HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2011 1019 CC REG ITEM 09A ITEM 9.A.
ri;v OF F.10OR?ARK.CALWORNI
City Council Meeting
Of_ /V/9 /z
ACTION: naADNS
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIlj,
AGENDA REPORT y�
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: David A. Bobardt, Community DevelopmFt Director By: Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Planner
DATE: October 4, 2011 (CC Meeting of 10/19111)
SUBJECT: Consider Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed
Southern California Edison Presidential Substation Project and
Utilities, Located within Various Rights of Ways in the County of
Ventura, and the Cities of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks
BACKGROUND
The Presidential Substation project is proposed by Southern California Edison, (SCE)
who filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission, (CPUC) in
December of 2008, requesting approval to construct a new 66/16 kilovolt substation in
the city of Thousand Oaks and a 3.5 mile 66 kilovolt subtransmission line route. The
unstaffed, low-profile distribution substation would allow high-voltage electricity (66
kilovolts) to be reduced to a lower voltage (16 kilovolts) so that it could be distributed for
use in homes and businesses. The project also would include construction of two new
overhead subtransmission lines entering the new substation. They would connect to two
existing subtransmission lines in order to supply electrical power for the new substation.
On February 17, 2009, the CPUC distributed a Notice of Preparation to advise
interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the proposed project. Then, on
August 25, 2010, the CPUC distributed a Noticing Letter to interested parties, stating
that the project description for the proposed project had changed and that due to
proposed changes and the length of time that passed since the initial scoplog period,
the CPUC conducted a 30-day supplemental scoping period.
2
Honorable City Council
October 19, 2011
Page 2
The Community Development Department reviewed both the original and revised
project plans, and provided comments to the CPUC, generally outlined as follows:
• On March 17, 2009 via e-mail, staff expressed concerns that the new
transmission lines through Tierra Rejada Valley would be visible to residents in
the Serenata neighborhood and to travelers along Tierra Rejada Road in
Moorpark, that the City had recently made a substantial investment in enhanced
landscaping along Tierra Rejada Road and that the new steel poles would be a
dominant feature of the landscape.
• On December 22, 2009, a letter from the Mayors of Moorpark, Simi Valley, and
Thousand Oaks was provided requesting that the transmission lines associated
with this project be constructed underground to preserve the quality of the open
space in the Tierra Rejada Valley.
• On September 24, 2010, staff mailed a comment letter to the environmental
project manager, (Attachment 1) indicating that the EIR needs to fully explore two
alternatives including full undergrounding and an alternative route following
existing lines west of the Tierra Rejada Valley, along with providing more detail
on the pole sizes.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Presidential Substation Project is to meet the forecasted electrical
demands in the cities of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks, as well as adjacent areas of
Ventura County. The Electrical Needs Area (ENA), is presently served by three of the
66/16 kilovolt (kV) distribution substations that are fed by the Moorpark 66 kV System.
These three distribution substations (Thousand Oaks Substation, Potrero Substation,
and Royal Substation) (ENA substations) provide electrical service to approximately
60,000 metered customers and are presently at or near their operating capacity.
Therefore, SCE is proposing to construct a new 66/16 kV substation to meet the
electrical needs and be operational by the Spring or Summer of 2013, (Attachment 2).
The proposed Presidential Substation would be supplied by connecting to two existing
66 kV subtransmission lines, the Moorpark-Royal No. 2, and the Moorpark-Thousand
Oaks No. 2 lines. One above-ground connection is proposed along Sunset Valley Road
travelling north-south from the intersection with Tierra Rejada Road to Read Road. The
second above ground connection is to be along Read Road, travelling east-west from
Moorpark Road to the proposed substation at Olsen Road. The only section proposed
to be underground is where the utility line's cross the State Route 23 Freeway,
(Attachment 3). The proposed subtransmission alignments would occur predominantly
within 3.5 miles of existing right-of-way (ROW). The Proposed Project would be
constructed and operated with two 66 kV source subtransmission lines and four 16 kV
distribution getaways. The proposed utility connections travel above ground on new
poles, replacing wood poles with either light weight steel poles, (LWS) or tubular steel
poles (TSP). The LWS poles can range in height from 61' to 75', with a 1.5' to 2' wide
pole diameter at the base. The TSP poles can range in height from 60' to 100', with a 2'
S\Community Devebpment%0TNER AGE NCIEStCPUCtPresidenbai Substation=Agenda%cc agenda report_711019 doc
3
Honorable City Council
October 19, 2011
Page 3
to 4' wide pole diameter at the base. In the Moorpark ROW along Tierra Rejada Road
in the vicinity of the intersection with Sunset Valley Road, there are three wood/guy
poles between 29' and 75' in height proposed for replacement. The new replacement
poles in this area are proposed to consist of three LWS poles between 61' and 75' in
height and one TSP between 60' and 100' in height, all proposed along the south side
of Tierra Rejada Road. The proposed Presidential Substation, an unstaffed and
automated, 56 megavolt, 66/16 kV low-profile distribution substation, would be
constructed on a 4-acre site within a 5.4-acre ROW or acquired property, proposed
south of Olsen Road, in the City of Thousand Oaks near its eastern boundary with the
City of Simi Valley.
Southern California Edison identified the project objectives, as follows:
• Meet long term electrical demand requirements in the ENA beginning in fall of
2012 or winter of 2013 and extending beyond 2014 in order to meet the 10-year
planning criterion;
• Improve electrical system operational flexibility and reliability by providing the
ability to transfer load between 16 kV distribution circuits and distribution
substations within the electric needs area;
• Meet project needs while minimizing environmental impacts; and
• Meet project needs in a cost-effective manner.
According to SCE, construction of the project is needed to maintain safe and reliable
electric service to customers and to serve forecasted electrical demand in the electric
needs area. As part of the project review and approval process for the proposed
project, SCE must submit a Permit to Construct application to the CPUC for approval.
The CPUC is the state regulatory agency that sets electricity rates and issues permits
for the construction of certain electric facilities. SCE's application will include an EIR to
evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The CPUC will review the
application in accordance with CEQA and either approve the project as filed, approve
the project with modifications or deny the project.
The Draft EIR has identified that the proposed project will result in permanent significant
and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics, as well as temporary significant and
unavoidable impacts to air quality and noise, during project construction. There are
eight alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR, as options to consider instead of employing
the Proposed Presidential Substation site and proposed alignment of above ground
utility lines on Sunset Valley Road and Read Road, and under SR 23. The alternatives
are generally depicted on Attachment 3. All proposed alternatives include above-
ground subtransmission poles and wiring, and have also been determined to create
significant and unavoidable impacts except System Alternative B.
In reviewing the Draft EIR, staff believes the draft has not adequately addressed the
City's comments raised during scoping. Staff recommended analyzing a project
alternative which includes full undergrounding of the 66kV transmission lines through
S\Community Development\07HER AGENCIMCPUCIPresident al SubstaoonICC Agendalcc agenda report_111019 doc
4
Honorable City Council
October 19, 2011
Page 4
the Tierra Rejada Valley. This alternative was described on pages 3-26 and 3-27, as
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 4, which was eliminated from consideration in
the Draft EIR because impacts to air quality, and noise resources would increase and
an additional potentially significant cultural resources impact would occur. In addition,
the Draft EIR states that the impacts on aesthetic resources would not be reduced more
than under Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 3 which also reduced noise and air
quality impacts and was carried forward for analysis. Staff is recommending that the
EIR include Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 4 as an alternative and analyze in
more detail its potential for reducing long range aesthetics impacts on the Tierra Rejada
Valley. During scoping, staff also recommended a 66kV pole route location alternative,
where the new lines would follow the existing north-south 66kV lines to the west of the
Tierra Rejada Valley from Tierra Rejada Road to Read Road instead of creating a new
path along Sunset Valley Road; from Read Road east, this alternative should have been
explored as both an underground and an above-ground line. This requested alternative
was not evaluated in the EIR, even though staff believes it may show a significant
reduction in project impacts to the Tierra Rejada Valley, thereby improving the decision-
making process on this project as a reasonable alternative.
In addition, the Draft EIR does not adequately address the City's scoping comments
previously submitted because it does not provide an alternative for the full
undergrounding of the new 66kV and 16kV transmission lines through the Tierra
Rejada Valley. Also, the EIR alternatives do not include a 66kV pole route location
alternative, where the new lines would follow the existing north-south 66kV lines to the
west of the Tierra Rejada Valley from Tierra Rejada Road to Read Road instead of
creating a new path along Sunset Valley Road. From Read Road east, this alternative
should be explored as both an underground and an above-ground line. Staff had
originally requested that these alternatives be included and evaluated in the Draft EIR.
These alternatives, if considered, may significantly reduce aesthetic project impacts to
the Tierra Rejada Valley.
In the City's response to the latest scoping letter, staff also raised issues of pole sizing
as an area of concern. The Draft EIR indicates that wood poles are to be replaced
and some of the steel poles will be between 1.5 and 2 feet in diameter and some will
be between 2 and 4 feet in diameter; with the wider poles being between 60 and 100
feet high. Although poles at either extreme in size may be found in the EIR to have
significant adverse visual impacts as proposed, a 4' wide by 100' high pole would
have much greater visibility than a 2' wide by 60' high pole. Since visual impacts of
the poles are one of the most important issues to the public, aesthetic impacts related
to proposed pole sizing should detailed in the EIR analysis. Page 4.1-47 indicates
that poles are to be made of self-weatherizing steel, which would oxidize to a natural-
looking rust color within about one year. The EIR should provide a visual simulation of
a new pole as compared with a pole that has oxidized for a year to show the reader
the aesthetic characteristics of this proposed mitigation measure 4.1-2a.
S 1Commundy Development\OTHER AGE NC IMCPUMPresidentral Substation\CC Agendalcc agenda repw_111019 doc
5
Honorable City Council
October 19, 2011
Page 5
With respect to the visual impact analysis, the size and scale of the visual simulations
provided on figures 4.1-3 through Figures 4.1-8 are not adequate to demonstrate the
simulated appearance of the before and after comparisons of proposed overhead
utilities. Staff is recommending use of 11" x 17" pull-out photo simulations in the EIR,
which may improve the visual quality for comparison because the existing photo
simulations understate the visual impacts.
