQMD’s current plan to achieve state and national ambient air quality standards, comply with California and federal air quality planning requirements, and maintain healthy air in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The BAAQMD recommends evaluating whether local long-range plans: (a) support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan; (b) include relevant control measures; and (c) do not interfere with implementation of 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan anticipates that electricity consumption and demand for electricity will increase as a result of economic and demographic growth and due to increased electrification caused by shifting energy demand away from fossil fuels. The proposed Project would increase SVP’s system capacity and reliability and allow SVP to serve projected load growth. By improving the delivery of electricity to the transmission system, the Project would support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and increased electrification of energy demands. No control measures from the plan would be directly applicable to the Project, and the Project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any plan control measures.

A Project could be found inconsistent with the applicable air quality management plan or attainment plan if it could cause population and/or employment growth or growth in vehicle-miles traveled in excess of the growth forecasts included in the air quality attainment plan. SVP’s existing operations and maintenance group would assume inspection, patrol, and maintenance duties as needed. No additional staff would be required after project construction work is completed. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT –OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE. Operational emissions would be limited to the vehicle and equipment used for periodic maintenance, repair, and inspection of the proposed Project. No additional operations staff would be hired by SVP as a result of the Project being put into service. Since the Project is unstaffed, operational activities would not result in any net increase in mobile source emissions due to workers or staff maintaining the facility, and no new stationary sources are proposed.

As a result, operation of the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required during operations.
(b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION - CONSTRUCTION. Construction of the proposed Project would include foundation excavation, power pole assembly and installation, and installation of travelers for the overhead transmission line construction option, and would include trenching, and vault installation for the underground option. These activities during construction would generate emissions at the work area and along the roadways used to access the site.

Construction emissions would be caused by exhaust from vehicles and equipment (e.g., ozone precursor VOC and NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5) and fugitive dust that includes particulate matter from grounddisturbing activities. The mobile sources would include diesel-powered construction equipment such as cranes, lifts, loaders, an auger drill rig, and rollers, as well as small welders. Other mobile sources would include diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles for linework and trucks for deliveries of concrete, water, NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY SEPTEMBER 2024 5.3-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
and other materials. Outside of the work area, construction traffic would cause exhaust emissions from the trucks and other vehicles used by crews, materials, and equipment to access the work area.

Construction is expected to take approximately 14 months for the overhead alignment. The peak number of construction personnel would be approximately 25-30 workers, and traffic to and from the site during construction would be approximately 30-50 round trips daily. The proposed Project includes two options as described in the Project Description, Option 1 is a fully overhead configuration of the transmission line, while Option 2 is partially overhead and partially underground. In order to capture maximum emissions possible, the proposed Project was modeled with phases pertaining to the overhead configuration as well as underground.

Project-related construction emissions calculations were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1.22. The detailed emission calculations are based on the proposed workforce and types of equipment as described in Appendix C. The activity details that were modeled and the results appear in Appendix C. Table 5.3-3 summarizes the maximum daily emission rates of the proposed Project construction activity.

Table 5.3-3. Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Construction Activity VOC NOx CO SO2
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
Demolition 2.27 22.57 21.79 0.05 0.82 0.76
Site Preparation, Foundations 1.55 15.91 18.96 0.05 0.51 0.47 Overhead Installation 1.71 16.75 21.09 0.04 0.45 0.42
Underground Trenching 0.79 8.90 13.37 0.03 0.19 0.19
Underground Installation 1.71 16.75 21.09 0.04 0.45 0.42 Paving 5.95 11.67 16.21 0.03 0.39 0.36
Maximum Daily
Construction Emissions 5.95 22.57 21.79 0.05 0.82 0.76
Threshold of Significance 54 54 None None 82 54
Exceedance? No No -- -- No No
Sources: BAAQMD, 2022. Appendix C.

Table 5.3-3 shows that Project construction would not exceed the thresholds for individually significant Project impacts. The thresholds of significance (BAAQMD, 2022) recommended by the BAAQMD define mass emission rates that represent a potentially significant net increase for ozone precursor emissions (NOx or VOC) or exhaust emissions of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Construction-related criteria air pollutants would not exceed thresholds that indicate cumulatively considerable levels. For construction dust, the BAAQMD recommends a qualitative approach emphasizing implementation of effective emissions control measures that avoid causing a cumulatively considerable net increase. The qualitative approach to reducing dust reflects the nature of construction phase emissions that are generally short‐ term in duration.

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY SEPTEMBER 2024 5.3-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
To ensure that a cumulatively considerable net increase of emissions would not occur due to construction dust, basic construction emissions control strategies are drawn from BAAQMD guidance (BAAQMD, 2022).

The recommended emissions control measures appear in Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

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

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

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

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT –OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE. Operational emissions would be limited to the vehicle and equipment used for periodic maintenance, repair, and inspection of the proposed Project. SVP’s existing operations and maintenance group would assume inspection, patrol, and maintenance duties as needed. No additional staff would be required after project construction work is completed. Operational activities would not result in any net increase in mobile source emissions due to workers or staff maintaining the facility, and no new stationary sources are proposed. As a result, operation of the NRS-KRS Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required during operations. (c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION – CONSTRUCTION. Construction would generate toxic air contaminants routinely found in the exhaust of gasoline powered motor vehicles and of diesel-fueled equipment, including diesel particulate matter (DPM). The Project would not involve any permanent or stationary NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.3. AIR QUALITY SEPTEMBER 2024 5.3-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
sources of air pollution, but construction would temporarily bring construction equipment into the Project site and onto roadways accessing the site.

Short‐term emissions associated with construction would occur onsite and along the roadways accessing the work areas, and the activities would be variable in sequence and timing. The proposed activities include mobilizing vehicles and equipment, construction, crews, and materials, and use of fleet of diesel-powered offroad equipment on the site to install the Project components. Construction equipment and vehicles would access and move within the Project site throughout the construction duration of approximately 14 months. Within the overall duration, the emissions would vary and would not occur for long periods; this minimizes the potential that any location would be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Construction contractors would be required to control dust to avoid creating a nuisance, and the off-road diesel-fueled fleets regulation requires achieving a feasible level of control to minimize diesel exhaust emissions. Implementing “Best Management Practices” would minimize the emissions of pollutants, including dust and DPM or other toxic air contaminants. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would control dust, limit equipment idling times, and properly maintain equipment to reduce construction phase emissions to levels below the applicable thresholds of significance. Implementing the best practices identified in the mitigation measure would ensure that receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations.

Impacts under this criterion would be less than significant with mitigation for construction emissions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE. During Project operations, emissions would result from limited use of vehicles for routine maintenance, repair, and inspection. Operational activities would not result in any net increase in mobile source emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required during operations.
(d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would not include any sources likely to create objectionable odors. Construction would involve the temporary use of vehicles and construction equipment and materials, such as fuels and lubricants, that may generate intermittent, minor odors. Odors that occur in equipment exhaust would be minimized by mandatory use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Emissions of this nature would occur briefly during construction and would cease at the end of construction. There would be no notable impact of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Operation activities would be limited to inspection, patrol, and maintenance as needed, and would not produce odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.4. Biological Resources

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.4.1. Setting
This section describes the biological resources that occur in the proposed Project area. It includes a description of the existing biotic environment, including common plants and wildlife, sensitive habitats, special-status species and their locations in relation to the proposed Project. The following section (5.4.2) presents an analysis of potential impacts to biological resources and, where necessary, specifies mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

For purposes of this analysis, the following designations apply:
 Proposed Project Area: The proposed Project area is defined as all areas subject to permanent and temporary impacts.
 Study Area: The Study Area is defined as the proposed Project area plus a 500-foot buffer.

Existing Habitat
The proposed Project is located within a fully developed urban area between the San Jose International Airport and Levi Stadium in the City of Santa Clara dominated by urban hardscape and land cover.

Northern Receiving Station (NRS) is the northern terminus of the proposed Project, and the Kifer Receiving Station (KRS) is the southern terminus. An industrial land use property located at 1715 Martin Avenue in Santa Clara has been identified as a potential staging yard for the proposed Project. Access to the proposed Project work areas will be from existing adjacent paved roads.

Urban/developed areas occur throughout the proposed Project area and adjacent lands, and include paved roads, bare ground associated with disturbance or development, buildings, paved parking lots, road medians and roadsides, railroad tracks and right-of-way, and landscaped areas. Land uses within the Study NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Area include residential, parks/open space, commercial, and industrial. Areas not containing hardscape are limited to residential, commercial, and roadside landscaped areas, landscaped parks/open space, and managed (e.g., mowing) ruderal areas of road shoulders and utility rights-of-way. Figure 5.4-1 shows a few ruderal, park/open space, and landscaped interchange areas meaningful to this analysis as they provide marginal habitat for certain special-status species. The Study Area does not contain natural vegetation community alliances as described in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009).

The topography of the Study Area is relatively flat and open, increasing in elevation roughly north to south from approximately 10 to 50 feet above mean sea level.

A biological resources reconnaissance survey was not conducted for the proposed Project. Information used in preparing this section was derived from:
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) federal resource list for the proposed Project area (USFWS, 2024a);  California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) Viewer (Map) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) summary table report within a 5-mile buffer of the proposed Project area (CDFW, 2024);  California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (RPI) species list within the two U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles overlapping the proposed Project area, including Milpitas and San Jose West (CNPS, 2024);
 Jepson eFlora (Jepson eFlora, 2024) online version of The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Baldwin et al., 2012) with access to Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH) record locations and details for RPI-identified species;
 California Academy of Sciences and National Geographic Society – iNaturalist (iNaturalist, 2024) sensitive species observations within a 5-mile buffer of the proposed Project area;  The Cornell Lab of Ornithology eBird (eBird, 2024) sensitive species observations within a 5-mile buffer of the proposed Project area;
 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS, 2024a) and National Hydric Soil List (USDA NRCS, 2024b) for data on soil units mapped within and adjacent to the proposed Project area; and
 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper (USFWS, 2024b) for wetlands and waters mapped within and adjacent to the proposed Project area.

Special-Status Plants and Animals
Special-status species are plant and wildlife species that have been afforded special protection by federal, state, or local resource agencies or organizations. The literature review identified 15 special-status plant species and 48 special-status wildlife species within 5 miles of the proposed Project area (see Appendix E of this IS/MND). Based on this literature review and desktop analysis of the Study Area, there is low to moderate potential for 11 special-status wildlife to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area due to the presence of marginal to suitable habitat. Due to the developed and disturbed nature of the Study Area, no special-status plant species have potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area. Due to a lack of marginal or suitable habitat, no special-status fish or amphibian species have potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Figure 5.4-1. Vegetation and Land Cover
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Jurisdictional Waters
There are no potentially jurisdictional waters or wetlands within the proposed Project area based upon a review of the USFWS NWI Wetlands Mapper (USFWS, 2024b), USGS Milpitas and San Jose West 7.5-minute quadrangle map, and Google Earth aerial and street view imagery. A formal aquatic resources delineation was not completed for the proposed Project.

Regulatory Background
Federal
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq., and 50 C.F.R., part 17.1 et seq.). The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) designates and provides for protection of threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species and their critical habitat. “Take” of a federally listed species is prohibited without the appropriate permits, which may be obtained through Section 7 consultation (between federal agencies) or a Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plan.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 668-668c). This Act—enforced through regulations written by the USFWS—prohibits the “taking” of bald and golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. To take is defined as to “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest, or disturb” any bald or golden eagle, whether “alive or dead...unless authorized by permit”. The administering agency is USFWS.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C §§ 703-711). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid federal permit. The USFWS has authority and responsibility for enforcing the MBTA. The administering agency is USFWS.

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

State
California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code [CFGC] §§ 2050-2098). The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984 states that all native species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected and preserved. CESA prohibits the take of any species of wildlife designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. The CDFW may authorize the take of any such species if certain conditions are met. These criteria are listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 783.4 subdivisions (a) and (b). For purposes of CESA “take” means to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill (CFGC § 86). The administering agency is CDFW.

Fully Protected Species (CFGC §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515, and 2081.15). These sections designate certain species as fully protected and prohibit the take of such species or their habitat unless for scientific purposes (see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §670.7). The incidental take of fully protected species may also be authorized in an approved natural community conservation plan (CFGC § 2835). California Senate Bill 147 (signed by Governor Newsom July 2023) amends 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 and Section 395, and adds Section 2081.15 to the Fish and Game Code. Fish and Game Commission is required to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species and to add or remove species if the action is NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
warranted. “The act prohibits the taking of endangered or threatened species, except in certain situations, including, if specific conditions are met, through the issuance of a permit commonly known as an incidental take permit.” CDFW is authorized to issue a permit under CESA that would authorize the take of fully protected species resulting from impact attributable to the implementation of specified projects if certain conditions are met. This remains in effect until December 31, 2033. The administering agency is CDFW.

CFGC Protection for Birds. CFGC Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird. Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game birds designated under the MBTA, except as provided by rules and regulations adopted under the MBTA. Section 3800 defines all birds occurring naturally in California that are not resident game birds, migratory game birds, or fully protected birds are nongame birds. It is unlawful to take any nongame bird except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations of the commission.

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

Furbearing and Mammal Protection. Additional regulations are in place protecting furbearing mammals as follows:
 Fish and Game Code §251.1 prohibits the harassment of any furbearing mammal. Harass is defined as an intentional act that disrupts an animal’s normal behavior patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
 California Code of Regulations Title 14 §460 states that fisher, marten, river otter, desert kit fox and red fox may not be taken at any time.

CEQA Guidelines §15380. Enacted in 1970, CEQA requires an applicant to fully disclose environmental impacts before issuance of a permit by state and local agencies. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) articulates the classifications of species to be analyzed under CEQA. In general, impacts to plants or their habitat having a California Rare Plant Rank of 1A (plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere), 1B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere), 2A (plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere), 2B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California), or 3 (plants about which more information is needed — a review list) must be analyzed during preparation of the environmental documents relating to CEQA. According to the California Native NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Plant Society’s (CNPS) Rare Plant Program, species with these California Rare Plant Rank rankings meet the definition of “rare and endangered” under the CEQA Guidelines.

Native Plant Protection (CFGC § 1900 et seq.). The Native Plant Protection Act was enacted in 1977 and designates state rare and endangered plants and provides specific protection measures for identified populations. Those laws prohibit the take of endangered or rare native plants but include some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; for emergencies; after properly notifying CDFW, for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites; due to changes in land use; and in certain other situations.

The administering agency is CDFW.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Division 7). The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over all surface water and groundwater in California, including wetlands, headwaters, and riparian areas.

The SWRCB or applicable RWQCB must issue waste discharge requirements for any activity that discharges waste that could affect the quality of waters of the state.

Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The City’s General Plan was adopted on November 16, 2010, and updated on December 9, 2014. Goals and policies specific to the City’s General Plan to protect and preserve the city’s natural habitat and wildlife are described in Chapter 5 Goals and Policies, Section 10 Environmental Quality. Those goals and policies that are important with respect to the project area as follows:

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

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Santa Clara City Codes and Ordinances. Santa Clara City Code (City Code) sections 12.35 regulates trees on City land (i.e., public rights-of-way or easements, streets, and parks) and private land. A City permit is required for removing the following protected trees (§12.35.080):
 Heritage trees in all zoning districts.
 All trees of the following species on private property with a diameter of 12-inches or more when measured at 54-inches above natural grade: California buckeye (Aesculus californica), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Q. lobata), black oak (Q. kelloggii), blue oak (Q. douglasii), interior live oak (Q. wislizeni), other native oak trees (Quercus sp.), coast redwood (Sequoia semperivirens), and California bay (Umbellularia californica).  Approved development trees.
 Any tree on private land with a trunk diameter of 38-inches or more when measured at 54-inches above natural grade.
 Any multibranched tree on private land which has major branches below 54-inches above natural grade with a diameter of 38-inches or more measured below the first major trunk fork.

The Department of Community Development considers many factors in reviewing a tree removal permit application, including, but not limited to, if the tree can cause potential damage to an existing or proposed essential structure, or interfere with utility services and cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable relocation or modification of the structure or utility service (§12.35.090[c][4][A]). The City does not require the replacement of trees unless the project involves obtaining a discretionary permit (§12.35.100).

City trees and protected trees shall be protected by use of best management practices, design conditions, and measures listed in City Code, section 12.35.100 (d-f). When possible, work shall be conducted in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards, developed as voluntary industry consensus standards by the Tree Care Industry Association, and follow tree care best management practices published by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) necessary to protect the vitality of the tree.

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Adopted in 2013, the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Plan) is a 50-year regional plan designed for the protection and recovery of sensitive biological resources within a large portion of Santa Clara County while allowing for future development (ICF International 2012). The Plan area includes two geographic regions, the North Valley and South Valley. The northern boundary of the Plan area extends to the Alameda and Santa Clara Counties boundary, excluding the Milpitas City Limits and lands owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The northwestern boundary is the Guadalupe River and boundary between the cities of Santa Clara and San Jose. Plan covered activities categories include urban development, in-stream capital projects, in-stream operations and maintenance, rural capital projects, rural operations and maintenance, rural development, and conservation strategy implementation. Construction, maintenance, and use of public and private utilities including electric transmission and distribution lines are Plan covered activities within the urban development category.

The Plan also Includes an expanded study area for identified for burrowing owl conservation and is located in the northern edge of the county in portions of the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Milpitas, and Sunnyvale (ICF International 2012). The Project site is located within the expanded study area for burrowing owl conservation and approximately 2 miles outside the Plan area boundary.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.4.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed Project area lacks natural vegetation communities. Direct and indirect impacts from the proposed Project will be restricted to areas containing urban/developed and ruderal land cover types. The proposed Project area is in a highly developed, built out urban area and contains no habitat for special-status plant species and limited habitat suitable for most special-status wildlife species unless they are adapted to urban environments. If present, most special-status wildlife species would likely occur during migratory movements or periodic foraging events and would not be expected as resident species in the proposed Project area. However, if present within or adjacent to the proposed Project area, the proposed Project could result in direct or indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species. These impacts would be avoided or minimized with the implementation of Mitigation Measures (MMs) BIO-1 through BIO-6 proposed below.

Special-Status Plants
The construction and operation/maintenance of the proposed Project would not affect state or federally listed threatened or endangered plants, state rare plants, or any California Rare Plant Ranked specialstatus plants. No special status plants were identified during the literature review and desktop analysis has having a potential to occur due to the developed and disturbed nature of the Study Area. No impacts to special-status plant species are expected.

Special-Status Wildlife
Based on a literature review and desktop analysis of the Study Area, there is low to moderate potential for 17 special-status wildlife to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area due to the presence of marginal to suitable habitat.

Construction Impacts on Special-Status Wildlife
Invertebrates
The following special-status invertebrate species were considered for this analysis:
 Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) – Federal listing candidate, State Rank (SR) S2  Obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus) – CDFW Special Animal, SR S1S2  Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) – CESA candidate for Endangered listing, SR S2  Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) – CESA candidate for Endangered listing, SR S1 Monarch butterfly overwinters in wind-protected tree groves, primarily preferring gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.) but also using native trees such as Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). Monarchs return to the same overwintering sites annually, are typically along the Pacific Coast and San Francisco Bay. Migrating adults will forage on a variety of plants, whereas larvae primarily feed on milkweed (Asclepias sp.) species (Jepsen et al. 2015). A variety of roosting trees can be used during fall migration (USFWS 2020).

The proposed project area does not support suitable foraging or egg-laying habitat for monarch butterfly and the proposed Project area is outside of the known overwintering range for the species. Monarch butterfly could occur as a migrant that moves through the area to preferable overwintering sites along the coast. Monarch butterfly is known to occur in the region from numerous iNaturalist observations NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
(iNaturalist, 2024); there are no CNDDB records within 5 miles of the proposed Project area. This species could occur in the region as a migrant during construction. The proposed Project area lacks natural vegetation communities that could support milkweed species. Urban yards adjacent to the Project area could support periodic milkweed or other foraging plants. However, based on the limited habitat and incidental use of milkweed or foraging plants, impacts to this species would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. Nonetheless, should this species occur in the Project area as a transient, construction related impacts would be reduced by mitigation requirements for other wildlife species which include MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 requiring worker environmental awareness training, periodic biological monitoring if needed, and a general preconstruction survey. Although not required for this species, these measures would avoid or reduce impacts to this species should it occur in the Project area during construction.

The current ranges, distribution, and abundance of obscure bumble bee, Crotch’s bumble bee, and western bumble bee are poorly understood (CDFW 2019; Xerxes Society 2018). The proposed Project area is located within the species range for both obscure bumble bee and Crotch’s bumble bee, and within the historic range for western bumble bee (CWHR 2023; Hatfield et al. 2015). There is one historic CNDDB record within 5 miles of the proposed Project for each of these bumble bee species (CDFW, 2024): one 1954 record for obscure bumble bee, one 1903 record for Crotch’s bumble bee, and one 1979 record for western bumble bee, all presumed extant, are mapped generally to San Jose and overlapping the southern half of the Study Area. There are several potential sightings of obscure bumble bee from the California Bumble Bee Atlas community science project, identified to be either obscure bumble bee or a second species similar in appearance (Bumble Bee Watch, 2024). These potential obscure bumble bee sightings are of foraging individuals and primarily located at or near urban parks or urban residences or other buildings with ornamental landscaping, with the nearest being along the Guadalupe River Trail approximately 0.9 miles east northeast of the Project area (proposed structure 18). Crotch’s bumble bee is further known in the region from three verified community science observations of foraging individuals within 5 miles, the nearest located foraging in an ornamental landscaped area in urban San Jose approximately

3.6 miles southeast of the Project area (Bumble Bee Watch, 2024; iNaturalist, 2024). There are no community science observations for western bumble bee within 5 miles (Bumble Bee Watch, 2024; CDFW, 2024; iNaturalist, 2024).

The proposed Project area lacks natural vegetation communities that would contain abundant floral resources. Urban yards adjacent to the Project area could support periodic floral resources that could potentially support special-status bumble bees. Although further research is needed, the likely foraging range for special-status bumble bee species is approximately 0.6 to 1.2 miles (1 to 2 kilometers) from the nest on a single trip (CDFW, 2023). Limited marginal habitat that could potentially support nesting specialstatus bumble bee species is located within or adjacent to the proposed Project area in the utility rightof-way adjacent to the NRS at the north end of the Project area and by Montague Expressway, in the landscaped area inside of the westbound onramp and on the fill slope supporting the Montague Expressway overcrossing on the west side of Lafayette Street. The marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. Current and historic Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these ruderal areas are periodically managed for weeds and fire abatement through mowing and/or discing. Google Earth aerial imagery also suggests the utility right-of-way and the landscaped interchange have been further disturbed by periodical use as staging areas for equipment and materials for other unrelated construction projects as recently as February 2024 and June 2022, respectively. Based upon the limited floral resources present and the limited marginal nesting habitat present in highly disturbed ruderal locations, there is a very low/minimal potential for a special-status bumble bee species nest(s) to be present. Nonetheless, should special status bumble bee species occur in the Project area, construction related impacts would be reduced by mitigation requirements for other wildlife species which include MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 requiring NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
worker environmental awareness training, periodic biological monitoring if needed, and a general preconstruction survey.

Fish and Amphibians
The proposed Project will not affect any federally or state listed fish or amphibian species. Due to a lack of marginal or suitable habitat, no special-status fish or amphibian species are expected to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area.

Reptiles
The proposed Project will not affect any federally or state listed fish or amphibian species. Due to a lack of marginal or suitable habitat, most special-status reptiles are not likely to occur. One special-status reptile species that is a candidate for federal listing was considered for this analysis:
 Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) – Federal ESA candidate for Threatened listing, CDFW SSC, SR S3
The proposed Project area does not support suitable aquatic habitat that could support western pond turtle. Western pond turtle is known to occur in the region from 13 CNDDB records and numerous iNaturalist observations within 5 miles, including along the salt evaporation ponds along the bay approximately 2.25 miles northwest and the Guadalupe River approximately 0.75 miles east of the Project area (CNDDB, 2024; iNaturalist, 2024). There are many migratory movement barriers (i.e., roads, buildings, other hardscape,) present that would prevent western pond turtle from traveling into the Project area from the bay edge and the Guadalupe River. Western pond turtle is also known to occur in San Tomas Aquino Creek from two CNDDB records, a 1989 occurrence approximately 0.75 miles northwest of the NRS and a 2017 occurrence approximately 0.65 miles southwest of the KRS (CNDDB, 2024). The closest suitable aquatic habitat is located at San Tomas Aquino Creek, approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the NRS. The ruderal utility right-of-way adjacent to the NRS and proposed structures 1, 2, and 3 at the north end of the Project area provides limited marginal upland habitat for western pond turtle. The typical upland migration and/or dispersal distance for western pond turtle is up to approximately 0.3 miles (USFWS, 2023). The marginal habitat at this location consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. Current and historic Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests this ruderal area is periodically managed for weeds and fire abatement through mowing and/or discing. Google Earth aerial imagery also suggests this utility right-of-way has been further disturbed by periodical use as a staging area for equipment and materials for other unrelated construction projects as recently as February 2024.

Further, based on Google Earth aerial and street view imagery, two chain-link fences exist between San Tomas Aquino Creek and the project work areas located on the west side of Lafayette Street, one on either end of the ruderal utility right-of-way. These chain-link fences likely present a barrier to upland movements unless holes under the fences, or other breaks in the fence line, exist or develop in the future.

In the event that western pond turtle is present within or adjacent to the proposed Project area, destruction or abandonment of nest sites or occupied burrows or mortality from crushing by vehicles or equipment would be considered significant. Implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 requiring worker environmental awareness training, periodic biological monitoring if needed, and a general preconstruction survey, would reduce impacts to western pond turtle to less than significant.

Birds
Native birds are regulated by the MBTA and CFGC Section 3503. These regulations also protect federally or state listed birds, fully protected birds, bird species of special concern, watch list bird species, and birds of conservation concern. Though watch list species and birds of conservation concern do not typically warrant protections under CESA, they would be protected under the MBTA and CFGC. A variety of common birds may nest within or adjacent to the proposed Project area, including California scrub jay, NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
mourning dove, Cooper’s hawk, and great egret. Nests may be built in trees or other vegetation, on the ground, or on existing buildings or other structures. Birds may also attempt to nest in construction materials or on idle construction equipment. Due to the urban/developed land cover and the regular disturbance experienced from urban anthropogenic activities, mowing, and vehicle and equipment staging within or adjacent to the proposed Project area, it is more likely that special-status avian species adapted to developed or semi-developed environments would nest in or near the proposed Project area.

Even in the urban/developed land cover, the loss of native and migratory bird species would be considered a significant impact.

In addition to common bird species, the following special-status bird species were considered for this analysis:
 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – CDFW SSC, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC), SR S2  Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) – ST, SR S4
 White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) – CDFW Fully Protected (FP), SR S3S4  American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) – Federally and State de-listed, S3S4 Two of the special-status species listed would not be expected to nest within or near the proposed Project area due to a lack of suitable habitat and the current level of ongoing disturbance. Although marginal nesting habitat is present, the proposed Project area is outside of the current breeding range within California for Swainson’s hawk (CDFW, 2016). The proposed Project area and surrounding land lack suitable cliff ledges, tall buildings, or similar features that would provide suitable nesting habitat for American peregrine falcon. However, these special-status bird species have a low to moderate potential to forage within or adjacent to the proposed Project area. The Project will not convert any land cover that could be used as foraging habitat. Construction related impacts to foraging protected birds would be short-term and temporary in nature.

Burrowing owl is an urban-adapted raptor species which occurs in open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low growing vegetation (CWHR, 2021). This species requires subterranean nesting and roosting features such as California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) burrows or analogous features (CWHR, 2021). Burrowing owl is known in the region from 32 CNDDB records within 5 miles of the proposed Project, including some that are known or suspected to be extirpated. A 2014 CNDDB occurrence record overlaps the NRS, adjacent land, and the Levi Stadium facility (CDFW, 2024); the entire area of this occurrence polygon has been developed or has been heavily disturbed in the case of the ruderal utility right-of-way. Extant populations are documented in 2004 and 2009 CNDDB occurrence records, respectively, at the Santa Clara Golf and Tennis Club located approximately 0.5 miles north of the NRS and at the San Jose International Airport located approximately 0.5 miles east of the KRS (CDFW, 2024). There are also numerous community science observations of burrowing owl within 5 miles, including during the March through August breeding season (eBird, 2024; CWHR, 2021; iNaturalist, 2024). Limited marginal habitat for burrowing owl is located within or adjacent to the proposed Project area at adjacent to the NRS, at the landscaped areas on Lafayette Street at Montague Expressway. The marginal habitat at these locations consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. Current and historic Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these ruderal areas are periodically managed for weeds and fire abatement through mowing and/or discing. Google Earth aerial imagery also suggests the utility right-of-way and the landscaped interchange area has periodically been used to stage equipment and materials for other unrelated construction projects as recently as February 2024 and June 2022, respectively. Due to the presence of limited marginal nesting and foraging habitat, the documented occurrences in proximity to the Project area, and the species’ adaptation to urban environments, the potential for burrowing owl to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area is moderate; therefore, direct impacts to burrowing owl could occur.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-12 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
White-tailed kite is a raptor species which occurs in open grasslands, meadows, marshes, and agricultural areas close to isolated, dense-topped trees used for nesting and perching (CWHR, 2021). White-tailed kite is known in the region from one recent 2004 and one 1971 CNDDB record located in or adjacent to open grassland habitats by the bay approximately 1.3 to 1.6 miles north northeast of the NRS (CDFW, 2024).