The Draft EIR lacked appropriate discussion about aesthetic impacts to the Tierra
Rejada Greenbelt by not indicating the overall area to be highly sensitive visually,
however, we concur with the overall assessment of the Draft EIR that the proposed
project would have significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts. Section 4.10, Land
Use and Planning of the EIR analysis does not adequately address impacts on the
Tierra Rejada Greenbelt, as can be referenced on page 4.10-5. Furthermore, Section
4.1 Aesthetics makes references to the presence of the Tierra Rejada Greenbelt but
does not adequately address visual impacts on the rural character of the area,
comprised of prime agricultural and other open space land uses.
System Alternative B is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. This alternative would
not result in any significant unavoidable impacts, does not involve the construction of a
new substation and would meet most of the basic project objectives but, the Draft EIR
indicates it would result in reduced operational flexibility and reliability compared to the
Proposed Project, and other alternatives which involve construction of a new substation.
All other alternatives would result in at least one significant unavoidable impact. In light
of the visual impacts to Moorpark from all other alternatives, staff supports the
Environmentally Superior Alternative, System Alternative B, as the only option for
adequately addressing environmental impacts as presented in the Draft EIR, and
recommends that this Alternative be analyzed in greater detail in the EIR so decision
makers have a real understanding of whether or not this alternative meets project
objectives sufficiently to be feasible
Staff has contacted Mark Towne, Deputy Director / City Planner, Community
Development, Thousand Oaks and Lauren Funaiole, Environmental Planner, Planning
Division of the Department of Environmental Services of Simi Valley to ascertain their
conclusions on review of the Draft EIR. Both parties indicated that the Draft EIR failed
to adequately address concerns raised by their respective cities during the Notice of
Preparation process. Furthermore, both staff members concluded that while it may be
premature to recommend an alternative at this time, the Environmentally Superior
Alternative, System Alternative B seems to be the preferred alternative of staff from both
agencies at this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
S%Community DevelopmenAOTHER AGENCIMCPUC\Presdent al Substauon\CC Agendalcc agenda report_111019 doc
6
Honorable City Council
October 19, 2011
Page 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to provide a comment letter, (Attachment 4) to the Environmental Project
Manager to address the unresolved issues in the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
and provide preliminary support for System Alternative B as outlined in the Draft EIR.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff comment letter responding to Notice of Preparation, Dated September 24,
2010, (with attachments)
2. Executive Summary of the Draft EIR, dated September 2011
3. Draft EIR Figure ES-2, Alternative Subtransmission Alignments
4. DRAFT staff comment letter on Presidential Substation project, October 2011
S\Community DevelopmentlOTHER AGE NCIES\CPUC\Pres dental Subslauon\CC Agenda\oc agenda report_711019 doc
7
P O
r ar Czt y o Moo
n
_ e
° COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:PLANNING—BUILDING AND SAFETY—CODE COMPLIANCE
ep 'Jy 799 Moorpark Avenue,Moorpark;California 93021 (805)517-6200 fax(805)532-2540
September 24, 2010
Ms. Juralynne Mosley
Presidential Substation Project
c/o Environmental Science Associates
1425 N. McDowell Blvd, Suite 105
Petaluma, CA 94954
Dear Ms. Mosley,
Re: Supplemental Public Scoping for Presidential Substation EIR
Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping input on the EIR for the revised
Presidential Substation project. The Community Development Department has reviewed
the revised and more-detailed project plans, and continues to have the same comments
as expressed in its March 17, 2009 e-mail, as well as the December 22, 2009 letter from
the Mayors of Moorpark, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks requesting that the
transmission lines associated with this project be constructed underground to preserve
the quality of the open space in the Tierra Rejada Valley.
In addition to the addressing the comments previously submitted, the EIR needs to fully
explore two alternatives which do not appear to be in the current list of project
alternatives: 1) full undergrounding of the new 66kV transmission lines through the Tierra
Rejada Valley, and 2) a 66kV pole route location alternative, where the new lines would
follow the existing north-south 66kV lines to the west of the Tierra Rejada Valley from
Tierra Rejada Road to Read Road instead of creating a new path along Sunset Valley
Road. From Read Road east, this alternative should be explored as both an underground
and an above-ground line. These alternatives, once evaluated in the EIR, may show a
significant reduction in project impacts to the Tierra Rejada Valley, thereby improving the
decision-making process on this project with a reasonable range of alternatives.
Finally, the revised project description indicates that some of the steel poles will be
between 1.5 and 2 feet in diameter and some will be between 2 and 4 feet in diameter;
the wider poles would be between 60 and 100 feet high. Although poles at either extreme
in size may be found in the EIR to have significant adverse visual impacts as proposed, a
4' wide by 100' high pole would have much greater visibility than a 2' wide by 60' high
pole. Since visual impacts of the poles are one of the most important issues to the public,
pole sizing should be as specific as possible in the project description to improve the
quality of the EIR analysis.
S:\Community Development\OTHER AGENCIES\CPUC\Presidential Substation\100924 Supplemental Scoping Comments.doc
JANICE S.PARVIN ROSEANN MIKOS KEITH F.MILLHOUSE DAVID POLLOCK MARK VAN DAM
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Coundirnember Councilmember
8
CC ATTACHMENT 1
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
� �l
David A. Bobardt
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. March 17, 2009 e-mail
2. December 22, 2009 letter
cc: Honorable City Council
Honorable Planning Commission
Steven Kueny, City Manager
Mike Sedell, City Manager, City of Simi Valley
Scott Mitnick, City Manager, City of Thousand Oaks
File
Chron
9
Page I of I
Presidential Substation Project
From: David Bobardt[dbobardt @ci.moorpark.ca.us] Sent: Toe 3/17/2009 6:01 PM
To: Presidential Substation Project
Cc:
Subject: Notice of Preparation of an EIR for SCE Presidential Substation
Attachments:
Ms.Juralynne Mosley,Environmental Protect Manager
California Public Utilities Commission
c/o Environmental Science Associates
1425 N.McDowell Blvd,Suite 105
Petaluma,CA 94954
RE:Notice of Preparation of an EIR for SCE Presidential Substation Project
Dear Ms.Mosley,
Please include the City of Moorpark Community Development Department on the notification list for the SCE Presidential
Substation Project EIR,with notices addressed to my attention at the address and e-mail address below. The following
comments are provided at this time for your consideration in the preparation of the EIR. Additional comments will be
provided once the Draft EIR is reviewed by the City.
1. The new transmission lines through the Tierra Rejada Valley would be visible to residents in the Serenata
neighborhood and to travelers along Tierra Rejada Road in Moorpark. The City has recently made a substantial
investment in enhanced landscaping along the median of Tierra Rejada Road and at the SR-23/Tierra Rejada Road
interchange to make this road more scenic. Although the new steel poles would be replacing existing wooden poles,
they would be larger in diameter,taller in height,and more visible due to the higher reflectivity of steel over
wood,making the new poles a more dominant feature of the landscape. This impact needs to analyzed and
mitigation needs to be identified in the Draft EIR.
2. The exact location of the substation was not clear from the exhibits on the project website. The City is requesting a
visual analysis to identify the areas from which the substation would be visible. Appropriate screening and
landscaping should be considered as mitigation to minimize visual impacts.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
David A.Bobardt
Planning Director
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark,CA 93021
(805)517-6281
FAX(805)532-2540
dbobardt@d.moorpark.ca.us
https://exchange.esassoc.com/exchange/PresidentialSub/inboxNotice%20oP/o2OPreparatio... 3/18/2009
10
i Ciry o
P S111'll a,,
V
CAylrOR%N
n
a
�P
�y
o v
December 22, 2009
Commissioner Grueneich
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3214
RE: Request to Underground Transmission Lines Associated with Proposed
Presidential Substation in the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt Area (A.08-12-023)
Dear Commissioner Grueneich:
The Cities of Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley and Moorpark respectfully request that
transmission lines associated with the proposed Presidential Substation (Application
A.08-12-023) be located underground within the Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt.
The Tierra Rejada Valley is an unincorporated area located between the cities of
Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks. The Tierra Rejada Valley Greenbelt was
created by the County of Ventura and cities of Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley in 1983,
to preserve the valley for open space and agricultural purposes. In 1984, the City of
Moorpark became a signatory to the agreement.
The Presidential Substation, which is proposed by Southern California Edison, would
replace smaller sub transmission poles in this area with approximately 3.4 miles of taller
and larger transmission poles. These proposed transmission lines would cross Olsen
Road and State Route 23, both of which are designated scenic highways in Thousand
Oaks, and would be located near residential areas along Read Road in Thousand Oaks.
The transmission lines would also traverse the Greenbelt along Sunset Valley Road, in
close proximity to a working farm that attracts thousands of visitors each year. All of the
proposed transmission lines are located within, at, or adjacent to the Tierra Rejada
Valley Greenbelt, as shown in the attached Figure 4.1-1 from the Proponent's
Environmental Assessment for the Presidential Substation Project.
This joint letter has therefore been prepared in order to underscore the importance of
undergrounding any proposed transmission lines in the area of the Tierra Rejada Valley
Greenbelt, and is consistent with previous requests by all three cities to underground
11
Tri-City Request for Undergrounding of Transmission Lines
December 22, 2009
Page 2 of 2
those portions of the transmission lines proposed near, or within, their cities. This
request has been approved by our respective City Councils.
Thank you in advance for considering our request.