There are also numerous community science observations within 5 miles, including a 2022 eBird observation located at the Oracle Santa Clara Campus adjacent to the Palm Substation and between the substation and Montague Expressway (eBird, 2024; iNaturalist, 2024). Limited suitable nesting trees are present within or near the proposed Project area, particularly along San Tomas Aquino Creek to the west of the NRS, Lick Mill Park to the east of NRS, the Oracle Santa Clara Campus between the Palm Substation and Montague Expressway. Limited marginal foraging habitat is present adjacent to the NRS, the landscaped interchange, and ruderal road shoulders along the west side of the Montague Expressway overpass. The marginal foraging habitat consists of ruderal land cover containing primarily grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. Current and historic Google Earth aerial and street view imagery suggests these ruderal areas are periodically managed for weeds and fire abatement through mowing and/or discing. Google Earth aerial imagery also suggests the utility right-of-way and the landscaped interchange at Montague Expressway have periodically been used to stage equipment and materials for other unrelated construction projects as recently as February 2024 and June 2022, respectively. Due to the high level of disturbance experienced in the limited marginal nesting and foraging habitat, the potential for white-tailed kite to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project area is low.

With the exception of a few non-native birds, such as European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and house sparrow (Passer domesticus), the loss of active bird nests or young is regulated by the MBTA and CFGC Section 3503. Direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds or raptors, if present, would be considered significant. Implementation of the proposed Project could disturb birds if they nest in or near the proposed Project area. Direct impacts could include loss of nests from contact with construction equipment. If present on the ground within the proposed Project area, nests or eggs could be subject to destruction from crushing by construction vehicles, equipment, or personnel. As described in Section 4 Project Description and in the arborist report prepared for the Project (Appendix D), trees may require either full removal or clearance pruning to construct the Project. The maximum allowable tree height under the transmission lines will vary from 27 to 35 feet depending upon location.

To reduce impacts to nesting bird species, the Project will implement MM BIO-1 through BIO-4, which requires worker training, periodic biological monitoring if needed, a general preconstruction survey for special-status species, and a focused survey for nesting birds and raptors (if construction activities are scheduled during the breeding season). Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts to nesting bird and raptor species to less than significant.

Mammals
The Project site does not provide habitat for federally or state listed mammal species or fur-bearing mammals. The Project site could provide potential habitat for a variety of special status bat species. Bats utilize a variety of daytime rooting sites, including caves, rock crevices, mines, trees and snags, bridges, and buildings and structures. While some bats are colonial, living in large colonies in caves or under bridges, others are solitary, roosting in trees and crevices. Sensitive periods for bats include the hibernation season, when bats are sustaining on fat reserves, and the maternity season, when female bats give birth to babies. The decline of bat populations is often due to roost site disturbance or loss. Due to their sensitivity to noise, human presence, and other disturbance factors, impacts to bat roosts would be considered a significant impact.

The following special-status bat species were considered for this analysis:
 Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) – CDFW SSC, SR S2  Western red bat (Lasiurus frantzii) – CDFW SSC, SR S3 NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-13 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Townsend’s big-eared bat is a flying mammal species which primarily roosts on the walls and ceilings of caves and mines but also within buildings, bridges, rock crevices, and hollow trees (CWHR, 2024; WBWG, 2017). A specific roost may be used during one season or may be used throughout the year for maternity, hibernation, or breeding (CDFW, 2013). Summer maternity colonies are formed between March and June and can be made of a few individuals to several hundred (CDFW, 2013). This bat species is extremely sensitive to human disturbance (CWHR, 2024; WBWG, 2017). The Montague Expressway overpass bridge structure over Lafayette Steet provides limited marginal suitable roosting habitat to support this species.

The proposed Project will not impact the overpass bridge structure. The Study Area provides limited suitable foraging habitat to support this species.

Western red bat is a flying mammal species that roosts throughout the year amongst the foliage of trees or shrubs, particularly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open habitats such as grasslands and agricultural lands (CWHR, 2024; WBWG, 2017). This bat species is highly migratory and typically solitary but may roost in clusters of up to several individuals. Maternity season occurs between May and July (CWHR, 2024; WBWG, 2017). The proposed Project area and adjacent lands contain limited suitable foraging habitat and 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 east of NRS, and the Oracle Santa Clara Campus between the Palm Substation and the Montague Expressway interchange.

Due to the existing level of disturbance in proximity to the limited marginal roosting and foraging habitat, special status bat species are not expected to occur or are expected to be more tolerant of disturbance due to the baseline level of human activity from vehicle traffic and human presence, as in the case of the Montague Expressway Overpass bridge. If present within vegetation requiring removal or trimming, direct impacts could include mortality from contact with construction equipment or abandonment of roosts and, if during the maternity season, of pups incapable of flight. To reduce impacts, the Project will implement MM BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-5, which will require worker training, periodic biological monitoring if needed, a preconstruction survey for bat roosts, and development and implementation of a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan if roosts are detected. Implementation of these measures would avoid impacts to specialstatus bat species maternity roosts and reduce impacts to less than significant.

Direct impacts to special-status wildlife resulting from construction of the proposed Project could also occur from exposure to noise or vibration, fugitive dust, or exposure to hazardous materials. As described in Section 5.3 (Air Quality), Silicon Valley Power would implement measures to control and suppress fugitive dust in compliance with all standards required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

As described in Section 5.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality), hazardous materials control measures would be used throughout construction to reduce potential impacts. Construction activities would require the use of vehicles and heavy equipment capable of generating noise and ground vibration within and adjacent to the proposed Project area. As discussed in Section 5.13 (Noise), impacts from construction-related ground vibration would be short-term and confined to the immediate work area (within approximately 25 feet). Incremental noise from construction vehicles and traffic noise would not represent a substantial increase in the context of the project surroundings and the existing noise levels, as discussed in Section

5.13 (Noise). As such, direct impacts from exposure to noise or vibration, fugitive dust, or exposure to hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant.

Operational Impacts on Special-Status Wildlife
Once the proposed Project is constructed, SVP’s existing maintenance and operations group would assume inspection, patrol, and maintenance duties. Project operation and maintenance activities could generate varying levels of human presence, lighting, and noise along the Project alignment and adjacent areas. Direct impacts to special-status species, if present during operations, could include exposure to increased levels of human presence, exposure to noise and night lighting generated from maintenance NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-14 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
activities, hazardous material spills, and collision with overhead electrical transmission lines or electrocution from overhead electrical equipment on utility poles.

Due to the urban/developed land cover and the regular disturbance experienced from urban anthropogenic activities, mowing, and vehicle and equipment movement and staging within or adjacent to the proposed Project area, it is more likely that special-status wildlife species adapted to developed or semideveloped environments would occur as resident species within or adjacent to the proposed Project area.

The proposed Project primarily occurs along an existing overhead electrical distribution alignment subject to existing inspection, patrol, and maintenance activities conducted by Silicon Valley Power. As discussed in Section 5.13 (Noise), the occasional nature of maintenance noise due to implementation of the proposed Project would not result in noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity would not occur, and the transmission and distribution system improvements would not generate a new or different source of permanent noise. Equipment associated with operation and maintenance of the proposed Project would not produce any groundborne noise or vibration; therefore, operation and maintenance of the project would result in no impact under this criterion. Other than substances associated with vehicles that would be used for inspections and maintenance, no hazardous materials are associated with maintenance and operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts from an increased exposure to increased levels of human presence, exposure to noise and night lighting generated from maintenance activities, or hazardous material spills would be less than significant.

Power lines, communications towers, and other elevated structures are known to pose a threat to birds.

The risk of bird collisions with power lines is influenced by a number of factors, including the type and size of bird, weather, visibility, season, surrounding habitat, and size, configuration, and placement of power lines (APLIC, 2012). Collisions with power lines are generally due to poor visibility of electrical lines, but collisions may also occur with other structures such as utility poles and substation structures. Collisions may occur in poor weather or visibility conditions, or when birds are startled and flushed from cover, fleeing from predators, or focused on pursuing prey.

Electrocution can occur when a bird perches, lands, or takes off from a utility pole if the animal makes contact with two conductors to complete the electrical circuit, or simultaneously contacts energized phase conductors and other equipment, or simultaneously contacts an energized wire and a grounded wire. Electrocution on power lines is a greater potential hazard to larger birds, such as raptors, because their body size and wingspan are large enough to span the distance between the conductor wires and thus complete the electrical circuit (APLIC, 2006).

To reduce potential collision and electrocution risks to birds and bats, the Project is being designed in compliance with current APLIC guidelines (APLIC, 2006) as described in Section 4 Project Description.

These methods ensure a minimum separation between electrical components to prevent simultaneous contact and covering electrical components with protective materials to prevent contact. These incorporated Project designs would reduce impacts to birds from electrocution and collision to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure for Special-Status Wildlife Species
MM BIO-1 Implement Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to and for the duration of any vegetation removal and trimming and any ground disturbing activities, SVP or its designee shall provide Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to all new personnel prior to beginning work on the Project. The training may be presented in the form of a video. The training program shall be developed by a qualified biologist to educate Project personnel about the Project’s sensitive biological resources. The name and credentials of the qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior to the surveys for review and approval. A draft of the training program (i.e., NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-15 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
video and written materials) shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior for approval prior to implementation. The WEAP shall include, at a minimum:
 An overview of the sensitive biological resources that are known or have the potential to occur in the Project area and surrounding habitat. This shall include nesting birds and special- plants and wildlife.
 An overview of the Project and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and the consequences of non-compliance with these requirements.  An overview of the federal and State Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, pertinent Fish and Game Code sections, and other applicable regulatory requirements and the consequences of non-compliance with these requirements.
 Functions, responsibilities, and authority of the biological monitor(s) and how they interact with Project personnel.
 Identify clear points of contact for the biological monitor(s) and construction personnel including who to contact should workers have questions regarding compliance with environmental documents and permit conditions.
 Project restrictions, such as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), setbacks from sensitive biological resources, and avoidance buffers.  Requirements to remain within authorized work areas and on approved access routes, with examples of flagging and signage used to designate these areas.  Information on compliance with Project speed limits, control of litter and micro trash, smoking restrictions, wildfire minimization measures, spill containment and clean up, and the implementation of Best Management Practices.
 Explanation that wildlife must not be harmed or harassed including procedures for abiding by Project speed limits, covering pipes, securing excavations, and installing exit ramps to prevent wildlife entrapment.

Training acknowledgement forms shall be signed by each person attesting that they understand and will abide by Project requirements. Upon request, SVP or its designee shall provide the City the WEAP training acknowledgement forms for persons who have completed the training in the prior month and a running total of all persons who have completed the training to date.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-16 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
MM BIO-3 Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Wildlife and Implement Avoidance Measures. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for each of the species identified below. These surveys can be combined if they meet the requirements outlined in this measure. The name and credentials of the qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City no less than 14 days prior to the surveys for review and approval.

Burrowing Owl. No later than seven days prior to start of project vegetation management and ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl. The survey shall include the focus areas (described below) plus a 250-foot buffer where legal access is available. The survey for burrowing owl shall focus on the ruderal habitat described for bumble bees above. If burrows or other structures are identified that contain signs of use by burrowing owl, or if burrowing owl(s) is observed, an avoidance buffer area shall be clearly delineated with staking, flagging, and/or signage. If during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a 250-foot avoidance buffer shall be established, and Project activities will be prohibited from the area until a qualified biologist determines it is occupied either by a non-mated pair or the young have fledged. If outside the nesting season, a 160-foot avoidance buffer shall be established.

The prescribed buffers may be adjusted by the qualified avian biologist in coordination with the City and CDFW based on existing conditions around the burrow, planned construction activities, tolerance of the species at a given location, and other pertinent factors.

If avoidance of burrowing owls is not feasible and work will be conducted outside the nesting season, a Burrowing Owl Passive Relocation Plan shall be developed to provide detailed methods and guidance for passive relocation of burrowing owls. The Burrowing Owl Passive Relocation Plan shall be submitted to the City for approval in coordination with CDFW prior to conducting passive relocation. An occupied burrow may not be disturbed during the nesting season, unless a qualified biologist determines, by non-invasive methods, that it is not occupied by a mated pair. Passive relocation would include installation of one-way doors on burrow entrances that would let owls out of the burrow but would not let them back in. Once owls have been passively relocated, burrows will be NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-17 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
carefully excavated by hand and collapsed by, or under the direct supervision, of a qualified biologist.

Within 14 days of completion of the surveys, the City shall be provided with a report describing the findings, including the date, time, and duration of the surveys; identity of the surveyor(s); any established avoidance buffers in the event burrowing owls are documented to be present; and any actions taken at the direction of the City.

Western pond turtle or other special-status wildlife found within the Project site during the surveys shall be allowed to leave on its own volition prior to the onset of construction.

MM BIO-4 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Nest Protection. During the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) If Project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted on the site and vicinity by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days before any work activities, including any vegetation removal or trimming, are performed at a given Project location. The surveys shall be conducted following the sequential schedule of the linear Project in a manner that minimizes potential for the surveys to expire before the construction crews proceed to a new Project work location. The survey radii surrounding the work area shall be 250 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. Surveyors will search for all potential nest types (e.g., ground, cavity, shrub/tree, structural, etc.) and determine whether the nest is active. A nest will be determined to be active if eggs or young are present in the nest.

Upon discovery of active nests, the biological monitor will determine if there is need for a buffer or shield to minimize disturbance of the nest. Upon this determination and execution of any required minimization action, work may proceed. The extent of the determination will be based upon: acclimation of the species or individual to disturbance, nest type (cavity, tree, ground, etc.), and level and duration of construction activity. If there is a break in construction at a work location for a period of 14 or more days during nesting season, a new nesting bird survey shall be undertaken before construction is allowed to commence at that location, to determine if any nests have been established.

Bird surveys are not required outside of the nesting season (February 1 to August 31).

In the unlikely event a special-status or listed species is found nesting nearby, CDFW and USFWS will be notified, and the City will be provided with nest survey results, if requested.

When active nests are identified, monitoring for significant disturbance to the birds will NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-18 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
be implemented. Construction will not be allowed to continue unless the qualified biologist determines that no disturbance is occurring.

If evidence of bat use is observed, the approximate number and species of bats using the roost shall be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts.

If roosts or a maternity colony are determined to be present, then a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Plan) shall be prepared and implemented to mitigate for the loss of roosting habitat. The Plan shall include information pertaining to the species of bat and location of the roost, exclusion methods and roost removal procedures, compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts (including specific mitigation ratios and location of proposed mitigation) and monitoring to assess bat use of mitigation areas. This Plan shall be submitted to the City and CDFW for review and approval prior to project activities that could disturb roosting bats.
(b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? NO IMPACT. Sensitive natural communities are communities that have limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to the environmental effects of projects. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community within the proposed Project area. No impacts would occur.
(c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project area is highly urbanized and no waters or wetlands potentially under the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW occur on or adjacent to the proposed Project area. No impacts would occur.
(d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
NO IMPACT. There are no established wildlife migratory corridors or nursery sites that would be directly impacted during construction or operation of the proposed Project. The proposed Project area is not located within any Essential Habitat Connectivity Areas or Natural Landscape Blocks as identified in the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project, or within any Important Bird Areas identified by the National Audubon Society. (Caltrans and CDFW, 2010; NAS, 2023).

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-19 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
(e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The City’s General Plan includes conservation goals and policies pertaining to biological resources. Incorporation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-5 reduces potential impacts to common and protected biological resources to less than significant and is in alignment with General Plan Conservation Goal 5.10.1 G1: “The protection of fish, wildlife and their habitats, including rare and endangered species” and Conservation Policy 5.10.1 P1: “Require environmental review prior to approval of any development with the potential to degrade the habitat of any threatened or endangered species.”
There are no streams or riparian habitats located within or adjacent to the proposed Project area, therefore, the proposed Project will not impact these habitats and the proposed Project does not conflict with General Plan Conservation Goal 5.10.1 G2 or Conservation Policies 5.10.1 P2 or 5.10.1 P5.

As described in Section 4 Project Description, some vegetation and tree removal or tree trimming may be required for pole installation and vehicle access and to minimize the risk of fire by providing clearance between conductors and trees. The City Code has an ordinance (Santa Clara City Code §12.35) requiring a City permit for removing trees it defines as protected trees (§12.35.080). Additionally, the General Plan contains Conservation Policies pertaining to trees including 5.10.1 P3 (preservation of City-designated heritage trees) and 5.10.1 P4 (protection of large private and public right-of-way trees).

An arborist survey was conducted by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist and an arborist report was prepared (see Appendix D). The arborist survey identified a total of 162 trees along the proposed Project area alignment, 85 of which qualify as “protected trees” under the City’s General Plan and municipal code. No trees that the City designates as “Heritage trees” are present. Tree branches that are closer than 5 feet vertically or 10 feet horizontally to any conductor or wire would be trimmed to meet the minimum line clearance required by project engineers. The lowest conductor height would be approximately 35 to 40 feet above the ground. Under Option 1 of the proposed Project (entirely overhead), two protected trees are recommended for removal while 26 protected trees and seven additional non-protected trees may require clearance pruning. The two protected trees recommended for removal on Option 1 are located along Lafayette Street: tree #132, an olive tree located in the median approximately 470 feet northwest of Agnew Road; tree #177, a deodar cedar located on the east side of Lafayette Street across from Wyatt Drive. For Option 2 (underground and overhead combination), one protected tree is recommended for removal while 22 protected trees and 10 additional non-protected trees may require clearance pruning. The one protected tree recommended for removal on Option 2 is tree #177 as described above for Option 1. Protected trees recommended for clearance pruning for either Option 1 or Option 2 are scattered throughout the proposed Project area. The removal and clearance pruning of protected trees for the proposed Project would conflict with the City’s General Plan conservation goals and policies and the City Code. As recommended in the arborist report in Appendix D, incorporation of MM BIO-6 will ensure the proposed Project complies with the local policies and ordinances by following the tree protection requirements and recommendations of the City arborist.

Tree Protection Zone
 A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be defined by the City Arborist or City designated ISA Certified Arborist for all trees within 50 feet of any excavation that could be affected by Project activities and are intended for preservation. A TPZ will not be established for NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-20 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
trees within the project area that are not within this excavation zone. TPZ will be taken down once excavation work is completed within 50 feet. A TPZ will typically include all area within the dripline of trees to be retained.
 The TPZ will be protected by a fenced enclosure to prevent unauthorized access during project activities. Fencing shall be constructed of sturdy but open material (i.e., orange webbed construction fencing, chain-link) with a minimum height of 4 feet and secured in place. Warning signs (e.g. WARNING – Tree Protection Zone – This fence shall not be moved without approval by the City Arborist or a City designated arborist) shall be prominently displayed and visible from all sides of the TPZ fencing.  TPZ fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition, grading, staging, stockpiling, or any other construction activities, and shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete.  No construction, staging, or storage of materials, equipment or vehicles shall occur within the TPZ without advanced approval and oversight by the City Arborist or a City designated ISA Certified Arborist.
 No excess soil, excess concrete or concrete wash, chemicals, refuse or other waste shall be placed within the TPZ.
 The primary contractor shall be responsible for maintaining TPZ fencing and enforcing all TPZ guidelines outlined above throughout the course of the Project.

Canopy Pruning
 To the extent possible, any necessary canopy pruning shall be completed prior to the commencement of construction activities.
 Pruning shall be performed by a qualified tree service worker under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist following International Society of Arboriculture tree pruning best management practices. Pruning shall not be performed by construction personnel.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.4-21 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Communication for Tree Protection Compliance
 A preconstruction meeting shall be arranged for the City Arborist or City designated ISA Certified Arborist to meet with the Project Planner, Project Contractors, Onsite Project Supervisors, Tree Pruning and Removal Contractor, and/or other appropriate Project Leads to review and secure a commitment to comply with all tree protection measures. (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project area is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan. The Project area and Survey Area are located outside the Permit Area for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.5. Cultural Resources

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

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

5.5.1.1. Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is in the City of Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, CA. The Project area is 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 Project area includes residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Existing SVP transmission and distribution power lines are located near and within the Project right-of-way (ROW).

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

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Early Horizon (4,500–3,500 BP). The Early Horizon period is characterized by a mobile forager pattern throughout the Bay Area. The milling slab and handstone, as well as a variety of large, wide-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points, all emerged during this period. Local Franciscan chert dominated the Early Holocene components in the Santa Clara Valley. The Metcalf Creek Site (CA-SCL-178) yielded cultural materials as deep as 9 meters below the surface (Fitzgerald and Porcasi, 2003). New groundstone technology and the first cut shell beads in mortuaries signal a more sedentary life, regional symbolic integration, and increased regional trade in the Bay Area, beginning at about 3,500 BP, signaling the end of the Early Horizon.

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

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

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

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

Spanish Period (A.D. 1777–1821). Spanish explorers in the late 1760s and 1770s were the first Europeans to traverse the Santa Clara Valley. The first party, led by Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan Crespi, arrived in the Alviso–San Jose area in the fall of 1769. The following year, Pedro Fages led another party through the Santa Clara Valley, and in 1772 Fages returned to the same vicinity with Crespi. In 1776, the exploration party of Juan Bautista de Anza and Father Pedro Font traveled through the Santa Clara Valley.

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

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

American Period (A.D. 1848–Present). The population of the Santa Clara Valley began to expand significantly following the 1848 Gold Rush; further population expansion resulted during construction of the NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
railroad to San Francisco in 1864 and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 (Findlay and Garaventa, 1983). Throughout the late nineteenth century rancho, pueblo, and mission lands in the Santa Clara Valley were subdivided as the result of population growth, Anglo-American takeover, and the confirmation of property titles. Large cattle ranches were converted to farming of crops; this agricultural landuse pattern continued throughout the American Period. During this period, agricultural experimentation took place. After 1875, the success of many agricultural experiments and expanded access to markets via rail encouraged the development of fruit production in the Santa Clara Valley. From 1875 onward, the expanding fruit market led to innovations in fruit preservation and shipping, including: drying fruit, canning fruit, and shipping fresh fruit in refrigerated cars. This created a wider economic boom that attracted new residents to the Santa Clara Valley (Broek, 1932; Winther, 1935). The City of San Jose served as the County seat, a primary service, financial and social center. Since the 1990s, the agrarian land-use pattern has been displaced by residential housing, commercial centers, and the development of research and manufacturing facilities associated with the electronics industry. The contemporary focus on technological advancement resulted in the designation of the general region as the “Silicon Valley.”

5.5.1.3. Records Search
Aspen submitted a California Historical Resources (CHRIS) Data Request for the Project to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University requesting data within 125-foot radius of the Project area.

On April 9, 2024, the results were received identifying one previously recorded resource/site within 125-foot radius of the Project area, a historic-age site consisting of buildings and structures. This resource does not fall within the Project area and will not be impacted. Additionally, a review of the CA Built Environment Resource Directory and National Register of Historic Places identified the Agnes State Hospital campus as being directly adjacent to the Project area and will not be impacted by the Project.

Lastly, the record search identified a total of 26 cultural resources studies that have been conducted within 125-foot radius of the Project area. Of these 26 studies, 20 of them include all or a portion of the Project area (Table 5.5-1).

The records search included a review of the following registers and lists.  National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
 California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR)
 California State Historical Landmarks
 California Points of Historical Interest
 California Inventory of Historic Resources
 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory
 California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD)  City of Santa Clara Historic Survey Complete Report – 1981 Table 5.5-1. Cultural Resources Reports Within Project Area Report No. Author Year Study
S-004486 Marianne Fazio 1978 Field reconnaissance of parcels along Mission College Boulevard in Santa Clara (letter report)
S-006066 N/A 1983 Data Recovery Plan for the Guadalupe Corridor Transportation Project, Santa Clara County, California
S-008387 David Chavez 1980
Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Guadalupe Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

Santa Clara County, California
S-014230 Robert Cartier, Allika Ruby,
Jason Bass, and Mike Kelley 1992 Evaluation of Archaeological Resources for the San Jose/Santa Clara Nonpotable Water Reclamation Project NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Report No. Author Year Study
S-018367 Mark Hylkema 1995
Historic Property Survey Report and Finding of No Effect for the Proposed Ramp Metering and HOV Ramp Project, 4-SCL-101 PM

40.0/52.5, EA 132451
S-018377
Robert Cartier, Lynne
Eckert, Jeanne Goetz, and
Jon Reddington
1996
Cultural Resource Evaluation of the Santa Clara Pipe Alignment for the South Bay Water Recycling Project
S-019072
Colin I. Busby, Donna M.

Garaventa, Melody E.

Tannam, and Stuart A.

Guedon
1996
Historic Properties Treatment Plan, South Bay Water Recycling Program.

S-019424 John Holson 1997 Cultural Resources Survey for the Los Esteros Project, Santa Clara County (letter report)
S-020691 Miley P. Holman 1997
Archaeological Field Inspection of the City of Santa Clara Northern Receiving Station, Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California (letter report)
S-021137 Michael R. Corbett and
Stuart A. Guedon 1996 Archaeological Resources Review, Agnews West Campus, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California S-022705 Hannah Ballard, John
Holson, and Stephanie Pau 2000
Archaeological Survey and Record Search Results for the MCI WorldCom: Fremont, San Jose 12, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Fiber Optic Segments in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California
S-022725 Hannah Ballard, John
Holson, and Stephanie Pau 2000 Archaeological Survey and Record Search Results for the Fourteen Broadwing Bay Area Fiber Optic Segments, California: Final Report S-023356 Ward Hill 1999
Historic Property Survey Report, Montague Expressway Project, Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose and Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California
S-023400 N/A 2000 Addendum No. 1: Cultural Resources Assessment, PG&E Proposed Northeast San Jose Transmission Reinforcement Project
S-024980 Colin I. Busby 2000
Sun Microsystems Santa Clara Campus Project, Agnews West Campus, Archaeological Monitoring Closure Report, Phase 1 (July 1998 to December 1999) (letter report)
S-028016 Colin I. Busby 2002
Agnews (West) Family Housing, Rivermark Master Plan Parcel 26, Currently Vacant Parcel, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, Archaeological Monitoring Closure Report (letter report) S-033061
Nancy Sikes, Cindy
Arrington, Bryon Bass,
Chris Corey, Kevin Hunt,
Steve O'Neil, Catherine
Pruett, Tony Sawyer,
Michael Tuma, Leslie
Wagner, and Alex Wesson
2006
Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project, State of California S-036715 N/A 2009
Historic Property Survey Report/Finding of Effect, South Bay Water Recycling (SBWR) Stimulus Projects, Santa Clara Industrial 1, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County
S-039040 N/A 2008 Archaeological Assessment Report, 49ers Stadium Project - Santa Clara, Santa Clara County
S-045670 Kathleen Kubal 2014
Historic Property Survey Report, US 101 Express Lanes Project, Santa Clara County, California, Project No. 0412000459/EA 2G7100, 04-SCL-101 PM 16.00/52.55, 04-SCL-85 PM 23.0/24.1 NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Report No. Author Year Study
S-004486 Marianne Fazio 1978 Field reconnaissance of parcels along Mission College Boulevard in Santa Clara (letter report)
S-006066 N/A 1983 Data Recovery Plan for the Guadalupe Corridor Transportation Project, Santa Clara County, California
S-008387 David Chavez 1980
Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Guadalupe Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

Santa Clara County, California
S-014230 Robert Cartier, Allika Ruby,
Jason Bass, and Mike Kelley 1992 Evaluation of Archaeological Resources for the San Jose/Santa Clara Nonpotable Water Reclamation Project S-018367 Mark Hylkema 1995
Historic Property Survey Report and Finding of No Effect for the Proposed Ramp Metering and HOV Ramp Project, 4-SCL-101 PM

Garaventa, Melody E.

Tannam, and Stuart A.

Guedon
1996
Historic Properties Treatment Plan, South Bay Water Recycling Program.

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

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

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

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (§15064.5(b)(3)).

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a significant effect on the environment.

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

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

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. PRC Section 5097.5 provides for the protection of cultural resources.

This PRC section prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

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

The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for State historic preservation grant funding, and affords certain protections under CEQA. The following criteria are used when determining if a particular resource has architectural, historical, archaeological, or cultural significance.  Criterion 1: Is the resource associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States?  Criterion 2: Is the resource associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history?
 Criterion 3: Does the resource embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, method of construction, or represent the work of a master or possesses high artistic values?  Criterion 4: Has the resource yielded, or have the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation? NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan (2010-2035). The City of Santa Clara’s current General Plan provides information to the community to define acceptable development. It is a guide for decisions by the City Council, Planning Commission, and other government agencies on specific development applications. The following overarching Goals and Policies are identified with regard to architectural and built environment resources:

City of Santa Clara Historical and Landmarks Commission. To support its historic preservation goals, the City established a Historical and Landmarks Commission and obtained recognition by the State Office of Historic Preservation as a Certified Local Government (CLG). The Historical and Landmarks Commission advises the City Council on all matters pertaining to historical landmarks, names, and renaming of streets, museums and the establishment thereof in the City, and in the marking and preservation of historical landmarks and places. As required by the State CLG program, the City has established a list of Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties, which is the foundation for the Commission’s recommendations. The Criteria for Local Significance establishes evaluation measures, to ensure that the resource is at least 50 years old and that the property is associated with an important individual or event, an architectural innovation, and/or an archaeological contribution in order to be deemed significant. The City maintains a list of qualified historic consultants for these evaluations.

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

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

Updates to the Historic Preservation and Resource Inventory require an amendment to the General Plan.  Criteria for Historical or Cultural Significance. To be historically or culturally significant, a property must meet at least one of the following criteria:

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

2. The property is associated with a historical event.

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

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

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

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

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

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

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

3. The property is architecturally unique or innovative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.5.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 [§15064.5 generally defines historical resource under CEQA]? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The record search did not identify any resources that meet the definition of a historical resource within the Project area, thus no known historical resources will be impacted. Although no known historical resources have been identified within the Project area, there remains the possibility that presently unidentified historical resources exist below the ground surface, as both Project options involve some level of ground disturbance. Unknown buried resources could be damaged or destroyed during ground disturbing work, which would constitute a significant impact absent mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-1 would evaluate and protect unanticipated discoveries, thereby reducing this impact to less than significant.