Sincerely,
Janice Parvin Paul Miller Dennis C. Gillette
Mayor Mayor Mayor
City of Moorpark City of Simi Valley City of Thousand Oaks
Attachment
cc: City Councils & City Managers of Moorpark, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks
Albert Garcia, SCE Senior Attorney
Janice Grau, CPUC ALJ
Darryl Gruen, CPUC Legal Division
Chloe Lukins, CPUC CEQA Unit Supervisor
Christine McLeod, CPUC Project Manager- Regulatory Affairs
Juralynne Mosley, CPUC Project Manager
Michael Wheeler, Advisor to Commissioner Grueneich
12
SERVICE LIST
Juralynne Mosley Darryl J. Gruen
Project Manager California Public Utilities Commission
California Public Utilities Commission Legal Division, Room 4300
Energy Division, Area 4-A 505 Van Ness Avenue
505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3214
San Francisco, CA 94102-3214 dic @cpuc.ca.ciov
lbm�CpUC.Ca.gOV
Christine McLeod Janice L. Grau
Project Manager-Regulatory Affairs California Public Utilities Commission
Regulatory Policy& Affairs Dept. Division of Administrative Law Judges
Southern California Edison Room 5011
2244 Walnut Grove Ave, Quad 3D, 388L 505 Van Ness Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770 San Francisco, CA 94102-3214
christine.mcleod@sce.com 'lq@cpuc.ca.gov
Albert J. Garcia
Senior Attorney
Environmental, Property and Local
Governance Section, Law Department
Southern California Edison
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Rosemead, CA 91770
albert.oarcia@sce.com
Chloe Lukins
CEQA Unit Supervisor
California Public Utilities Commission
Energy Division, Area 4-A
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3214
clu @ci)uc.ca.aov
Michael Wheeler
Advisor to Commissioner Grueneich
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3214
mmw @cpuc.ca.gov
13
t
b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
ESA Introduction I Background
Southern California Edison(SCE), in its California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC)
application for the Presidential Substation Project(Proposed Project)(A.08-12-023),filed on
December 22,2008,seeks a Permit to Construct(PTC),to construct,operate and maintain
electrical facilities pursuant to CPUC General Order(GO) 131-D.The application includes the
Proponent's Environmental Assessment(PEA)(SCE,2008)prepared pursuant to Rule 2.4 of
CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
1 The purpose of the Presidential Substation Project(Proposed Project)is to meet the forecasted
electrical demands in the cities of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks,as well as adjacent areas of
Ventura County(Electrical Needs Area[ENA]).The ENA is presently served by three of the
66/16 kilovolt(kV)distribution substations that are fed by the Moorpark 66 kV System.These
three distribution substations(Thousand Oaks Substation,Potrero Substation,and Royal
Substation)provide electrical service to approximately 60,000 metered customers and are
presently at or near their operating capacity.The Proposed Project would construct a new
66/16 kilovolt(kV)distribution substation(proposed Presidential Substation)and associated
66 kV subUwismission lines(proposed subtransmission alignments),telecommunications
connection,and related distribution components.Power to the proposed Presidential Substation
would be supplied by connecting to two existing 66 kV subtransmission lines,Moorpark-Royal
No.2 and Moorpark-Thousand Oaks No.2.
This Draft E1R has been prepared to consider the potential environmental impacts from the
Proposed Project,and to identify and evaluate a range of alternatives.Based on this evaluation
and the documentation which follows,this Draft E1R identifies System Alternative B as the
Environmentally Superior Alternative.
ES.1.1 Proposed Project
The Proposed Project is located in the City of Thousand Oaks and unincorporated Ventura County,
California.As depicted in Figure ES-1 the proposed Presidential Substation would be located in the
northeastern portion of the City of Thousand Oaks near the jurisdictional boundary of the City of
Simi Valley.The proposed subtransmission alignment traverses directly west from the proposed
Presidential Substation across open space,agricultural and residential areas along Read Road to
connect with the Moorpark-Thousand Oaks No.2 subtransmission line near the intersection of Read
Road and Moorpark Road.The proposed subtransmission alignment connecting with the Moorpark-
Presidential Su7Waltan Pmoct ES-1 ESA 1201590.02
(0.08-.12-023)Draft EmAmnmemal Impact Report September 2011
CC ATTACHMENT 2 14
icy,
sr County �-
Son
KK
. t
U4 Angeles h
t,ppnttc :,:
Riverside
r�
ounty
p
-. -e1'Rui:e -i?'=; 1t,:,•;;. .' 1'liaRe Ad., .Z
^a r'k t °�PpR,c
ZI
U.
ti
.x. t
Z >:'c.-eM•• :vcc �t_ j1-� 't'' •ilpn?• y ` r'. 'f �i .a�.e- m.'•. r .
`5i' - :i ,f � Cam• +. - y'• moo.. `.��'��`,,�s _
5
u'
f.
rr..■ Proposed Subtransmission Alignment
Proposed Presidential Substation
E)dsting SCE 66 kV Subtransmission Line
—--— -- - - --- — Presidential Substation Project.207584.02
SOURCE:SCE.201
Figure ES-1
Proposed Project Overview
ES-2
15
3
i
1
Executive Summary
E
a
Royal No.2 subtransmission line would follow the same alignment due west from the proposed
e
Presidential Substation until it turns roughly north adjacent to Sunset Valley Road.The proposed
subtransmission alignment would then proceed north along the west side of Sunset Valley Road
near residential and agricultural land uses and connect to the existing subtransmission line at the
corner of Sunset Valley Road and Tierra Rejada Road.
f
The Proposed Project includes construction,operation and maintenance of the following
components:
• Construction of a new 66/16 kV distribution substation(proposed Presidential Substation)
on an approximately 4-acre site;
• Replacement of existing 16 kV distribution and subtransmission poles with new
subtransmission poles and installation of 66 kV subtransmission conductor to supply the
proposed Presidential Substation;
• Installation of underground 66 kV subtransmission facilities for the portion of the route
crossing Highway 23(Hwy 23);
• Construction or relocation of related 16 kV distribution components, including four new
16 kV distribution getaways at the proposed Presidential Substation,and relocation,
transfer,or upgrade of existing 16 kV distribution facilities either to new subtransmission
poles or to new underground 16 kV distribution facilities.Upgrades to new 16 kV
distribution would involve installation of new conductors instead of re-hanging or burying
the existing 16 kV conductor;and
• Construction of facilities to connect the proposed Presidential Substation to SCE's existing
telecommunications system.
SCE's Proposed Project Objectives
The objectives of the Proposed Project are defined by SCE in its PEA(SCE,2008).This EIR
does not adopt or endorse the objectives that SCE has defined for its Proposed Project.SCE's
defined objectives are presented below.
• Meet long term electrical demand requirements in the ENA beginning in 2011 and
extending beyond 2014 in order to meet 10-year planning criterion;
• Improve electrical system operational flexibility and reliability by providing the ability to
transfer load between 16 kV distribution circuits and distribution substations within the
ENA;
• Meet project needs while minimizing environmental impacts;and
• Meet project needs in a cost-effective manner.
PresiUenbal Substation Project ES-3 ESA/207501.02
(A 08-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report September 2011
16
Executive Summery
TABLE ES-1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT COMPONENTS
Construction of a new 66/16 kV low-profile distribution substation(Proposed Presidential Substation)on an
approximate four-acre site
• Install one 66 kV switctvack
• Install five 66 kV circuit breakers and disconnect switches
• Install two 28 MVA,66/16 kV transformers
• Install two 16 kV,4.8 MVAR capacitor banks
• Install one 16 kV low-profile switchrack
• Install one TSP and one TSP Riser subtransmission poles
• Install one vault outside northwest comer of proposed Presidential Substation perimeter wall
• Install four underground 16 kV distribution getaways
• Instal lighting
• Construct one Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Room(MEER)
• Construct perimeter wall and gate
• Construct proposed Presidential Substation access driveway from Olsen Road
• Construct acceleration and deceleration lanes on Olsen Road
• Install site drainage
• Upgrade subtransmission(66 kV)relays at Royal and Moorpark Substations
Remove existing poles and construct new subtransmission poles and underground distribution facilities;
install 66kV subtransmission conductor to proposed Presidential Substation
• Remove approximately 89 existing wooden 16 kV distribution poles and four 66 kV subtransmission poles
• Install approximately 66 steel subtransmission poles with polymer insulators within existing ROW(25 TSPs,of
which two are already described in the substation section above,and 41 light weight circular poles(LWS)poles)
• Install 66 kV conductor(i.e.,2000 thousand circular mill(kcmip copper)in new underground facilities beneath
Hwy23.
• Install 66 kV conductor(i.e.,954 Stranded Aluminum(SAC)and 954 Aluminum Core Steel Reinforced(ACSR)on
new subtransmission poles from subtransmission supply lines to the proposed Presidential Substation(except for
the Hwy 23 crossing)
— Double-circuit 66 kV subtransmission line from proposed Presidential Substation west to the junction of Read
Road and Sunset Valley Road.(1.5 miles),within existing and/or upgraded ROW(including under Hwy 23)
— Single-circuit 66 kV subtransmission line from junction of Read Road and Sunset Valley Road west adjacent to
Read Road to the Moorpark-Thousand Oaks No.2(0.8 mile),within existing ROW
— Single-circuit 66 kV subtransmission line from junction of Read Road and Sunset Valley Road north adjacent
to Sunset Valley Road to the Moorpark-Royal No.2(1.0 mile),within existing ROW
• Construct new access roads or improve existing roads for construction and maintenance of subtransmission
facilities.
Relocation of existing distribution conductor
• Transfer existing 16 kV distribution line onto new subtransmission poles or to newly constructed underground
facilities:
— For existing 16 kV distribution facilities along or near the doubie-circuit 66 kV subtransmission line,install new
underground distribution facilities along or near portions of the 66 kV subtransmission route
— For existing 16 kV distribution facilities along or near the single-circuit 66 kV subtransmission line,transfer or
upgrade distribution facilities to the new 66 kV subtransmission poles.Upgrades to new 16 kV distribution
would involve installation of new conductors instead of re-hanging or burying the existing 16 kV conductor
— Existing 16 kV facilities would be undergrounded to create space for new subtransmission facilities at the
intersections of Read Road and Moorpark Road and at Sunset Valley and Tierra Rejada Road
• Install two new street light poles to replace existing streetlights located on wooden 16 kV distribution poles
• Construct new access roads for construction and maintenance of underground facilities
Presidenosi substation Project ESA ESA 1207584 02
(A.08-12-023)Draft Ermronmemal Impact Report September 2011
17
s
i
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-1(Continued)
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT COMPONENTS
j Construction of facilities to connect proposed Presidential Substation to SCE's existing telecommunications
system
• Install telecommunication line(i.e.fiber optic cable)from the Moorpark-Thousand Oaks No.2 66 kV Subtransmission
' Line to approximately Sunset Valley Road.
• Install underground telecommunications facilities with the 16 kV distribution lines from approximately Sunset Valley
Road to proposed Presidential Substation.
• Install underground telecommunication lines at the intersections of Moorpark Road,and Read Road,and also at
Sunset Valley Road and Tierra Rejada Road to follow the 16 kV distribution pathway.