MM CR-1 Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources. SVP shall conduct a worker environmental awareness program (WEAP) for Project personnel who might encounter or alter historical resources or important/unique archaeological materials during Project work. This program may be combined with any similar required program, such as for biological resources. The WEAP will include a kickoff tailgate session that describes how to identify cultural resources and NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
what to do if an unanticipated discovery is made during construction, presents site avoidance requirements and procedures to be followed if unanticipated cultural resources are discovered during Project construction, and includes a discussion of disciplinary and other actions that could be taken against persons violating historic preservation laws and SVP policies.

If previously unidentified cultural resources are identified during construction, construction work within 50 feet of the find shall be halted and directed away from the discovery until a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist assesses the significance of the resource. The archaeologist, in consultation with the City, any interested Tribes, and any other responsible public agency, shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the evaluation and mitigation of impacts if the finds are found to be eligible to the California Register, qualify as a unique archaeological resource under California Environmental Quality Act Section 21083.2, or are determined to be tribal cultural resource as defined in Section 21074.
(b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Although no known archaeological resources have been previously identified within the Project area, there remains the possibility that presently unidentified archaeological resources exist below the ground surface as both Project options involve some level of ground disturbance. Unknown buried archaeological resources could be discovered and damaged or destroyed during ground disturbing work, which would constitute a significant impact absent mitigation.

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

MM CR-1 Worker Training and Management of Unanticipated Discoveries of Historical Resources, Unique Archaeological Resources. [see full text under Item (a) above.] (c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. There is no indication that human remains are present within the Project area. Background archival research failed to find any potential for human remains (e.g., existence of formal cemeteries) in the area. However, with both Project options involving some level of ground disturbance, it is possible that previously unknown human remains could be discovered and damaged or destroyed during ground disturbance, which would constitute a significant impact absent mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-2, which requires evaluation, protection, and appropriate disposition of human remains, would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES SEPTEMBER 2024 5.5-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
After the Coroner has determined the remains are archaeological/historic-era, the Coroner will make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the Coroner believes the remains to be those of a Native American, he/she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.6. ENERGY
SEPTEMBER 2024 5.6-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.6. Energy
ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.6.1. Setting
Silicon Valley Power, the City of Santa Clara’s municipal electric utility, owns power generation facilities, has investments in joint ventures that produce electric power, and trades power on the open market.

These efforts are directed toward ensuring its retail electricity customers (the citizens, organizations, and businesses of the City of Santa Clara) a highly reliable source of electric power at low, stable rates (City of Santa Clara, 2024).

SVP is proposing to construct approximately 2.24 miles of a new overhead and/or partially 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 SVP electric load has been growing in recent years, as evidenced by electricity consumption data gathered by the California Energy Commission shown in Table 5.6-1 (CEC, 2023a).

Table 5.6-1. Electricity Consumption for Load Served by SVP (million kWh per year) Sector, Served by SVP 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021
Ag & Water Pump 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09
Commercial Building 2393.16 2437.06 2547.24 2835.04 3164.39 Commercial Other 41.52 43.80 44.25 42.40 39.10
Industry 862.57 821.66 816.73 835.54 852.06
Mining & Construction 24.74 35.63 46.50 73.54 96.72
Residential 226.01 234.49 264.73 241.90 261.80
Streetlight 3.50 3.00 3.00 4.39 4.39
Total Electricity Consumption 3551.53 3575.73 3722.54 4032.90 4418.54 Note: Usage expressed in millions of kWh (one million kWh equals one gigawatt-hour or GWh).

Source: CEC, 2024; Electricity Consumption by Entity.

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.6. ENERGY
SEPTEMBER 2024 5.6-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). Electric utilities in California must procure a minimum quantity of the electricity sales from eligible renewable energy resources as specified by RPS requirements. The most-recent update to the RPS targets was in 2018, with the “100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018” [Senate Bill 100 (SB 100)], which establishes the policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. SB 100 requires the CPUC and CEC to ensure that implementation of this policy does not cause or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions increases elsewhere in the western power grid.

Integrated Resource Planning. An Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) is an electricity system planning document that lays out the energy resource needs, policy goals, physical and operational constraints, and the general priorities or proposed resource choices of an electric utility, including customer-side preferred resources. Through Senate Bill 350 (De León, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) (SB 350), the publicly owned utilities (POU) such as SVP must adopt and file an IRP that is subject to a review by the CEC for consistency with statewide targets for energy efficiency, renewable resources, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The IRP must also consider how renewable generation, grid operational efficiencies, energy storage, and distributed resources (including energy efficiency) serve to meet the peak hour energy and reliability needs. On December 5, 2023, the City Council approved SVP’s most-recent IRP (SVP, 2023), and SVP transmitted the 2023 IRP to the CEC for review in May 2024.

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

5.6.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Construction activities would consume nonrenewable energy resources, primarily petroleum-based transportation fuels (diesel and gasoline), to power construction equipment and vehicles. The short-term use of fuels by equipment and motor vehicle trips during construction would be necessary to install the transmission line. The total energy requirements during construction are not quantified within the Project Description. However, the use of nonrenewable resources can be estimated in terms of the volumes of diesel and gasoline, by reviewing the products of combustion of these fuels (e.g., the quantities of greenhouse gases would be directly proportional to the volumes of fuels used).

Based on the anticipated quantities of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions estimated as 641 metric tons of CO2e (in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions), approximately 63,000 gallons of diesel fuel5 would likely be used for Project construction over approximately 14 months.

To put these volumes into perspective, data from the CEC indicate that California’s refineries normally produce around 2.0 million barrels per week of diesel and 6.2 million barrels per week of gasoline (CEC, 2023b). This amounts to statewide production of roughly 12 million gallons of diesel and 37.2 million gallons of gasoline each day. In comparison, the total diesel fuel volume used during the entirety of Project construction (63,000 gallons) would represent less than a percent of California’s typical daily production volume (12 million gallons per day).
5 Note: The volume of diesel fuel used can be approximated from an emission factor of 10.2 kg CO2 per gallon, based on the fuel heating value (0.138 million British thermal units per gallon) multiplied by the default CO2 emission factor (73.96 kg CO2 per million British thermal unit), in Table 2-3 of Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 95115.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.6. ENERGY
SEPTEMBER 2024 5.6-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Operations, including inspection, patrol, and maintenance of the Project components would also require use of fossil fuel resources for routine upkeep. The energy used by the Project during construction and operation would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary considering the new facilities that would increase system reliability, and no potentially significant environmental impact would occur due to the direct or indirect energy consumption of the Project.
(b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would increase SVP’s system capacity and reliability. The transmission line will allow energy to be balanced and redistributed within SVP's transmission receiving stations. This line will allow SVP to serve the new load growth that is projected based on SVP’s forecasted load growth within the City over the next several years. The Project would neither conflict with nor obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and, therefore, would have no impact on those plans. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.7. Geology and Soils

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ (c) Be located on geologic units or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?*
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
*Geology and Soils question (d) reflects the current 2016 California Building Code (CBC), which is based on the International Building Code (2015), effective January 1, 2017. The CBC is updated every three years.

Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

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

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.7.1.1. Regional Geologic Setting
The Project site is in the Santa Clara Valley, a relatively flat, elongate alluvial basin, in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Santa Clara Valley is part of large structural depression that extends from south of Hollister to north of Santa Rosa and includes the San Pablo and San Francisco Bays (Norris & Webb, 1976). The Santa Clara Valley is bordered on the west and southwest by the Santa Cruz Mountains and on the east by the Diablo Mountain Range. The San Francisco Bay borders the Santa Clara Valley to the north, west, and east along its shorelines. The average slope of the valley floor ranges from nearly flat to about 2 percent grade, with the surrounding hillsides having steeper grades (City of Santa Clara, 2011).

The Coast Ranges geomorphic province is characterized by ridges and valleys and by strongly deformed sedimentary and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex and sediments deposited by a series of merging alluvial fans formed by streams draining from the adjacent mountains during recent geologic times. The area’s groundwater aquifers occur in the alluvial sediments. The alluvial deposits in the Santa Clara Valley are derived from the Diablo Range and Santa Cruz Mountains. In the north-central area of the Santa Clara Valley, the alluvial deposits are interbedded with bay and lacustrine deposits. Soil types in the area include clay (low-lying central areas), loam and gravelly loam (northern area of the Santa Clara Valley), and eroded rock clay loam (foothills) (City of Santa Clara, 2011).

5.7.1.2. Local Geology
Most of the City is located on a gently sloping area of the valley floor in the north-central portion of the Santa Clara Valley. The City is primarily situated on alluvial fan deposits consisting of gravel, sand and finer sediments. Natural levee deposits consisting of silt and clay are located along the City’s major streams.

Man-made engineered levees for flood control have been constructed over many but not all of the natural levee deposits (City of Santa Clara, 2011). The Project area is mapped as being underlain by alluvial surficial sediments consisting of Holocene alluvial clay soil which includes bay mud deposits (Dibblee and Minch, 2005) and Holocene fine grained alluvial fan deposits generally containing large percentages of clay and fat clay (CGS, 2001). Based on Pleistocene alluvium contour mapping Pleistocene alluvium is located between approximately 30 to 35 feet below ground surface (Helley, 1990).

Artificial Fill. Although not mapped along the Project alignment or immediate vicinity (Dibblee and Minch, 2005), artificial fill, often referred to as undocumented or man-made fill, has been placed throughout the City in developed areas and likely underlies portions of the Project alignment. Generally, artificial fill consists of varying amounts of sand, clay, and gravel, and may have local areas of man-made debris such as lumber, concrete and brick fragments, and industrial slag materials in areas of undocumented or very old fill. Consistency of the clays range from soft to very stiff, and density of the sands range from very loose to medium dense. The artificial fills in the City include materials that were placed to fill in naturally low areas, to create building pads and roadways, and to construct landfills. In some cases, older, nonengineered fills have been placed in the City of Santa Clara without standards for fill materials or compaction. Building on non-engineered fills can result in the excessive settlement of structures, pavements, and utilities. However, artificial fills placed using current engineering practices would avoid impacts from excessive or differential settlement (City of Santa Clara, 2011).

5.7.1.3. Soils
Soils within the Project area reflect the underlying rock type, the extent of weathering of the rock, the degree of slope, and the degree of human modification. The Project route is underlain by four soil associations, identified from south to north as the Urban Land, Urban Land-Hangerone complex, Urban Land–Clear Lake complex, and the Urban Land–Campbell complex (NRCS, 2024). These soils are all identified as occurring on basin floors with slopes of 0 to 2 percent. Urban Land is a miscellaneous area, NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
identified by the NRCS as having little to no soil material and supports little to no vegetation; Urban Land soil parent material consists of disturbed and human transported material. The Hangerone component of the Urban Land-Hangerone complex is poorly drained and consists primarily of clay, with some clay and gravelly loam, the Clear Lake component of the Urban Land-Clear Lake complex is poorly drained and consists of silty clay, and the Campbell component of the Urban Land – Campbell complex is moderately well drained and consists of silt loam, silty clay loam, and silty clay (NRCS, 2024). The parent material for the Hangerone, Clear Lake, and Campbell components of the above complexes is alluvium derived from metamorphic and sedimentary rock and/or alluvium derived from metavolcanics (NRCS, 2024).

Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink and swell) due to changes in soil moisture content. Change in soil moisture can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soils are typically very fine grained with a high to very high percentage of clay. Such soil conditions can affect the structural integrity of buildings and other structures. Soils with moderate to high shrink-swell potential would be classified as expansive soils. Expansion potential of the Urban Land soils underlying the proposed Project route is undetermined, however the Hangerone, Clear Lake, and Campbell components of the soil complexes underlying the Project all have very high linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential) (NRCS, 2024).

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

Potential soil erosion hazards vary depending on the use, conditions, and textures of the soils. The properties of soil that influence erosion by rainfall and runoff are those that affect the infiltration capacity of a soil and those that affect the resistance of a soil to detachment and being carried away by flowing water.

Soils containing high percentages of fine sands and silt and that are low in density, are generally the most erodible. Additionally, soils on steeper slopes would be more susceptible to erosion due to the effects of increased surface flow (runoff) on slopes where there is little time for water to infiltrate before runoff occurs. With increasing clay and organic matter content of soils, the potential for erosion decreases. Clays act as a binder to soil particles, reducing the potential for erosion. Soil erosion hazards are not identified for the Urban Land soils, however the Hangerone and Clear Lake components of two of the soil complexes have moderate potential for both wind and water erosion and the Campbell component of the third soil complex underlying the Project has moderate to low potential for wind erosion and moderate to high potential for erosion by water (NRCS, 2024).

5.7.1.4. Subsidence
Land subsidence can occur in valleys containing aquifer systems that are, in part, made up of fine-grained sediments and that have undergone extensive groundwater development. Land subsidence is generally characterized by a broad zone of deformation where differential settlements are small. The main cause of subsidence in California is groundwater pumping. As groundwater is withdrawn, the pore-fluid pressure in the sediments decreases, allowing the weight of the overlying sediment to permanently compact or compress the fine-grained units. This effect is most pronounced in younger, unconsolidated sediments.

The effects of subsidence include damage to buildings and infrastructure, increased flood risk in low-lying areas, and lasting damage to groundwater aquifers and aquatic ecosystems.

Between about 1915 and 1969, the northern portion of Santa Clara County experienced as much as 13 feet of subsidence due to excessive pumping of groundwater. Over 100 square miles were affected. from San Jose to southern San Francisco Bay (SCCVWD, 2024). The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s aquifer NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
recharge efforts started in the mid-1930s. Creating ponds and reservoirs, importing water, and implementing a pumping tax in 1964 proved successful in allowing groundwater levels to recover (USGS, 2024a).

By about 1970, subsidence was essentially halted because of investments in reservoirs, diversification of water supplies, and groundwater recharge, along with management programs that allowed groundwater conditions to recover (SCCWD, 2024).

5.7.1.5. Slope Stability
Important factors that affect the slope stability of an area include the steepness of the slope, the relative strength of the underlying rock material, and the thickness and cohesion of the overlying colluvium and alluvium. The steeper the slope and/or the less strong the rock, the more likely the area will be susceptible to landslides. The steeper the slope and the thicker the colluvium, the more likely the area is susceptible to debris flows. Another indication of unstable slopes is the presence of old or recent landslides or debris flows.

The proposed Project is on the gently sloping and nearly flat valley floor, is along flat graded parcels and would not be subject to landslides. According to landslide hazard mapping compiled by the County of Santa Clara (2012), the City of Santa Clara and the proposed Project area are not within any landslide hazard zones and the California Geological Survey (CGS) does not map and any landslide hazard zones within the city nor at or near the proposed Project (CGS, 2024a).