SOURCE SCE.2008b.2010
Basic Project Objectives — as defined by the CEQA Team
The CEQA team requested additional technical data from SCE and conducted an independent
assessment to better define the basic objectives of the Proposed Project for use in the alternatives
screening process.This information included data responses which are available to the public via
the project website and some technical system data determined to contain critical energy
infrastructure information and is therefore confidential.The basic project objectives identified by
the CEQA team based on the technical data and additional analysis are:
• Meet long term electrical demand requirements in the ENA as defined in the proponents
application and PEA(SCE 2008);and
• Improve electrical system operational flexibility and reliability by providing the ability to
transfer load between 16 kV distribution circuits and 16k V distribution substations within
the ENA.
One method of meeting long term electrical demand requirements within the ENA would include
the construction of a new substation. In order for the CEQA team to consider alternatives
involving the construction,operation and maintenance of a new substation it further defined
"operational flexibility"and"reliability"requirements using the additional data provided by SCE
and independently assessed.The CEQA team determined that to be considered for further
analysis an alternative substation site would have to meet the following objectives of the
Proposed Project.
• Be capable of being served from two separate 66 kV lines.
• Be located such that at least two of the 16 kV distribution circuits can easily interconnect
with circuits from adjacent substations.
• Be capable of ultimately providing 12 to 16, 16 kV distribution circuits.
Presidential Substation Project ES-5 ESA 1207584 02
(A Oti 12-023)Draft Envira+mental Impact Report September 2011
18
i
Executive Summary
ES.1.2 Summary of Public Involvement Activities
• On February 17,2009,the CPUC published and distributed a Notice of Preparation(NOP)
to advise interested local, regional,and State agencies,and interested public,that an EIR
would be prepared for the Proposed Project,and included information about a public
scoping meeting.
• On Tuesday, March 3,2009 at 6:30 pm the CPUC held an educational workshop and public
scoping meeting in the cafeteria of the Park Oak Elementary School, located at 1335 Calle
Bouganvilla,Thousand Oaks,California.
• On Tuesday, March 3, 2009 following the educational workshop
• Due to the changes in the Proposed Project design and the length of time that passed since
the initial scoping period,the CPUC conducted a 30-day supplemental scoping period.The
CPUC provided several public notices for the supplemental scoping process.On
Wednesday,August 25,2010,the CPUC published and distributed a Noticing Letter to
interested local,regional,and State agencies,and the public,stating that the Project
Description for the Proposed Project had changed(Appendix A).
• On Tuesday,September 14,2010,form 6:30 p.m.to 8:30 pm the CPUC conducted a
supplemental scoping meeting in a meeting room at the Palm Garden Hotel,at 495 N.
Ventu Park Road,Thousand Oaks,California.
ES.1.3 Areas of Controversy / Public Scoping Issues
Private citizens,homeowners,and local businesses provided the majority of the comments during
the scoping process. In addition,comments were received from the following organizations and
government agencies:
• California Department of Fish and Game
• Center for Biological Diversity
• City of Moorpark
• City of Simi Valley
• City of Thousand Oaks
• Deer Creek Community Association
• Department of the Interior,National Park Service/Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area
• Native American Heritage Commission
• Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
• Sunset Hills Homeowners Association
• Rancho Madera Homeowners Association
• Underwood Family Farms
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
• Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
Presidenbel Stostebon Project ES-6 ESA 12075&102
(A.08-12-023)Graf Enwortmental Impact Report September 2011
19
Executive Summary
Ventura County Department of Public Work and Transportation
• Ventura County Integrated Waste Management Division
• Ventura County Planning Division
• Ventura County Resource Management Agency
• Ventura County Watershed Protection District
The Scoping Reports in Appendix A include all comments and describe which comments are not
within the scope of CEQA. The overarching themes in the written and oral comments received
are as follows:
• Impacts on scenic views,especially along eligible and designated-scenic Ventura County
and city roadways
• Impacts from loss of agricultural land;
• Impacts to air quality from earth disturbance and removal of vegetation;
• Impacts to wildlife and plant life;
• Impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change;
• Impacts to known cultural resources;
• Impacts to water quality and water runoff in the project area;
• Impacts to the surrounding land uses;
• Noise impacts from operation of the transmission lines;
• Impacts to population and housing;
• Impacts on public services and recreation;
• Impacts to the transportation systems and traffic safety;
• Cumulative impacts;
• Ensuring that alternatives are adequately addressed;and,
• Ensuring that perceived inadequacies in the PEA will not be repeated.
ES.2 Alternatives
Alternatives to SCE's Proposed Project are identified and evaluated in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines.CEQA Guidelines(§I5126(a))state:
An EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location
of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.
CEQA Guidelines(§15364)define feasibility as:
. . . capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
Presidential Substatan Pro)ed ES-7 ESA 1207504 02
(A 08-12-023)Draft Enworxnental Impact Repon Septemoer 2011
20
Executive Summary
Alternatives to the Proposed Project were presented by SCE in its PEA and or developed by the
CEQA Team. Particular emphasis was placed on developing feasible alternatives which would
reduce impacts to Aesthetics,Noise,and Air Quality.
In total,the alternatives screening process has culminated in the identification and screening of
approximately five potential alternatives for SCE's Proposed Project(not including combinations
of alternative components):three alternative subtransmission alignments including a partial
undergrounding alternative,one alternative substation site,and one system alternative that would
upgrade existing substations.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project were screened according to CEQA guidelines to determine
those alternatives to carry forward for analysis in the EIR and alternatives to eliminate from
detailed consideration.The alternatives were primarily evaluated according to:(1)whether they
would meet most of the basic project objectives;(2)whether they would be feasible considering
legal, regulatory and technical constraints;and(3)whether they have the potential to substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the Proposed Project.1 Other factors considered, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines(CEQA Guidelines§I5126.6(f)),were site suitability,
economic viability,availability of infrastructure,general plan consistency,other regulatory
Iimitations,jurisdictional boundaries,and proponent's control over alternative sites. Economic
factors or costs of the alternatives(beyond economically feasible)were not considered in the
screening of alternatives since CEQA Guidelines require consideration of alternatives capable of
eliminating or reducing significant environmental effects even though they may"impede to some
degree the attainment of project objectives or would be more costly"(CEQA Guidelines
§15126.6(b)).
The detailed results of the alternatives screening analysis are contained in Chapter 3 of the EIR.
Provided below are summary descriptions of the alternatives which meet the basic project
objectives,lessen significant impacts,and are feasible,and were therefore carried forward for
further analysis. Figure ES-2 illustrates the general alignment of the three alternatives compared
to the Proposed Project,as well as the location of the alternative substation site.Section 3.5,
Alternatives Eliminated from Full EIR Evaluation,provides information related to other
alternatives considered and the rational for elimination from further consideration.
At the screening stage,it is neither possible nor legally required to evaluate all of the impacts of the alternatives in
comparison to the Proposed Project with absolute certainty,nor is it possible to quantify impacts.However,it is
possible to identify elements of an alternative that are likely to be the sources of impact and to relate them,to the
extent possible,to general conditions in the subject arra.
PresWerxrat Substation Project ES-8 ESA f 20158//2
(A 08-12423)Draft Environmental Impact Report September 2011
21
(.
, \ --
\--2 d' r—/
- .... )
_.._ , (if/r c
•
..-7(
•
I
o
-..-N.-______...._ Illerra Raiana K,I
M 0\f� :� i FCO¢PtCRO�A`�o.Z
m
H
v
0 a
¢o :.o c
Arroyo v
I c`'
i g Q
m
m j.
°— o \
Ia
% data Fd
Simi ,a ey
c....- Read Rd ; _-- __ lj
underground at
p �---� HUN'23 Crossing —/.e
Q Thousand
a t. Oaks r
Proposed Subtransmission
en�a Alignment
IY d �� -__ Proposed 18 kV Distribution
!C % Line(underground)
0 Q Proposed Presidential
2 . Sunset hills 3lVq Substation
r Alignment 1(overhead)
1 �.^^-Alignment 2(overhead)
` p t --• Alignment 3(overhead)
l� -_ •- --- Alignment 3(underground)A• Alternative Substation Site 8
/ -Alignments would serve the proposed or aaemative substation
— Existing SCE 88 kV
•Alignments would be adjacent to existing roads unless nickeled as Subtransmission Line
"overland route"
Presidential Substation Project.207584.02
SOURCE:SCE,2010 Figure ES-2
Alternative Subtransmission Alignments
ES-9
22
Executive Summary
ES.2.1 Altematives Fully Evaluated in this EIR
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 1
Description
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 1 would be capable of serving a new substation at either
the proposed Presidential Substation site or the Alternative Substation Site B(with minor
alignment modifications in the vicinity of the substation).
The first source line would consist of a single-circuit subtransmission line originating at the
Moorpark-Thousand Oaks No.2 66 kV subtransmission line near the intersection of Read Road
and Moorpark Road in unincorporated Ventura County. The alignment would extend cast along
the south side of Read Road within the City of Thousand Oaks along an existing 16 kV
distribution circuit past the intersection of Read Road and Sunset Valley Road.The alignment
would continue east along Read Road,crosses Hwy 23(underground),and continue east to the
substation site.Although the alignment would be constructed within existing ROW,some areas
along Read Road could require additional overhang easement rights to accommodate the pole
cross-arms.This alignment would be constructed in the same path as one of the Proposed Project
source lines.However,the entire alignment would be constructed as a single-circuit
subtransmission line.As a single-circuit,the line would be constructed using primarily LWS with
limited use of TSPs.The pole types and locations between Moorpark Road and Sunset Valley
Road would be the same as the Proposed Project.The existing 16 kV distribution line and a
telecommunication line would be installed on the new LWS poles and the existing wooden 16 kV
distribution poles currently in the alignment would be removed.The new telecommunication line
would also be installed overhead on the LWS poles. Both the subtransmission and 16 kV
distribution circuits would be constructed underground at the Hwy 23 crossing.
The second source line for would originate at the Moorpark-Royal No.2 66 kV subtransmission
line near the intersection of Tierra Rejada Road and Esperance Road.The alignment initially would
extend due south parallel to Esperance Road,and turn east approximately 0.5 mile south of Tierra
Rejada Road and then southeast where the alignment leaves Esperance Road.For 1.8 miles,the
alignment would cross generally overland requiring new ROW up to 25 feet wide.The alignment
would terminate at the substation site entering the substation from directly north.A new
telecommunication line and 16 kV distribution circuit would be installed on the new LWS poles.
In total,Alternative Subtransmission Alignment l would be approximately 4.5 miles long,and
would cross land presently used for open space and rural residential purposes.Construction
methods and duration would be similar to those described for the Proposed Project.Trenching for
the installation of 16 kV distribution lines along Read Road and east of Hwy 23 would not be
required under this Alternative.
Rationale for Full Analysis
This alternative would meet the basic project objectives for both the proposed Presidential
Substation site and the Alternative Substation Site B. It would also meet all legal, regulatory and
Presi0enlral Substation Protect ES-10 ESA 1207564 02
(A 06-12,023)Draft Environmental impact Report September 2011
23
Exemilive Summary
technical feasibility criteria.This alternative would lessen the level of impacts on noise and air
quality but would result in new significant unavoidable impacts on aesthetics.
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 2
Description
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 2 would be capable of serving either the proposed
Presidential Substation,or Alternative Substation Site B(with minor alignment modifications in
the vicinity of the substation).
The first source line would originate at the Moorpark-Thousand Oaks No. 2 66 kV
subtransmission line near the intersection of Olsen Road and Sunset Hills Boulevard in the City
of Thousand Oaks,and follow Olsen Road,primarily on the north side to the substation.
The second source line would originate at the Moorpark-Royal No. 2 66 kV subtransmission line
near the intersection of Madera Road and Tierra Rejada Road in the City of Simi Valley,and
follows Madera Road to the substation sites.
Due to the curvatures in Olsen and Madera Roads,the subtransmission structures along this
alignment could require additional support mechanisms such as anchors and guy wires. Poles
located in a curve or corner along the alignment would require some form of guying to provide
additional support.The number and locations of poles which would require additional support,
has not been identified at this time. If support mechanisms could not be accommodated within the
road ROW,SCE would be required to obtain additional ROW. Based on preliminary engineering,
single-circuit subtransmission poles would be placed every 180 to 200 feet. Poles would be a
combination of L WS and TSPs depending upon the structural needs of the location.
Construction and pole assembly would occur on existing adjacent paved roads(Madera Road and
Olsen Road).No new access roads would be required for this alignment.Activities within or
immediately adjacent to the roadway,could require temporary lane closure.Traffic management
would be conducted in a manner similar to the Proposed Project. While conductor pulling and
preparation of pull and tension sites would be similar to the Proposed Project.This alternative
would require approximately 12 pull and tension sites. Similar to the proposed subtransmission
alignment the pull and tension sites would be approximately 150 feet by 30 feet.
In total,Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 2 would be approximately 5 miles long and would
be adjacent to land presently used for residential,commercial,public space,and open space
purposes.
Rationale for Full Analysis
This alternative would meet the basic project objectives for both the proposed Presidential
Substation site and the Alternative Substation Site B. It would also meet all legal, regulatory and
technical feasibility criteria.This alternative would lessen the level of impacts on noise but would
result in new significant unavoidable impacts on aesthetics.
Presidential Substation Project ES-1 1 FSA 1207584 02
(A 08-12-023)Drah Environmental Imbed Report September 2011
24
Executive Summary — —— — — — ---— — — --
r
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 3
Description
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 3 would construct two new 66 kV subtransmission source
lines capable of serving either the proposed Presidential Substation site or Alternative Substation
Site B(with minor alignment modifications in the vicinity of the substation).The origination
points and general route would be the same as the Proposed Project. However,additional portions
of Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 3 would be installed underground compared to the
Proposed Project. In addition,some sections of the existing 16 kV distribution line would not
need to be relocated and would instead remain in place on existing wooden poles.
The first source line would originate as a single-circuit overhead subtransmission line at the
Moorpark-Thousand Oaks No.2 66 kV subtransmission line near the intersection of Read Road
and Moorpark Road. The alignment extends east overhead along Read Road to the intersection of
Sunset Valley Road,similar to the Proposed Project.The second source subtransmission circuit
would originate as a single-circuit overhead subtransmission line at the Moorpark-Royal No.2
66 kV subtransmission line near the intersection of Tierra Rejada Road and Sunset Valley Road.
The alignment extends southeast overhead along Sunset Valley Road to the intersection with
Read Road,similar to the Proposed Project. Pole structures and construction methods would be
the same as for the Proposed Project for these portions of the alignment. At the intersection of
Sunset Valley Road and Read Road,a TSP riser pole would be installed and from that point east,
a double-circuit subtransmission line would be installed underground within Read Road,north of
the centerline to the new substation.
The double-circuit subtransmission line would continue east underneath Hwy 23 in the same
manner as described for the Proposed Project. However,since the line would already be
underground,TSP risers on the west and east sides of the bore would not be required.
Once the double-circuit subtransmission line reaches the east side of Hwy 23,the line would
continue underground to the new substation.The alignment east of Hwy 23 would follow the
same underground alignment identified for undergrounding the 16 kV distribution line in the
Proposed Project.However,for this alternative,the 16 kV distribution line would remain
overhead on existing poles,while the 66 kV would be installed underground.
Additionally,a telecommunication line would be installed on the existing wood 16 kV
distribution poles.The construction of a Hilfiker retaining wall and widening of access roads
identified for pole removal and installation would not be required under this alternative.
Relocation of the existing 16 kV distribution line between Sunset Valley Road and the substation
would not be required.
Rationale for Full Analysis
This alternative would meet the basic project objectives for both the proposed Presidential
Substation site and the Alternative Substation Site B. It would also meet all legal,regulatory and
Presidential SLOstabon Pro)ect ES-12 ESA 1207584 02
)A 08.12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report September 2011
25
ExecuWe Summary
technical feasibility criteria.This alternative would lessen the level of impacts on noise and air
quality and would eliminate significant impacts on aesthetic resources.
Alternative Substation Site B
Description
Alternative Substation Site B would construct a new 66/16 kV substation on an approximate
2.3-acre parcel of land located on the north site of Madera Road in the City of Simi Valley.
Similar to the Proposed Project,this substation location is capable of being served by the
proposed subtransmission alignment or Alternative Subtransmission Alignments 1,2 or 3,with
minor modifications. Unlike the proposed subtransmission alignment,the Alternative Substation,
would not require crossing Olsen Road to connect to the substation. Instead,the alignment would
continue on the north side of Olsen Road until reaching the Alternative Substation Site B.
Rationale for Full Analysis
This alternative would meet the basic project objectives. It would also meet all legal, regulatory
and technical feasibility criteria.This alternative would lessen the level of impacts on noise and
air quality and would eliminate significant impacts on aesthetic resources related to substation
construction.
System Alternative B
Description
This alternative would consist of upgrading the Royal,Thousand Oaks,and Potrero Substations
by replacing the existing 16.8 MVA transformers(transformer base rating at 55 degree
Celsius(C)rise without cooling or other overload provisions)with larger ones.The larger
transformers would not be consistent with a standard SCE transformer sizing.
Installing larger transformers could require the replacement of some existing 16 kV distribution
equipment located inside and outside of the substation footprint.Additional 16 kV distribution
circuits may be required at some locations or existing 16 kV distribution getaway equipment
could need to be upgraded.
The approximate size of the new transformers would be in the 25 to 30 MVA range(transformer
base rating)depending on the space available at the substations to accommodate the equipment
and other constraints such as short circuit duty.
Rationale for Full Analysis
This alternative would meet the basic project objectives. It would also meet all legal,regulatory
and technical feasibility criteria.This alternative would eliminate significant impacts on noise,air
quality and aesthetic resources.
ProsidWWI substation Projeet ES-13 ESA 1207584 02
(A 06-12-023)Draft EnWorvnental Impact Report S"Iemer 2011
26
Executive Summary
No Project Alternative
Description
In addition to the alternative subtransmission alignments/substation described above,the EIR
evaluates the No Project Alternative, in accordance with CEQA requirements.CEQA Guidelines
[§15126.6(e)),state that the No Project Alternative must include(a)the assumption that conditions
at the time of the Notice of Preparation(i.e., baseline environmental conditions)would not be
changed since the Proposed Project would not be installed,and(b)the events or actions that
would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved.
Under this alternative,the Proposed Project would not be implemented and the basic project
objectives would not be met.
ES.3 Proposed Project Impact Assessment
ES.3.1 Impact Assessment Methodology
The analysis of environmental impacts is based upon the environmental setting applicable to each
resource/issue and the manner in which the construction,operation and maintenance of the
Proposed Project or alternatives would affect the environmental setting and related resource
conditions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and guidelines,the impact assessment
methodology also considers the following three topics: (1)the regulatory setting,and evaluates
whether the Proposed Project or alternatives would be consistent with adopted federal,State and
Local regulations and guidelines,(2)growth-inducing impacts,and(3)cumulative impacts.
Regulatory compliance issues are discussed in each resource/issue area section.The EIR
document is organized according to the following major issue area categories:
• Aesthetics • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Agriculture Resources • Land Use and Planning
• Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Geology,Soils and Seismicity • Recreation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Transportation and Traffic
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems
In order to provide for a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of potential environmental
consequences to the resource/issue areas,the environmental impact assessments for the Proposed
Project and alternatives are based upon a classification system,with the following four associated
definitions:
Class l: Significant impact;cannot be mitigated to a level that is not significant
Class II: Significant impact;can be mitigated to a level that is not significant
Class III:Adverse impact, less than significant
presidentWSdxtabon aro)ect ES-14 ESA120758402
(A 08-12-023)Draft Enwormental Impact Report September 2011
27
a
Y
t
Executive Summary
No Impact: No impact identified
ES.3.2 Applicant Proposed Measures
In the Proponent's Environmental Assessment(SCE,2008)and subsequent data response(SCE,
2010),SCE identified the following applicant proposed measures(APMs)that would be
implemented to avoid or reduce potential impacts from the Proposed Project.
• APM-BIO-01: Minimize Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub.To the extent feasible,the
Proposed Project would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal sage scrub.
Mitigation measures and compensation for impacts to coastal sage scrub would be
developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFG to reduce the impacts to less than
significant.