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

Engineered solutions can also be considered by a licensed engineer operating within his or her field of practice.
 Age-undetermined faults: Faults where the recency of fault movement has not been determined.

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

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
The Project area will be subject to regional ground shaking associated with earthquakes on faults of the San Andreas fault system. Active faults of the San Andreas system are predominantly strike-slip faults accommodating translational movement between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates.

Active and potentially active faults within 50 miles of the approximate center of the proposed Project that are significant potential seismic sources relative to the proposed Project are presented in Table 5.7-1.

Table 5.7-1. Significant Active and Potentially Active Faults within 50 miles of the Proposed Project Fault Name
Distance1
(miles)
Estimated Maximum
Magnitude2,3 Fault Type1
Hayward–Rodgers Creek 5.32 6.8–7.3 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Monte Vista–Shannon 6.92 6.5 Thrust Fault, dips 45°W
Calaveras 8.82 6.4–7.0 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip San Andreas 11.12 7.1-7.9 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Zayante-Vergeles 20.7 7.0 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Greenville Connected 23.9 7.0 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip San Gregorio Connected 24.9 7.5 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Mount Diablo Thrust 24.6 6.7 Blind Thrust, dips 38° NE
Great Valley 7 33.5 6.9 Blind Thrust, dips 15° W
Monterey Bay–Tularcitos 33.6 7.3 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Green Valley Connected 35.3 6.8 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip Ortigalita 38.0 7.1 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip
Great Valley 5, Pittsburg Kirby Hills 43.7 6.7 Blind Thrust (reverse), dips 90° Great Valley 8 43.9 6.8 Blind Thrust, dips 15° W
Quien Sabe 45.6 6.6 Right Lateral Strike Slip, 90◦ dip
1 Fault distances and type obtained from the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps – Source Parameters website (USGS, 2024b).

Fault distances measured to generalized to the National Seismic Hazard Map (NSHM) fault trace. 2 Fault distance modified using USGS and CGS Quaternary Faults data (USGS and CGS, 2024). 3 Maximum Earthquake Magnitude – the maximum earthquake that appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework; magnitude listed is “Ellsworth-B” magnitude from USGS 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters unless otherwise noted.
4 Range of Magnitude represents varying potential rupture scenarios with single or multiple segments rupturing in various combinations.

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

While the closest fault to the Project site is the active Hayward fault (part of the Hayward-Rodgers Creek fault zone), no known active or potentially active faults are mapped crossing or immediately adjacent to the Project site (CGS, 2024a). Additionally, the City of Santa Clara is not crossed by any faults zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (CGS, 2024a; City of Santa Clara, 2011). There is no risk of surface fault rupture at the Project site.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Ground Shaking
An earthquake is classified by the amount of energy released, which traditionally has been quantified using the Richter scale. Recently, seismologists have begun using a Moment Magnitude (M) scale because it provides a more accurate measurement of the size of major and great earthquakes. For earthquakes of less than M 7.0, the Moment and Richter Magnitude scales are nearly identical. For earthquake magnitudes greater than M 7.0, readings on the Moment Magnitude scale are slightly greater than a corresponding Richter Magnitude. Numerous moderate and large earthquakes have occurred within 50 miles of the Project site, including 44 earthquakes of M 5.5 or greater, which includes 16 earthquakes of M 6.0 to M 6.9, and one earthquake of greater than M 7.0 (USGS, 2024c). Catastrophically damaging earthquakes in the Project area include:
 M6.9 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake – resulted in 63 dead, 3,737 injured, and $6 billion in property damage in the region;
 M7.9 1906 San Francisco Earthquake – resulted in 3,000 dead and $524 million in property damage (includes damage from fire); and the
 M6.8 1868 Hayward Fault Earthquake – 30 dead and $350,000 in property damage (USGS, 2024c; CGS, 2024b).

The City is located in a region characterized by a moderate to high ground shaking hazard. (City of Santa Clara, 2011). Periodic earthquakes accompanied by surface displacement can be expected to continue in the region.

The intensity of the seismic shaking, or strong ground motion, along the proposed Project route during an earthquake depends on the distance between the Project area and the epicenter of the earthquake, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the geologic conditions underlying and surrounding the Project.

Earthquakes occurring on faults closest to the Project area would most likely generate the largest ground motion. Earthquake damage resulting from ground shaking is determined by several factors: the magnitude of an earthquake, depth of focus, distance from the fault, intensity and duration of shaking, local groundwater and soil conditions, presence of hillsides, structural design, and the quality of workmanship and materials used in construction. Earthquake shaking hazards are commonly calculated by projecting earthquake rates based on earthquake history and fault slip rates, the same data used for calculating earthquake probabilities. The Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map (PSHM) for California was used to estimate ground shaking hazards along the proposed Project (CGS, 2016). The PSHM for California shows the relative intensity of ground shaking from intermediate-period (1.0 second) earthquake shaking related to anticipated future earthquakes. Intermediate-period (1.0 second) shaking affects tall, relatively flexible buildings, but also correlates well with overall earthquake damage. The shaking potential is calculated as the level of ground motion that has a 2% chance of being exceeded in 50 years, which is the same as the level of ground-shaking with a 2475-year average repeat time. The estimated intermediate-period (1.0 second) ground accelerations for the entire route is 1.15 g, which represents a potential for strong ground shaking (CGS, 2016).

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which saturated granular sediments temporarily lose their shear strength during periods of earthquake-induced strong ground shaking. The susceptibility of a site to liquefaction is a function of the depth, density, and water content of the granular sediments and the magnitude and frequency of earthquakes in the region. Saturated, unconsolidated silts, sands, and silty sands within 50 feet of the ground surface are most susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction-related phenomena include lateral spreading, ground oscillation, flow failures, loss of bearing strength, subsidence, and buoyancy effects (Youd and Perkins, 1978). In addition, densification of the soil resulting in vertical settlement NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
of the ground can occur. To determine liquefaction susceptibility of a region, three major factors are considered: the density and textural characteristics of the alluvial sediments; the intensity and duration of ground shaking; and the depth to groundwater.

The City of Santa Clara is almost entirely within a zone of liquefaction hazard, including the proposed Project area (County of Santa Clara, 2012). Ground failure caused by liquefaction is thus a substantial concern for much of the City’s development. The Project site is within a mapped CGS liquefaction hazard zone (CGS, 2024a). Additionally, the Project area is underlain by potentially liquefiable young alluvial sediments with shallow (less than 10 feet below ground surface) to artesian water levels (water levels that flow to the surface) (CGS, 2001; DWR, 2024).

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

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

Pleistocene alluvial sediments may be found at depths of 30 to 35 feet below Holocene alluvium in the Project area (Helley, 1990).

The Project route is underlain by artificial fill over young channel deposited alluvial sediments which have no and low paleontological sensitivity, respectively; the young alluvial sediments are unlikely to have significant fossils due to their age and their high energy method of deposition. The greatest anticipated depth of any excavation along the proposed Project would be approximately 20 to 35 feet (dependent upon pole height) for the 115 kV transmission line tubular steel poles and pole foundations with a typical auger diameter of 8 feet. All other excavations would be at shallower depths.

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

The International Building Code (IBC). The International Building Code (IBC) is published by the International Code Council (ICC). The scope of this code covers major aspects of the design and construction NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
and structures and buildings, except for three-story one- and two-family dwellings and town homes. The International Building Code has replaced the Uniform Building Code as the basis for the California Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. The 2018 IBC addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire- and life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.

State
The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 (CBC, 2023). The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 provides building codes and standards for design and construction of structures in California. The 2023 CBC is based on the 2021 International Building Code with the addition of more extensive structural seismic provisions. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures.

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

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

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. PRC Section 5097.5 provides for the protection of cultural resources.

This PRC section prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Local
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The purpose of the City’s safety policies is to identify potential hazards and measures that can lessen risks for the City’s population and property (City of Santa Clara, 2014).

Policies in the General Plan related to geologic hazards and paleontologic resources that apply to the proposed Project are listed below.
 Policy 5.10.5‐P7. Implement all recommendations and design solutions identified in project soils reports to reduce potential adverse effects associated with unstable soils or seismic hazards.  Policy 5.6.3‐P2. Encourage salvage and preservation of scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials.  Policy 5.6.3‐P4. Require that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist monitor all grading and/or excavation if there is a potential to affect archeological or paleontological resources, including sites within 500 feet of natural water courses and in the Old Quad neighborhood.  Policy 5.6.3‐P5. In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are discovered, require that work be suspended until the significance of the find and recommended actions are determined by a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist.

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

NO IMPACT. No Alquist-Priolo mapped or other known faults cross the proposed Project or are immediately adjacent to it. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to be damaged by fault rupture and no project activities would result in triggering or directly or indirectly causing primary fault rupture. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed Project would be in an area mapped as likely to experience strong ground shaking in the event of a large earthquake. The area has historically experienced moderate to severe ground shaking due to the numerous earthquakes that have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area. These earthquakes have resulted in deaths and injuries and severe damage to property and structures.

Except during construction there would be no full-time onsite workers. The would be no occupied structures as part of the Project. During operations, workers will be onsite periodically for as needed inspections and maintenance. The proposed Project may be subject to strong ground shaking during the Project’s lifetime. While the potential for seismically induced ground shaking in the proposed Project area during Project operation is unavoidable, the transmission line structures would be designed to meet or exceed all applicable local and State seismic design criteria. Design of these structures to all appropriate seismic design criteria reduces the potential for loss, injury, or death of workers or the public to less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed Project is within a CGS liquefaction hazard zone and is underlain by potentially liquefiable alluvial sediments and very shallow groundwater.

Therefore, the potential for liquefaction-related damage to the transmission line structures is high. The transmission line structures would be designed to appropriate local and State guidelines. However, to ensure that direct and indirect impacts associated with seismically induced ground failures or liquefaction would be less than significant, mitigation measure MM G-1 (Conduct Geotechnical Investigations for NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Liquefaction) shall be implemented prior to final Project design to ensure that people or structures are not exposed to hazards from the Project associated with earthquake-induced liquefaction.

Finalized Project design incorporating geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City 60 days prior to Project construction.
iv. Landslides?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would be located on a flat to relatively flat graded area on the gently sloping Santa Clara Valley floor and no known landslides have occurred in the Project vicinity. The Project route is not located within or near any CGS designated landslide hazard area (CGS, 2024a). Therefore, landslides and other slope failures are highly unlikely to occur and there would be no impact related to landslides or slope instability.
(b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The Project route is in a flat to nearly flat urban area and grading would not be required for the proposed project. Excavation for tubular steel poles and foundations would occur as part of Project construction. Excavation/trenching for duct banks and vaults would occur under Option 2, to construct the underground segment. Surface disturbing activities such as excavation and trenching will be required for construction of the proposed Project but would be done in compliance with regulations pertaining to sediment and runoff control. Best management practices for sediment control would be implemented to manage temporary soil stockpiles. In addition, as noted in Section 5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) or erosion control plan would be required under mitigation measure MM HYD-1 to address surface water quality.

Implementation of this measure would ensure that the potential erosion or loss of topsoil is limited and reduced to a less than significant impact.

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Additionally, as discussed above in Item (a)(iv) regarding landslides, there would be no impact from landslides as the proposed Project is located on and traverses flat to gently sloping terrain and would not be subject to landslides. Although the Project site is in an area with known historic subsidence, subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley has been controlled/stopped due to activities and procedures put in place by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Project will not construct any new groundwater extraction wells and would not contribute to declining water levels and subsidence. Thus, there would be no impact from subsidence.

Mitigation Measure for Seismically Induced Liquefaction MM G-1 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations. (See full text above.) (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Mapping by the NRCS indicates that the proposed Project is underlain by soil mapped as Urban Land, Urban Land-Hangerone complex, Urban Land–Clear Lake complex, and the Urban Land–Campbell complexes. Urban Land soils unit have undetermined expansive potential, however the Hagerone, Clear Lake, and Campbell components of the soil complexes underlying the proposed Project have very high expansive potential (NRCS, 2024). Expansive soils could impact the integrity and stability of above and underground structures, including tubular steel poles and pole foundations, and duct banks and vaults (Option 2), potentially resulting in damage to structures and potentially injuring workers or the public. Compliance with local and State design requirements would reduce potential impacts from expansive soils. However, to ensure that direct and indirect impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant, mitigation measure MM G-1 (Conduct Geotechnical Investigations) shall be implemented prior to final Project design to ensure that people or structures are not exposed to hazards from the Project associated with expansive soils.

Mitigation Measure for Expansive Soils
MM G-1 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations. (See full text above.) (e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? NO IMPACT. The proposed Project would not include any components requiring septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, there would be no impact. (f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed Project is anticipated to disturb the ground surface for excavation and grading. Geologic units underlying the site consist of undetermined depths of artificial fill, Holocene alluvium, and Pleistocene alluvium. Depth to Pleistocene alluvium at the site is estimated at 30 to 35 feet below ground surface (Helley, 1990). The Project excavation for the tubular steel pole foundations may exceed these depths in some limited locations, therefore, there is a small chance that Project ground disturbance for the pole excavations could potentially encounter older Quaternary alluvium (Pleistocene alluvial sediments) near the bottom of the auger holes that may contain unique paleontological resources. The possibility that previously unknown paleontological resources could be discovered and damaged or destroyed during Project ground disturbance would potentially constitute a significant impact absent mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measure MM G-2 would evaluate and protect unanticipated discoveries of unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features, thereby reducing this potential impact to a less than significant level.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.7-12 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Mitigation Measure for Paleontological Resources
MM G-2 Worker Training and Management of Paleontological Resources. A paleontologist must be retained who meets the professional paleontologist qualifications (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Standard Procedures, 2010) and has demonstrated experience in carrying paleontological projects to completion. The qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for potentially encountered paleontological resources, and training shall be provided for all staff who will be onsite during excavations. The WEAP shall show what local Pleistocene fossils look like in general, where they may appear in the Project, and how to proceed should material suspected to be a fossil is encountered.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.8-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

5.8.1. Setting
Effects of GHG Emissions. Global climate is altered by the effects of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, creating what is commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” These gasses trap some of the heat radiated from the Earth’s surface, thereby warming the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is driven mainly by water vapor, aerosols, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and other constituents.

Globally, the presence of GHG affects temperatures, precipitation, sea levels, ocean currents, wind patterns, and storm activity and intensity. The standard definition of anthropogenic GHG emissions of concern includes six primary pollutants: CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The most important and widely occurring anthropogenic GHG is CO2, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels as a source of energy.

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

GHG Emissions Trends. California first formalized a strategy to achieve GHG reductions in 2008, when California produced approximately 484 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e) according to the official Air Resources Board inventory. Statewide emissions have been declining in recent years.