• APM-BIO-02: Minimize Impacts to Jurisdictional Drainages.A jurisdictional drainage
delineation would be conducted during Spring 2009 to describe and map the extent of
resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE,the RWQCB,and/or the CDFG following
the guidelines presented in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual:Arid West Region. As appropriate,SCE would secure a
Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG,and Clean Water Act§404 and 401
permits from the USACE and LARWQCB,respectively,prior to disturbing the
jurisdictional drainage.
• APM CU1-1: Cultural Resources Treatment Plan.SCE will develop a Cultural
Resources Treatment Plan that would define appropriate actions necessary to lessen or
avoid potential impacts to sites CA-VEN-1571 and CA-VEN-744.
• APM CUL-2: Installation of Geoteztile Type Fabric along Access Road.Prior to
construction,SCE will address the drivability of the access road leading to site CA-VEN-
744.In the event that the road is determined to be inadequate for transporting of equipment,
SCE would design and implement the placement of geotextile-type fabric and fill soil along
the road prior to access road usage.The placement of the geotextile-type fabric and fill soil
would protect the archaeological site from potential impacts such as increased displacing of
artifacts of the existing site surface due to vehicle traffic and road maintenance.
• APM CUL-3: Capping of Archaeological Site on Potential Impact Areas.Prior to
installation of the subtransmission structure located at site CA-VEN-744,SCE will cap the
portions of the site that have the potential to be impacted.To cap the site,SCE will place
geotextile-type fabric on the surface of the archaeological site and then spread imported fill
soil or other suitable material over the geotextile-type fabric.The capping will prevent future
erosion of the site surface as a result of SCE's ingress and egress for maintenance and
inspection activities.The archaeological site cap will not be removed after construction.
• APM CUL-4: Construction of Earthen Pad.SCE will install an earthen pad adjacent to
the existing subtransmission structure location.The earthen pad is necessary to support
heavy equipment required to install the subtransmission structure safely,while preserving
archaeological site CA-VEN-744 from potential construction related impacts.The earthen
pad area will be covered by geotextile-type fabric and then overlaid by"honey comb
structure."The honey comb structure will be filled with imported fill soil.The earthen pad
would not be removed after construction and will be utilized for maintenance activities.
Presidential StOwation Protect ES-15 ESA 1 207-%4.02
(A.08-12-029)Draft Envuorvnental Impact Report September 2011
28
E
z
i
Executive Summary
• APM CUL-5: Fencing of an Environmentally Sensitive Area. SCE would install an
Environmentally Sensitive Area(ESA) fence to protect portions of archaeological sites
CA-VEN-744 and CA-VEN-1571 from potential impacts.
• APM CUL-6: Native American Monitoring.SCE will retain the services of a Chumash
Native American representative to conduct monitoring activities during work carried out
within sites CA-VEN-744 and CA-VEN-1571 and in their vicinity.The Native American
representative will be present during any archaeological excavations and during project
construction in those areas determined by SCE's project archaeologist as having the
potential to contain archaeological resources.
• APM CUIr7:Archaeological Monitoring.A qualified archaeologist will be on site to
monitor ground-disturbing activities within or in the vicinity of sites CA-VEN-744 and
CA-VEN-1571. If archaeological resources were identified during construction activities,
construction would be halted in that area and away from the discovery, until a qualified
archaeologist assesses the significance of the resource.The archaeologist would
recommend appropriate measures to record,preserve or recover the resources.
• APM-PAL-01: Develop and Implement a Paleontological Monitoring Plan.A project
paleontologist meeting the qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontologists shall be retained by SCE to develop and implement a Paleontological
Monitoring Plan prior to the start of ground disturbing activities at the Proposed Project
substation site. As part of the Paleontological Monitoring Plan,the project paleontologist
shall establish a curation agreement with an accredited facility prior to the initiation of
ground-disturbing activities.The Paleontological Monitoring Plan shall also include a final
monitoring report. If fossils are identified,the final monitoring report shall contain an
appropriate description of the fossils,treatment,and curation.
• APM-PAU02: Paleontological Monitoring.A paleontological monitor shall be on site to
observe ground-disturbing activities within the paleontologically sensitive formations at the
Proposed Project substation site. If fossils are found during ground-disturbing activities,the
paleontological monitor shall be empowered to halt the ground-disturbing activities within
25 feet of the find in order to allow evaluation of the find and determination of appropriate
treatment.
ES.3.3 Mitigation Measures
The EIR describes feasible measures that could minimize significant adverse impacts(CEQA
Guidelines§15226.4).Within each issue area,mitigation measures are recommended where
environmental effects could be substantially minimized.The mitigation measures recommended
by this study have been identified in the impact assessment sections of the EIR and are presented
in Mitigation Monitoring,Reporting,and Compliance Program in Chapter 8.
ES.3.4 Findings
An overview of environmental impacts by resource area is provided below based on the detailed
impact finding and mitigation measures for the Proposed Project and alternatives provided in
Chapter 4,Fnvironmental Analysis.Tables ES-4 and FS-5, at the end of this Executive Summary,
provide a more detailed summary of all the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for
the Proposed Project and alternatives.
Presi0errUal Srbstatton Protect ES-16 ESA 1207584.02
(n 08-12-023)Draft Envrrmnental Impart Repro September 2011
29
Executive Summary
Less than Significant and Less than Significant with Mitigation
For the Proposed Project and alternatives, based on technical review and evaluation against the
environmental and regulatory setting,the following environmental impacts were determined to be
less than significant or less than significant with mitigation(i.e.,Class III and Class II,respectively).
• Agriculture Resources • Land Use and Planning
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources 0 Public Services
• Geology,Soils and Seismicity • Recreation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Transportation and Traffic
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems
• hydrology and Water Quality •
Significant Unavoidable
As summarized in Table ES-2,environmental impacts would be significant and unavoidable
(Class I),even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures,in the following areas:
• Aesthetics(Proposed Project;Alternative Subtransmission Alignments I and 2)
• Air Quality(Proposed Project;Alternative Subtransmission Alignments 1,2 and 3;
Alternative Substation Site B)
• Noise(Proposed Project;Alternative Subtransmission Alignments 1 and 3)
ES.4 Summary Comparison of the Proposed Project
and Alternatives
ES.4.1 Methodology
CEQA requires identification of an environmentally superior alternative, but does not provide
specific direction regarding the methodology of alternatives comparison.Each project must be
evaluated for the issues and impacts that are most important;this will vary depending on the
project type and the environmental setting. Issue areas that are generally given more weight in
comparing alternatives are those with long-term impacts(e.g.,visual impacts and permanent loss
of habitat/agricultural lands). Impacts associated with construction(i.e.,temporary or short-term)
or those that are easily mitigable to less than significant levels are considered to be less important.
The methodology used to compare alternatives in this EIR started with identification of
alternatives.Based on alternatives suggested during scoping,an intensive evaluation process was
completed that resulted in the determination that the EIR would analyze three alternative
alignment variations,one alternative substation site,and one system alternative.A No Project
alternative was also identified.The second step required assessment of the environmental impacts
of the Proposed Project and alternatives. The third step was the comparison of the impacts of each
alternative to those of the Proposed Project to determine the environmentally superior alternative.
The environmentally superior alternative was then compared to the No Project alternative.
Preaidentiat Substation Project ES-17 ESA/20758102
(A 0812-023)Draft EmAromnental Impact Report September 2011
30
l
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-2
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE(CLASS 1)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES BY COMPONENT
Altemative Significant(Class 1)Impacts
Proposed Aesthetics-significant unavoidable:The Proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable
Project- impacts to scenic resources and degradation of visual character and public views.Significant
Includes both unavoidable impacts would result from both the substation construction and the proposed
the proposed subtransmission line construction.
Presidential Air Quality-significant unavoidable The Proposed Project construction activities would generate
Substation and ozone precursor emissions(i e.,NOx)that could contribute substantially to a violation of ozone air
proposed quality standards and would be cumulatively considerable.Significant unavoidable impacts would
subtransmission result from the combined emissions associated with all components of the Proposed Project.
alignment
Noise-significant unavoidable:The Proposed Project construction activities would generate noise
levels in unincorporated Ventura County that would exceed Ventura County constriction noise
threshold criteria.Significant unavoidable impacts would result from the proposed subtransmission
line,16kV distribution line and telecommunications cable and access road construction
Significant Impacts(Class 1)Eliminated or Created by Alternatives
Alternative Aesthetics-significant unavoidable:Aesthetic impacts would be created on views from three
Subtransmission equestrian centers and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Ronald Reagan Presidential
Alignment 1 Library.
Air Quality-significant unavoidable:Construction activities would generate ozone precursor
emissions(i.e.,NOx)that could contribute substantially to a violation of ozone air quality standards
and would be cumulatively considerable.
Noise-significant unavoidable:Constriction activities would generate noise levels in unincorporated
Ventura County that would exceed Ventura County construction noise threshold criteria.
Alternative Aesthetics-significant unavoidable:Aesthetic impacts due to the presence of pole structures that
Subtransmission would substantially degrade the existing visual character of the sites and their surroundings,and
Alignment 2 Class I impacts to approximately 2.7 miles of Olsen Road(designated Scenic Highway in the City of
Thousand Oaks),and approximately,2.2 miles of Madera Road(designated Scenic Roadway in the
City of Simi Valley).
Air Quality-significant unavoidable:Construction activities would generate ozone precursor
emissions(i.e.,NOx)that could contribute substantially to a violation of ozone air quality standards
and would be cumulatively considerable.
Noise-less than sgnifcent.Construction activities would eliminate significant unavoidable impacts
related to exceeding Ventura County construction noise threshold criteria because unincorporated
Ventura County residents would not be impacted under this alternative.
Alternative Aesthetics-less than significant.The subtransmission crossing of Olsen Road would be installed
Subtransmission underground reducing the visual impact to less than significant.
Alignment 3 Air Quality-significant unavoidable:Construction activities would generate ozone precursor
emissions(i.e.,NOx)that could contribute substantially to a violation of ozone air quality standards
and would be cumulatively considerable.
Noise-significant unavoidable:Construction activities would generate noise levels in unincorporated
Ventura County that would exceed Ventura County construction noise threshold criteria.
Altemative Aesthetics-less than sign/ficant.Elimination of eliminate Class I impacts related to aesthetic
Substation Site resources.