California’s sources of GHG emitted approximately 381 MMTCO2e in 2021 (CARB, 2023). Globally, annual average GHG emissions were 56,000 MMTCO2e per year for the decade 2010-2019 (IPCC, 2022). In this global context, California emits less than one percent of the global anthropogenic GHG.

Regulatory Background
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)]. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) required that California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The reduction is being accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on global warming emissions beginning in 2012. AB 32 directs the ARB to develop regulations and a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels (AB 32, Chapter 488, Statutes of NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.8-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
2006). AB 32 requires ARB to update the Scoping Plan at least every 5 years. Accordingly, the ARB released a 2022 Scoping Plan Update in November 2022 (CARB, 2022), which outlines a roadmap to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

In passing AB 32, the California Legislature found that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (17 CCR 95100 to 95158). The ARB Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, or mandatory reporting rule, applies to electric power distribution companies and to fossil fuel electricity generating facilities with a nameplate capacity equal or greater than 1 MW capacity. As an Electric Power Entity under this rule, SVP must report GHG emissions associated with providing electricity to end-use customers.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.8-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Cap-and-Trade Program (17 CCR 95801 to 96022). The California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms Regulation (Cap-and-Trade Program) was initially approved by ARB in 2011. The Cap-and-Trade Program applies to covered entities that fall within certain source categories, including first deliverers of electricity (such as fossil fuel power plants) and electrical distribution utilities, such as SVP. The covered entities must hold compliance instruments sufficient to cover the actual GHG emissions, as evidenced through the mandatory reporting rule requirements. This means that SVP, as an electrical distribution utility, bears the GHG compliance obligation for electricity delivered to endusers that are not otherwise covered entities in the Cap-and-Trade Program.

Emission Reductions of SF6 from Gas Insulated Equipment (17 CCR 95350 to 95359). To reduce GHG emissions from electricity transmission and distribution equipment, ARB adopted a regulation for reducing or phasing-out SF6 emissions from electric power system gas insulated switchgear. Reporting and inventorying requirements under this regulation apply to equipment, such as circuit breakers and transformers, at existing substations owned and operated by SVP. The proposed Project would not involve any change in SVP’s existing gas insulated equipment covered by this rule.

City of Santa Clara, Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Santa Clara Climate Action Plan updated and adopted on June 7, 2022, aligns the City’s strategies with evolving state and local requirements for climate planning to achieve SB 32 targets for 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045 (City of Santa Clara, 2022). By building on the prior Climate Action Plan adopted in 2013, the 2022 update accounts for the effects of ongoing state and local actions for reducing GHG identifies additional actions to further reduce GHG and evaluates actions enhance climate resiliency throughout the City. The City’s 2022 CAP envisions a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 (SB 32), with an interim target of an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2035, as it moves toward a 2045 goal of net carbon neutrality (EO B-55-18) (City of Santa Clara, 2022).

5.8.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The proposed construction activities may include mobilizing construction equipment, crews, and materials, excavating holes for poles, trenching for underground vault and cable installation, installing concrete foundations and equipment, installing poles, and stringing conductors.

These activities during construction would cause GHG emissions from combustion of fuels used by the construction vehicles and equipment. Diesel and gasoline-powered construction equipment would include trucks for materials and crews, and the following types of equipment: backhoes, loaders, excavators, drill rigs, pumps, welders, pavers, rollers and generators. Equipment and motor vehicles would directly emit CO2, CH4, and N2O due to fuel use and combustion.

The resulting one-time quantity of GHG emitted during the 14-month period of construction would be around 641 MTCO2e (Appendix C) for the overhead option, based on use of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod; v. 2022.1.1.22). These one-time project-level emissions would cease at the conclusion of construction when activities transition to routine O&M. The one-time project-level construction emissions would cease at the conclusion of construction and would be well below the threshold level of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for annually recurring emissions from stationary sources (BAAQMD, 2023). Upon completion of construction, operation of the Project would not result in a notable incremental increase in GHG emissions from the baseline O&M activities conducted by SVP. The impact associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant. Therefore, the impact associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.8-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
(b) Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. California’s regulatory setting for GHG emissions ensures that most of the existing and foreseeable GHG sources in electric power sector are subject to one or more programs aimed at reducing GHG. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update (ARB, 2022) provides an outline of actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The scoping plan requires ARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs.

The proposed Project would generate limited quantities of direct GHG emissions from the construction and O&M activities. The mix of sources power delivered to the end-use customers would not change as a result of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would improve the infrastructure used in delivery of SVP’s energy supply and would not affect SVP’s ability to supply renewable energy.

California’s Cap-and-Trade regulation is the major climate program covering Project-related GHG emissions.

Construction and O&M activities would cause GHG emissions due to fuels used by the vehicles and equipment. The end-users of motor vehicle fuels like gasoline and diesel may include construction contractors that are not otherwise designated as covered entities in the Cap-and-Trade program, and these do not directly bear the Cap-and-Trade compliance obligation. However, all fuel suppliers must cover the end-user’s GHG emissions. Because the Project-related GHG emissions, including construction-phase emissions and the operational-phase mobile source emissions, would be caused by use of fuels that are “covered” by the fuel suppliers subject to Cap-and-Trade requirements, these emissions would not conflict California’s progress towards achieving GHG reductions.

As it does now, SVP would comply with ARB SF6 regulations to inventory, report, and minimize SF6 leaks through the use of new technology. The proposed Project would not add or modify any gas-insulated equipment in SVP’s existing inventory and would not change the use of SF6 in equipment. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable GHG management plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-1 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS

5.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Significance criteria established by CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G.

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

5.9.1.1. Existing and Past Land Uses
Existing and past land use activities are commonly used as indicators of sites or areas with the potential for hazardous material storage and use or potential environmental contamination to have occurred. For example, many current and historic industrial sites have contaminated soil or groundwater with hazardous substances. Other hazardous materials sources include leaking underground tanks in commercial and rural areas, contaminated surface runoff from polluted sites, and plumes of contaminated groundwater.

The proposed Project area is in an urban area with a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses, with residential uses having increased significantly in density since the 1990s.

5.9.1.2. Hazardous Materials
Construction activities routinely involve use and storage of hazardous materials such as cleaning solvents, paints, adhesives, vehicle fuels, oil, hydraulic fluid, and other vehicle and equipment maintenance fluids. The use and storage of such materials must comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Use of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed Project would primarily consist of fluids and fuels for construction equipment and vehicles; limited quantities of cleaning solvents, paints, and adhesives may also be used. Fueling of construction equipment and vehicles would take place in designated areas. Hazardous The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials used in construction and operation and NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-2 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
maintenance of the proposed Project would be carried out in accordance with federal, state, and county regulations. No extremely hazardous substances (i.e., those governed pursuant to Title 40, Part 335 of the Code of Federal Regulations) are anticipated to be produced, used, stored, transported, or disposed of as a result of the proposed Project’s construction.

5.9.1.3. Environmental Contamination
The proposed Project route is in a fully developed urban environment and passes through areas developed as residential, business park, commercial, and light industrial properties. A review of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker (SWRCB, 2024) and California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor (DTSC, 2024a) databases revealed there are 37 GeoTracker and five EnviroStor listings for sites with current or past environmental contamination within 0.25-miles of the proposed Project route. Several listings represent more than one property address/physical site. Of the GeoTracker listings, 10 are Cleanup Program listings and 27 are leaking underground storage tank (LUST) listings (SWRCB, 2024). All 27 of the LUST sites are listed as completed case closed. The EnviroStor sites include two State Response/NPL listings and three Voluntary Agreement cleanup listings. A summary of the GeoTracker Cleanup Program listings and the EnviroStor listings is presented in Table 5.9-1.

Table 5.9-1. Known Environmentally Contaminated Sites within 0.25-mile of the proposed Project Site Name Address
Distance and
Direction from
Alignment
Database
and Status Summary
SWRCB GeoTracker Sites
Shaheen
Property
4767 Lafayette
Street, Santa Clara
130 feet E Cleanup
Program,
Completed –
Case Closed
Petroleum contaminated soil removed
from former gas station and petroleum
groundwater contamination naturally
attenuated – No Further Action Case
Closed issued in 2014
Anderson
Construction
390 Norman Ave,
Santa Clara
675 feet W Cleanup
Program, Open
– Verification
Monitoring
Site overlies shallow volatile organic
compound (VOC) contaminated groundwater plume from neighboring property – Soil Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System
installed and ongoing monitoring for new
office building
Andite, Inc. 1440 Norman Ave,
Santa Clara
785 feet W Cleanup
Program, Open
– Site
Assessment
From 1964 to 1985, Anadite owned and
operated a hard anodizing plant at the
Site. Two groundwater plumes are present
at the Site: VOCs and chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons (CAHs). Former source areas
are located at the solvent dip tanks
(northeast of the Site) and the former
chemical storage areas (south of the Site).

Bioaugmentation Pilot Testing conducted
at site in 2004 b- 2005. Assessment,
delineation of plume, and groundwater
monitoring are ongoing.

Pacific
Production
Consulting
600 Laurelwood
Road
1250 feet E Cleanup
Program,
Completed -
Case Closed
Soil and non-potable shallow groundwater
contaminated by chlorinated solvents.

Remedial activities included excavation
and disposal of impacted soil and
groundwater bio injection. Remnant
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Site Name Address
Distance and
Direction from
Alignment
Database
and Status Summary
contamination below commercial/
industrial use levels remain. Groundwater
plume appears to be naturally attenuating
as of 2014. Site was closed in 2016 with a
DEED Restriction on types of property use
and no groundwater extraction
3060 Raymond
Street
Renovation
3060 Raymond
Street, Santa Clara
670 feet NW
of southern
terminus
Cleanup
Program, Open
– Site
Assessment
Historical industrial uses at and near site.

Subsurface investigations revealed
contaminants of concern in soil, soil vapor,
and groundwater including VOCs,
petroleum products and byproducts, pesticides, heavy metals. Site Management Plan prepared in 2023 and assessment
monitoring ongoing.

Comstock
Industrial
Properties
795-805 Comstock
St, Santa Clara
505 feet E Cleanup
Program,
CompletedCase Closed
Contamination from previous industrial
site uses. Low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected,
pesticides and metals were encountered in
some samples above regulatory levels in
the soil. Low levels of pesticides were
encountered in groundwater, and VOCs
were detected in soil vapor. Residual
contamination remains in on-site soil,
groundwater, and/or soil vapor. Site
closed with restrictions on use and with
required Site Management Requirements.
715 Comstock
Industrial
Property
715 Comstock St,
Santa Clara
950 feet E Cleanup
Program, Open
– Site
Assessment
Industrial site with elevated levels of
naphthalene and petroleum products,
heavy metals, and asbestos in soil and
elevated levels of VOCs in soil vapor. No
contaminants of concern were detected in
groundwater. Site Management Plan
conditionally approved and vapor
monitoring ceased with approval
Sobronto
Development
Co. - Central
Expressway
800 Central
Expressway, Santa
Clara
860 feet SE Cleanup
Program,
CompletedCase Closed
Former concrete pipe manufacturing site.

Low levels of waste oil and asbestos noted
in soil at site and low levels of VOCs were
detected in groundwater in 1987. No
Further Action was granted to the site in
2005. In 2019 asked for additional information and history of the site. Site was listed as Case Closed-Completed in 2020.

Owens Corning 960 Central
Expressway, Santa
Clara
670 feet S Cleanup
Program, Open
– Verification
Monitoring
Leaks of petroleum USTs in the 1980s
resulted in groundwater contamination at
the site, VOC contamination was also
attributed to upgradient sources.

Petroleum contaminant clean-up order
rescinded in 2001, but VOC monitoring
continued. Low levels of VOC remain in
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Site Name Address
Distance and
Direction from
Alignment
Database
and Status Summary
groundwater. Several Case Closure
requests have been submitted. Elevated
levels of VOCs encountered in soil vapor;
investigation plan for VOCs in soil vapor
approved in 2023.

DTSC EnviroStor Sites
Gianera 2 –
Habitat for
Humanity
2261 – 2285
Gianera St, Santa
Clara
120 feet S Voluntary
Cleanup –
Certified
Low levels of pesticide below residential
levels detected in soil. Elevated levels of
lead were detected. Impacted soil was
removed from residence yards in 2011 and
was certified as no further remedial action
required
Hogan Drive
Property
Hogan Drive and
Lafayette Street,
Santa Clara
190 feet E Voluntary
Cleanup – No
Further Action
Former dry cleaner site (part of the
Shaheen Property residential subdivision).

Soil, soil vapor, and groundwater testing
detected PCE in shallow groundwater, soil,
and soil vapor in 2007. Excavation of
contaminated soil, bio-remediation of
groundwater, and natural attenuation.

Reduced levels of VOC were detected in
soil vapor and groundwater in 2007. In
2008 DTSC requested a revised human
Health Risk Assessment be prepared.

Agnews State
Hospital
Avenue K and Lick
Road, Santa Clara
1000 feet E State
Response/NPL –
Certified
A major portion of the former Agnews
Developmental Center (ADC) has been
cleaned up under the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) oversight.

Potential soil contaminants at the site
were asbestos, contaminated soil, hydrocarbon solvents, and lead. Little information is available. Site listed as certified by the DTSC in 1985. USTSs and lifts in the
automotive compound removed in 2022
and contaminated soil and groundwater
removed; case closed by SWRCB in 2002.

Former Pycon
Inc Facility
3501 Leanard
Court, Santa Clara
1200 feet W Voluntary
Cleanup -
Clean up of metal impacted soils from
former nickel/copper plating business.

Groundwater did not have elevated copper concentrations at the site. Impacted soil was removed under the oversight of
the local Agency (SFCD). DTSC reviewed
data on residual copper and nickel in the
soil and concluded no further action
required at the site.

Pittsburgh-Des
Moines Steel
3500 Bassett St,
Santa Clara
450 feet W State
Response/NPL -
Certified
Site was a 31-acre steel fabrication plant
from 1946-1976 and a spray painting
facility from 1976 to 1982. Soil contamination due not spilled lead-based paint and leakage from an underground gasoline
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-5 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
Site Name Address
Distance and
Direction from
Alignment
Database
and Status Summary
tank. In 1983, 779 cubic yards of contaminated soil from different areas on the site was removed. All soil covering the underground gasoline storage tank was removed and all spilled gasoline was removed. Residual soil contamination may be present.

Sources: DTSC, 2024a, and SWRCB, 2024a
The proposed Project is not located on sites identified on a list of hazardous waste and substances sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, including the Cortese List (DTSC, 2024b), however it is located near several hazardous waste and substances sites included in the SWRCB GeoTracker and DTSC EnviroStor websites (SWRCB, 2024; and DTSC, 2024a)

5.9.1.4. Schools
There are two schools located within 0.25-miles of the proposed Project:
 the Kathryn Hughes Elementary School at 4949 Calle De Escuela, 0.19-miles northeast of the northern terminus (NRS); and
 the North Valley Baptist School at 941 Clyde Ave, 0.23-miles east of the proposed Project route.