B Air Quality-significant unavoidable:Construction activities would generate ozone precursor
emissions(i.e.,NOx)that could contritwte substantially to a violation of ozone air quality standards
and would be cumulatively considerable.
Noise-less than significant Construction activities would not generate noise levels in
unincorporated Ventura County in excess of Ventura County construction noise threshold criteria.
Construction at this site would result in noise impacts less than significant.
System Aesthetics-less than significant.Class I aesthetic impacts would be eliminated.
Alternative B Air Quality-less than significant Construction impacts in Ventura County associated with potential
violation of ozone air quality standards and cumulatively considerable levels of NOx
Noise-less than significant short-term construction impacts:Class I noise impacts in Ventura
County would be eliminated.Unlike the Proposed Project and Alternative Substation Site B,this
alternative would result in long-term operational impacts at the Thousand Oaks Substation.However,
these impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.
Presldar"Substation Project ES-18 [SA r 207584 02
(A 0e-12-023)Draft EnWorunentat Impact Report September 2011
31
Executive Summary
Although this comparison focuses on the most important issue areas(e.g.,aesthetic resources,air
quality and noise),determining an environmentally superior alternative is difficult because of the
many factors that must be balanced.While the EIR identifies an environmentally superior
alternative, it is possible that the Commission could balance the importance of each impact area
differently and reach a different conclusion.
ES.4.2 Summary of Significant (Class 1) Unavoidable Impacts
As discussed above in Table ES-2,the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable
impact with respect to aesthetic resources,air quality and noise.One or more of these significant
unavoidable impacts were also identified for each of the alternative subtransmission alignments and
the alternative substation site.System Alternative R would result in no unavoidable impacts.
ES.4.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The selection of an Environmentally Superior Alternative is based on differences in intensity and
duration of significant impacts.Based on these differences the identified environmentally
superior alternative is System Alternative B. This alternative would not result in any significant
unavoidable impacts. System Alternative B,which does not involve the construction of a new
substation,would meet most of the basic project objectives but would result in reduced
operational flexibility and reliability compared to the Proposed Project,and other alternatives
which involve construction of a new substation.All other alternatives would result in at least one
significant unavoidable impact.
Seven of the alternatives combinations are variations of alignments and/or new substation
location. For a number of resources there are no material environmental impact differences
between the Proposed Project and alternatives including:geology,soils,seismicity and mineral
resources;hydrology/water quality; land use/planning;population/housing;and recreation.
Implementation of the Proposed Project and all seven of the alternative combinations would involve
construction of a new substation that results in significant unavoidable(Class I)air quality impacts.
Although air quality impacts would be of varying degrees with regard to NOx as an ozone
precursor,each of the seven alternatives would still result in exceedences of the local threshold.
ES.4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative vs. No Project
Alternative
The Environmentally Superior Alternative(System Alternative B)would result in less-than-
significant impacts on aesthetics,noise and air quality resources and would have minimal long-
term impacts on residences.The most significant impact of the No Project Alternative is that
SCE's ability to provide safe and reliable electric service to customers within the ENA would be
jeopardized,creating the potential for increased incidence of brown-outs and black-outs in the
future which could in turn result in indirect impacts to the provision of public services.Overall,
the Environmentally Superior Alternative is preferred over the No Project Alternative,as the
No Project Alternative would not meet the basic project objectives.
Presidential substation Protect ES-19 ESA)207584 02
(A 08-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report September 2011
32
Executive Summary
ES.5 Impact Summary Tables
Table ES-3 on the following pages summarizes all identified impacts of the Proposed Project.
The following information is presented: impact number,impact class(Class 1, 11,or 111),
applicable mitigation measure,and residual impact(if significant unavoidable).Table ES-4
presents a summary of environmental impacts increased or decreased by each of the alternatives.
The table(ES-4)focuses only on Aesthetics,Noise,and Air Quality since these are the only
resources with significant unavoidable impacts under the Proposed Project. Impacts on all other
resources are mitigable to less than significant.
Presidential Substation Project ES-20 ESA 1207584 02
(A 08-12.023)Draft EnWonnaintal hnpacr Report September 2011
33
Executtve Summary
TABLE ES-3
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Class° Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.1-2:The Proposed Project would Class II Mitigation Measure 4.1-2a:For ale structures that are visible from viewsheds
substantially damage scenic resources,Including, where visual impacts are significant(i.e.,Highway 23,Read Road,and
but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and Underwood Family Farms),SCE shall install tubular steel poles or light-weight
historic buildings within a county scenic highway. steel poles made of self-weatherizing steel,which would oxidize to a natural-
Less than significant with mitigation looking rust color within approximately one year.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-2b:The subtransmission line conductors shall be non-
specular and non-reflective and the Insulators shall be non-reflective and non-
refractive.
Impact 4.1-3:The Proposed Project would Class I Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a:Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-2b. The proposed Presidential
substantially damage scenic resources,including, Mitigation Measure 4.1-3b:For all structures that are visible from Olsen Substation and proposed
but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and subtransmission alignments
historic buildings within a city-designated scenic Road,SCE shall Install tubular steel poles or light-weight steel poles made of g
9 would be against natural
highway.Significant unavoidable self-weatherizing steel,which would oxidize to a natural-looking rust color landscapes and demand viewer
g y g within about one year. attention on Olsen Road,a City
Alternately,in lieu of installing self-weatherizing steel poles SCE may install of Thousand Oaks designated
standard tubular steel or light-weight steel poles and apply surface coatings Scenic Highway.Despite
with appropriate colors,finishes and textures to most effectively blend the mitigation to reduce visual
structures with the visible backdrop landscape.For structures that are visible contrast between the scenic
from one or more sensitive viewing location,the deriver color shall be selected, character of the existing
because darker colors tend to blend into landscape more effectively than landscape and the Proposed
lighter colors,which may contrast and produce glare.At locations where a Project,significant impacts would
tubular steel pole or light-weight steel pole would be silhouetted against the be unavoidable.
skyline,non-reflective,light-gray colors shall be selected to blend with the sky.
SCE shall develop a Structure Surface Treatment Plan for the tubular steel
poles,light-weight steel poles,and any other visible structures.
Impact 4.1-5:Construction of the proposed Class II Mitigation Measure 4.1-5:The temporary fencing used during construction at
Presidential Substation could result in a temporary the Presidential Substation site shall incorporate aesthetic treatment through
adverse impact to visual quality.Less than use of appropriate,non-reflective materials,such as chain link fence with light
significant with mitigation brown or green vinyl slats.SCE shall submit final construction plans
demonstrating compliance with this measure to the CPUC for review and
approval at least 60 days prior to the start of construction.
Impact 4.1-6:Use of construction pullingistringing Class II Mitigation Measure 4.1-6:SCE shall not place equipment on the
set-up locations during the approximately 13-20 pulling/splicing sites any sooner than two weeks prior to the required use.
month construction period could result in
temporary adverse Impacts to visual quality.Less
than significant with mitigation
° Impact Classes:Class 1(significant,unmitigeble);Class 11(less than significant with mttigabon incorporated);Class III(less than significant);Class IV(beneficial)
President*Substation Project ES-21
(A.08-12-023)Draft Ermronmental Impact Report ESA 207584 02
r
September 2011
w
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Class Mitigation Measures) Residual Impact
Impact 4.1-8:The Proposed Project could Class I Mitigation Measure 4.1-8a:Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-2b and The proposed Presidential
substantially degrade the existing visual character Mitigation Measure 4.1-3b. Substation and proposed
or quality of the Proposed Project site and its subtransmission alignments would
surroundings from public views.Significant Mitigation Measure 4.1-8b:Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-2a and 4.1-2b. g
be against natural landscapes and
unavoidable demand viewer attention on Olsen
Road,a City of Thousand Oaks
designated Scenic Highway.
Despite mitigation to reduce visual
contrast between the scenic
character of the existing
landscape and the Proposed
Project,significant impacts would
be unavoidable.
Impact 4.1-9:The Proposed Project would create Class It Mitigation Measure 4.1-9a:Reduce Night Lighting and Glare Impacts.SCE
new sources of light or glare that could adversely shall design and Install all lighting at project facilities,including construction
affect views in the project area.Less than and storage yards and the staging area,such that light bulbs and reflectors are
significant with mitigation not visible from public viewing areas;lighting does not cause reflected glare;
and illumination of the project facilities,vicinity,and nighttime sky is minimized.
SCE shall submit a Construction and Operation Lighting Mitigation Plan to the
CPUC for review and approval at least 90 days prior to the start of construction
or the ordering of any exterior lighting fixtures or components,whichever
comes first.SCE shall not order any exterior lighting fixtures or components
until the Construction and Operation Lighting Mitigation Plan is approved by the
CPUC.The Plan shall include but is not limited to the following measures
Lighting shall be designed so exterior lighting is hooded,with lights directed
downward or toward the area to be illuminated and so that backscatter to the
nighttime sky is minimized.The design of the lighting shall be such that the
luminescence or light sources are shielded to prevent light trespass outside the
project boundary,and to reduce glare.
All lighting shall be of minimum necessary brightness consistent with worker
safety.
High illumination areas not occupied on a continuous basis shall have switches
or motion detectors to light the area only when occupied.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-9b:Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-9a.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-9c:Only low profile shaded street lighting,if needed,
shall be used to reduce down slope light spillover and night glare.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-9d:Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-2b.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable);Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated),Class 111(less than significant);Class IV(beneficial)
Presidenbal Sunstabon Project ES-22 ESA 207584.02
(A 08-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2011
W
Ln
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Class Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Cumulative impact:The Proposed Project's Class II Mitigation Measure 4.2-Cumulative:SCE shall obtain agricultural conservation
incremental contribution(0.08 acre)to Ventura easements at a one to one(1:1)ratio for each acre of Farmland that is
County's overall decline in Farmland would be a permanently converted by the Proposed Project.An agricultural conservation
cumulatively considerable contribution to an easement is a voluntary,recorded agreement between a landowner and a holder
existing significant impact. of the easement that preserves the land for agriculture.The easement places
legally enforceable restrictions on the land.The exact terns of the easement are
negotiated,but restricted activities shall include subdivision of that property,non-
farm development,and other uses that are Inconsistent with agricultural
production.The mitigation lands must be of equal or better quality(according to
the latest available FMMP data)and have an adequate water supply.In addition,
the mitigation lands must be wlthin the same county as the impact.