There are numerous daycare and preschool facilities located within 0.25-miles of the proposed Project, see Section 5.15, Public Services, for a list of these facilities.

5.9.1.5. Airports and Airstrips
The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (Airport) is located approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the southern end of the Project route and the Santa Clara Towers Heliport is located approximately 1 mile west of the route. A review of the Santa Clara County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the Airport indicates that a large part of the Project route crosses though three Airport’s Safety Zones, is beneath a mapped flight path, portions are with the 70 dB and 75 dB Aircraft Noise Contours, and the entire Project route appears to be within FAR Part 77 Surfaces (SCCALUC, 2024). Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes imaginary surfaces for airports and runways (FAR Part 77 Surfaces) as a means to identify objects that are obstructions to air navigation. Each surface is defined as a slope ratio or at a certain altitude above the airport elevation. The Project route appears to be located within surfaces that range from 112 to 239 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) FAR Part 77 Surface zone of maximum structure height, with the lower FAR Part 77 Surfaces (altitudes of 162 to 112 feet MSL from north to south) along the Project route south of Montague Expressway (SCCALUC, 2024). The proposed Project tubular steel poles may range in height from 85 to 150 feet above ground surface. Ground elevations along the Project route range from 22 to 36 ft above MSL south of Montague Expressway and from approximately 15 to 22 feet above MSL north of Montague Expressway.

5.9.1.6. Wildfire Hazards
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies and maps areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, and other relevant factors. The maps identify this information as a series of Fire Hazard Severity Zones, which are progressively ranked in severity as un-zoned, moderate, high, and very high. Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of either the State, local, or federal government. State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) includes those areas where the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires falls primarily on the State. Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-6 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
include incorporated cities, unincorporated county areas, cultivated agriculture lands, and portions of the desert. LRA FHSZ are mapped as either Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), not mapped within VHFHSZ, or if they have been reclassified from an SRAs they are still mapped at moderate, high, and very high FHSZ. LRA fire protection is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CALFIRE under contract to local governments (OSFM, 2024). Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA) are those located on federal lands not otherwise included in SRAs and LRAs.

The proposed Project would be located within the City of Santa Clara in the County of Santa Clara. The Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map mapping website for LRAs and SRAs (OFSM, 2024b) indicates that the Project site is not in an SRA FHSZ or a LRA VHFHSZ. The proposed Project is located in a fully urbanized developed area with no wildlands at or near the Project site. The Project site is serviced by the Santa Clara Fire Department. For more information on wildfire hazards, see Section 5.20 Wildfire.

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

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

For this analysis, excavated soil would be considered to be a hazardous waste if it exceeded specific CCR Title 22 criteria or criteria defined in CERCLA or other relevant federal regulations. Remediation (cleanup and safe removal/disposal) of hazardous wastes found at a site is required if excavation of these materials occurs; it may also be required if certain other activities occur. Even if soils or groundwater at a contaminated site do not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous wastes, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority. Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency having lead jurisdiction.

Federal
Toxic Substances Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Hazardous and Solid Waste Act. The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a program administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste.

RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. The use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was specifically prohibited by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Congress enacted the federal CERCLA, including the Superfund program, on December 11, 1980. This law provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA established requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-7 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
be identified. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.

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

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

Federal Aviation Administration, 14 CFR Part 77 – Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. Construction of a project could potentially impact aviation activities if a structure or equipment were positioned such that it would be a hazard to navigable airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has established reporting requirements if any construction includes equipment or structures more than 200 feet above ground level or results in an object penetrating an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a ratio of 100 to 1 from a public or military airport runway out to a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet (approximately 3.78 miles). For areas around heliports, this same requirement applies to any construction that is more than 200 feet above ground level or would penetrate an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a ratio 25 to 1 from a public or military heliport out to a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet.

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

California Hazardous Waste Control Law. The California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) is administered by Cal/EPA to regulate hazardous wastes. The State of California has been granted authorization by the United States EPA to administer all Regulations under both RCRA and the State’s Hazardous Waste Control laws. The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and about 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-8 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
California Department of Toxic Substance Control. Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) is a department of Cal/EPA and is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans-up existing contamination, and looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

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

California Fire Plan. The CAL FIRE Strategic Plan 2024 directs each California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Unit to prepare a locally specific Fire Management Plan. In compliance with the California Fire Plan, individual CAL FIRE units are required to develop Fire Management Plans for their areas of responsibility. These documents assess the fire situation within each of CAL FIRE’s 21 units and six contract counties. The plans include stakeholder contributions and priorities and identifies strategic areas for pre-fire planning and fuel treatment, as defined by the people who live and work with the local fire problem. The plans are required to be updated annually.

Local
Santa Clara Fire Department Community Risk Reduction Division. Senate Bill 1082 (Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.11) established the Unified Program (a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory program). The Unified Program is implemented at the local level by local government agencies certified by Cal EPA, which are known as Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs). CUPA agencies implement all the Unified Program elements and serve as a local contact for area businesses.

The CUPA for the Project area is the Santa Clara Fire Department Community Risk Reduction Division (CRRD). As CUPA for City of Santa Clara, the CRRD administers the following California programs:
 Hazardous Waste Generator Program – This program applies to businesses and facilities that generate hazardous waste in any quantity, consolidates hazardous waste generated at a remote site, or recycles more than 100 kilograms/month of excluded or exempted recyclable materials. The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division maintains records and conducts inspections of hazardous waste generators within the City of Santa Clara. Businesses that generate hazardous waste are required to submit a "Hazardous Waste Generator Permit Application" when they move into the city or begin generating hazardous waste. (A properly filled out and submitted Hazardous Waste Materials Business Plan may be used in lieu of the Hazardous Waste Generator Permit Application.)  Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment – The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division maintains records and conducts inspections of hazardous waste generators who treat wastes on-site in a Fixed Treatment Unit under Permit by Rule, Conditional Authorization, and Conditional Exemption.

The Division currently does not inspect Transportable Treatment Units, full permit facilities, or standardized permit facilities.
 Underground Storage Tank (UST) – SCCRRD implements this program to prevent discharges and releases of hazardous substances from USTs. The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division maintains records of and inspects underground storage tanks. All underground storage tanks are required to meet current state regulations. Permits are required for the installation or removal of underground storage tanks.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-9 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
 Aboveground Storage Tank SPCC Plan – As the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division is authorized to implement the California Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act. The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division inspects facilities that store petroleum products in aboveground tanks with a total petroleum storage quantity at or above 1,320 gallons for compliance with the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act and referenced sections of the federal Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule.  Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) – Facilities that store any hazardous material at or above the State-defined thresholds, generally 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 cubic feet of a gas, and 500 pounds of a solid, are subject to a HMBP. The CRRD oversees the preparation and submittal of the HMBP. The HMBP must be kept on site in a readily accessible area. The company must also review the HMBP at least once every two years. Copies of the inventory statement, site map, and facility information included in the HMBP must be submitted to the Santa Clara Fire Department annually.  California Accidental Release Prevention Program – Businesses that handle more than the State threshold quantity of a regulated substance must develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP); an RMP is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. The Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division implements the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) within the City of Santa Clara. The program requires an assessment of the offsite hazard potential, and the implementation of a program to minimize the risk of release. Companies which are required to prepare a Risk Management Plan for the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 68, are also required to submit a copy of their Risk Management Plan to the Santa Clara Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division.

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

County of Santa Clara Emergency Operations Plan. In January 2022, the County of Santa Clara adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to address the planned response of the County of Santa Clara to emergency situations associated with natural disasters and technological incidents, as well as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive emergencies. The EOP establishes the emergency organization, assign tasks, specifies policies and general procedures, and provides for coordination of planning efforts for emergency events such as earthquake, flooding, dam failure, and hazardous materials responses (OEM, 2022)
City of Santa Clara General Plan. The purpose of the City’s safety policies is to identify potential hazards and measures that can lessen risks for the City’s population and property. The following policies in the General Plan generally relate to the proposed Project (City of Santa Clara, 2014):
 Policy 5.10.5‐P22. Regulate development on sites with known or suspected contamination of soil and/or groundwater to ensure that construction workers, the public, future occupants and the environment are adequately protected.  Policy 5.10.5‐P23. Require appropriate clean‐up and remediation of contaminated sites.

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-10 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
 Policy 5.10.5‐P24. Protect City residents from the risks inherent in the transport, distribution, use and storage of hazardous materials.
 Policy 5.10.5‐P27. Locate hazardous waste management facilities in areas designated as Heavy Industrial on the Land Use Diagram if compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.

5.9.2. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED - CONSTRUCTION The use of hazardous materials during Project construction would be minimal. Hazardous materials may include gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic oils, equipment coolants, and any generated wastes that may include these materials. These materials are considered hazardous because they are flammable and/or contain toxic compounds, such as volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Wastes considered hazardous by the State of California would be transported and disposed of according to applicable federal, State, and local regulations, as described above under applicable Regulations. Fueling of construction equipment and vehicles would be performed in designated areas. However, minor spills or releases of hazardous materials could occur due upset or improper handling and/or storage practices during construction activities.

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

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

NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-11 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
 Stopping work at that location and contacting the City Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division immediately if visual contamination or chemical odors are detected.

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

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

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

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. Other than substances associated with motor vehicles that would be used for inspections and maintenance, no hazardous materials are associated with maintenance and operation of the proposed Project. SVP would implement existing operation and maintenance policies to address hazardous materials use after the Project construction is complete. Impacts associated with the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. (b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED - CONSTRUCTION. Accidental spills of motor vehicle fluids associated with construction vehicles could occur during construction of the proposed Project as discussed in item (a) above. The minimal amounts of hazardous materials anticipated for use in the Project coupled with implementation of mitigation measure MM HM-1 requirements would reduce potential impacts by requiring the development and implementation of hazardous substance control and health and safety measures.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT – OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. No hazardous materials are associated with maintenance and operation of the Project except motor vehicle fluids in inspection and maintenance vehicles.

SVP would implement existing operation and maintenance policies to address hazardous materials use after the Project construction is complete.
(c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. Numerous daycare facilities (listed in section 5.15, Public Services), and two schools, the Kathryn Hughes Elementary School and the North Valley Baptist School, would be located within

0.25-mile of the proposed Project route. The proposed Project will not use, store, or transport any acutely hazardous materials and would only use limited quantities of typical construction related hazardous materials such as cleaning solvents, paints, adhesives, vehicle fuels, oil, hydraulic fluid, and other vehicle and equipment maintenance fluids. Refueling of construction equipment and vehicles will take place at a designated site. All hazardous materials would be stored, used, transported, and disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, impacts from project-related hazardous materials use during proposed Project construction would be less than significant.

No hazardous materials are associated with maintenance and operation of the Project except motor vehicle fluids in inspection and maintenance vehicles. SVP would implement existing operation and maintenance policies to address hazardous materials use after the Project construction is complete. (d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The proposed Project alignment is not located on hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, including the Cortese List. However, numerous hazardous material sites are located in the proposed Project vicinity, including NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-12 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
many case closed LUST sites, several SWRCB Cleanup Program sites, and DTSC EnviroStor State Response and Voluntary Cleanup sites. Existing and unknown contamination from these sites or other industrial sites in the area may have spread to the proposed Project route due to the shallow groundwater in the Project area. Groundwater in the project vicinity is shallow with water levels of approximately 5 to 13 feet below ground surface (SWRCB, 2024).

Ground disturbing activities for the proposed Project, including excavation/auguring for tubular steel poles and pole foundations, and trenching and excavation for underground installation of ducting and vaults for Option 2, would have the potential to encounter known or unidentified environmentally contaminated soil or groundwater. This would potentially result in exposing workers, the public, and the environment to hazardous materials. Contaminated soil or groundwater encountered during construction and considered to be hazardous by the State of California would be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of according to applicable federal, State, and local regulations, as described above under applicable Regulations.

Implementation of mitigation measure MM H-2 (Soil and Groundwater Management) would reduce impacts related to encountering known or unidentified soil or groundwater contamination and ensure that proposed Project construction would not result in adverse effects to workers, the public, or the environment through handling, storage, or disposal of contaminated soil or groundwater.

If a SGMP is needed, the SGMP shall be prepared to guide activities during excavation and other ground disturbing activities to ensure that identified contaminated soils or groundwater are handled, removed, and disposed of properly. The SGMP shall be prepared by a licensed qualified professional and submitted to SCCDEH at least 30 days prior to Project construction and shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
 Procedures and protocols for the safe handling, storage, stockpiling, and disposal of contaminated soils;
 Contaminated soil excavated from the site shall be hauled off-site and disposed of at a licensed hazardous materials disposal site;
NRS-KRS 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SEPTEMBER 2024 5.9-13 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT MND/IS
 Protocols to manage and disposed of contaminated groundwater that may be encountered during trenching or subsurface excavation activities, and if dewatering is required; and
 Procedures and protocols to follow in the event soils or groundwater not previously identified as contaminated and suspected of being contaminated (on the basis of visual, olfactory, or other evidence) are identified during site grading or excavation activities or dewatering activities to allow for proper identification and characterization, and subsequent proper handling, removal, and disposal.
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (Airport) is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the southern end of the Project route and the Project site is: beneath a mapped flight path; located between the 70 dB and 75 dB Aircraft Noise Contours; located between the 162 and 262 feet above Mean Sea Level FAR Part 77 Surface zone of maximum structure height; and is within the Airport’s Safety Zones (SCCALUC, 2016). The Project would not include on-site staff that would be at increased hazards due aviation hazards and generally the height and form of the proposed project structures would be similar to the existing 115 kV transmission structures located adjacent to roadways throughout the City. However, the heights of the construction equipment and of the tubular steel poles (ranging from 85 to 150 feet in height) may exceed FAR Part 77 Surface zone of maximum structure height altitudes along the southern portion of the Project route. Because of the heights of Project structures, SVP would submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at least 90 days prior to Project construction. As a result of this consultation, SVP will modify structures as directed by the FAA, which may result in modification of the height or location of the structures, or the addition of lighting and marker balls. Compliance with FAA Part 77 regulations would reduce impacts related to aviation hazards to less than significant. (f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Construction-related temporary short-term lane closures or disruptions may be necessary during the proposed Project’s construction period. Some road closures and/or one-way traffic controls would be required to allow for certain construction activities and to maintain public safety. These closures and controls would temporarily decrease traffic flow in the project area, particularly on Lafayette Street.

In June 2016, the Santa Clara City Council adopted a new comprehensive emergency response plan to replace the prior plan adopted in 2008. The plan provides a legal framework for the management of emergencies and guidance for the conduct of business in the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), including collaboration and coordination between different responsible agencies. The Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) establishes responsibilities and procedures for addressing potential emergencies related to disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and dam failure; technological incidents; hazardous materials spills or releases; and incidents of domestic terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, such as Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) devices. The EOP conforms to the requirements of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) mandated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Santa Clara EOP also builds on and coordinates with the State’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the California State Emergency Plan.

City Council and Authorities ConcurrentNovember 12, 2024

City Council and Authorities Concurrent
November 12, 2024