Impact 4.3-1:Project construction activities would i Class I Mitigation Measure 4.3-1:For off-road construction equipment of more than Project construction activities
generate ozone precursor emissions that could 1 50 horsepower and on-road diesel fueled vehicles,SCE shall ensure would generate ozone precursor
contribute substantially to a violation of ozone air I achievement of a Project-wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx and 20 percent emissions that could contribute
quality standards.Significant unavoidable ROC reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average.A substantially to a violation of
Construction Equipment NOx and ROC Reduction Plan to achieve these ozone air quality standards.
reductions shall be submitted to CPUC for review and approval prior to
commencement of construction activities.Construction activities cannot
commence until the plan has been approved.Acceptable options for reducing
emissions include the use of late model engines,low-emission diesel products,
alternative fuels,engine retrofit technology,after-treatment products,and/or
other options as such become available.
Impact 4.3-2:Project construction activities would ! Class II Mitigation Measure 4.3-2:SCE shall reduce construction-related fugitive dust
generate fugitive dust emissions of criteria emissions by implementing the following VCAPCD dust control measures.SCE
pollutants that could contribute substantially to an shall require all contractors to comply with the following requirements:
existing or projected air quality violation.Less than Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be
significant with mitigation graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavation
operations.Application of water(preferably reclaimed,If available)should
penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities.
• All soil and fill haul trucks shall be required to have covered loads.
• All graded and excavated material,exposed soil areas,and active portions
of the construction site,including unpaved on-site roadways,shall be
treated to prevent fugitive dust.Treatment shall include,but not necessarily
j be limited to,periodic watering,application of envlronmentally-safe soil
stabilization materials,and/or roll-compaction as appropriate.Watering shall
be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever
possible.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmftigable):Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated).Class III(less than significant):Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Substation Project ES-23 ESA 1207584 02
(A.08-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2011
W
M
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact classa Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.3-2(cont.) Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site shall be
monitored by the mitigation monitor at least weekly for dust stabilization.
Soil stabilization methods,such as water and roll-compaction,and
environmentally-safe dust control materials,shall be periodically applied to
portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days.If no
further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area,the area
should be seeded and watered until grass growth is evident,or periodically
treated with environmentally-safe dust suppressants,to prevent excessive
fugitive dust.
• Signs shall be posted at the proposed Presidential Substation work site
limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
• During periods of high winds(i.e.,wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive
dust to impact adjacent properties),all clearing,grading,earth moving,and
excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent
fugitive dust created by on-site activities and operations from being a
nuisance or hazard,either off-site or on-site.The site
superintendent1supervisor shall use his/her discretion in conjunction with the
mitigation monitor in determining when winds are excessive.
• Adjacent public streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day.
preferably at the end of the day,if visible soil material is carried over to
adjacent streets and roads.
• Personnel involved in grading operations,including contractors and
subcontractors,should be advised to wear respiratory protection in
accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
regulations.
Impact 4.3-3:Construction activities would result i Class I Mitigation Measure 4.3-3:Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 (Construction I Project construction activities
in emissions of NOx that would be cumulatively j Equipment NOx Reductions)and 4.3-2(Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan) 1 would generate ozone precursor
considerable.Significant unavoldable I i emissions that could contribute
substantially to a violation of
ozone air quality standards.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable).Class It(less than significant with mitigation incorporated).Class III(less than significant):Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Substation Protect ES-24 ESA/207584 02
(A.08-12-023)Draft Enwonmental Impact Report September 2011
W
J
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Classa Mitigation Measures) Residual Impact
Impact 4.4-1:Construction activities associated Class It Mitigation Measure 4.4-1:SCE and or its contractors shall develop and
with the Proposed Project could result In adverse implement a Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant Control Plan consistent with
impacts to the following federal and/or State-Listed standard BMPs(see for example:Department of Transportation,State of
Endangered or Threatened plant species: California(Storm Water Quality Handbook-Project Planning and Design
Braunton's milk-vetch,Agoura Hills dudleya, Guide[Caltrans,2010];and Construction Site Best Management Practices
Conejo dudleya,and Lyon's pentachaeta as well Manual[Caflrans,2003n.The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
as other non listed special-status species.Less Ventura County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner and the CPUC.At a
than significant with mitigation minimum,the Plan shall address any required cleaning of construction vehicles
to minimize spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants.
Impact 4.4-2:Construction activities associated Class 11 Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a:Within areas that provide potentially suitable
with the Proposed Project could result in adverse habitat,SCE and/or its contractors shall perform preconstruction surveys within
impacts to the following special-status wildlife 24 hours of initial ground disturbance to identify the potential presence of
species,if present:western pond turtle,coast western pond turtle,coast homed lizard and San Diego desert woodrat within
homed lizard,Swainson's hawk,American work areas.If any of these species are identified during surveys of the
peregrine falcon,coastal California gnatcatcher, immediate project footprint,individuals shall be relocated from work areas by
and San Diego desert woodrat.Less than an Individual who is authorized by CDFG to undertake species relocation.A
significant with mitigation suitable relocation area shall be identified and approved by CDFG prior to
preconstruction surveys.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b:Where impacts to coastal sage scrub cannot be
avoided(e.g.at the proposed Presidential Substation site),SCE and/or its
contractors shall contact CDFG and the USFWS to coordinate coastal scrub
avoidance measures that have been incorporated Into the project design,and
determine if additional measures are needed to reduce Impacts to coastal
California gnatcatcher habitat.Avoidance measures may include limiting the
seasonal timing of work outside the breeding so that active gnatcatcher nesting is
not disrupted during construction,limiting project disturbances to the smallest
possible area in or near areas with suitable habitat,and providing environmental
training to construction workers.In addition,the following actions will be carried
out.
• Coastal sage scrub shall be restored at a 1:1 ratio in areas where it is
temporarily disturbed.
• A qualified ecologist shall prepare a restoration and mitigation plan in
coordination with CDFG to mitigate for temporarily Impacts to coastal sage
scrub habitat.The plan shall include a full description of microhabitat
conditions necessary for each affected species,seed germination and
planting requirements,restoration techniques for temporarily disturbed
occurrences,assessments of potential transplant and enhancement sites,
success and performance criteria,and monitoring requirements,as well as
measures to ensure long-term sustainabirdy.The mitigation plan shall apply
to portions of the project alignment that support restored coastal sage scrub
habitat(e.g.at the proposed subtransmission alignment).
a Impact Classes:Class i(significant,unmitigable):Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated);Class III Bess than significant):Class IV(beneficial)
Pres4ential SLostaton Project ES-25 ESA r 207584.02
(A 08.12-023)Draft En"ronmental impact Report
September 2071
00
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Class's Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.4-3:Construction activities may Impact Class II Mitigation Measure 4.4-3:SCE and/or its contractors shall implement the
common or protected nesting migratory birds.Less following measures to avoid impacts on nesting raptors and other protected
than significant with mitigation birds for construction activities that are scheduled during the breeding season
(February 1 through August 31):
No more than two weeks before construction within each new construction
area,a qualified wildilfe biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all
potential nesting habitat within 500 feet of construction sites.If active nests are
not identified,no further action is necessary.If active nests are identified,a no-
disturbance buffer shall be created around active raptor nests and nests of
other special-status birds during the breeding season,or until it is determined
that all young have fledged.Typical buffers are 300 to 500 feet for raptors and
150 to 250 feet for other nesting birds(e.g.,waterfowl and songbirds),
depending upon species.The size of these buffer zones and types of
construction activities that are allowed in these areas could be further modified
during construction in coordination with CDFG and shall be based on existing
and anticipated levels of noise and disturbance.
Impact 4.4-4:Operation of new transmission lines Class II Mitigation Measure 4.4-4:SCE shall follow APLIC guidelines for avian
could impact raptors as a result of electrocution or protection on powertines.SCE and/or its contractors shall use current
collision.Less than significant with mitigation guidelines to reduce bird mortality from Interactions with powedines.The
APLIC(2005)and USFWS recommend the following:
• Provide 604nch minimum horizontal separation between energized
conductors or energized conductors and grounded hardware:
• Insulate hardware or conductors against simultaneous contact if adequate
spacing is not possible,
• Use pole designs that minimize impacts to birds.and:
• .Shield wires to minimize the effects from bird collisions.
Impact 4.4-5:Construction of the proposed Class II Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a and 4.4-2b,above.
subtransmission alignment could impact
designated critical habitat for coastal California
gnatcatcher.Less than significant with mitigation
Impact 4.4-6:Construction activities could impact Class II Mitigation Measure 4.4-6a:SCE and/or Its contractors shall through project
jurisdictional waters of the United States and design,avoid jurisdictional waters of the U.S.and waters of the State.This
waters of the State,including drainages and includes minimizing the footprint during construction of poles for the proposed
seasonal wetlands.Less than significant**h subtransmission line and spanning drainages that occur within the alignment.
mitigation
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable):Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated),Class III(less than significant).Class IV(beneficial)
Presbential Substation project ES-26 ESA 1207584 02
IA.08-12-023)Draft Enoronmentai Impact Rapert
Septarroar 2011
U-)
110
Execut Ve Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Classy Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.4-6(cont.) Mitigation Measure 4A4b:In the event of any project changes that involve
ground disturbance outside of the boundary of the existing wetland delineation, ;
a new wetland delineation shall be performed.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-6c:Where jurisdictional wetlands and other waters
cannot be avoided,e.g.,at the Proposed Presidential Substation site,to offset
temporary and permanent impacts that occur as a result of the project.
restoration,enhancement or compensatory mitigation shall be provided
through the following mechanisms:
• To compensate for wetland impacts from the Proposed Presidential
Substation,wetland enhancement and/or restoration shall be performed at a
suitable off-stile drainage or stream that Is suitable to CDFG,RWQCB,and
the Corps.Welland mitigation and/or enhancement shall be provided at a
minimum 2:1 replacement ratio in one of several nearby unnamed
intermittent drainages to offset wetland losses. i
• If temporary Impacts are anticipated to wetlands,a Wetland Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified biologist or wetland
scientist In coordination with CDFG.RWQCB and the Corps that details
mitigation and monitoring obligations for temporary impacts to wetlands and
other waters as a result of construction activities.The Plan shall quantify the
total acreage lost,monitoring and reporting requirements,and site specific
plans to compensate for wetland losses resulting from the project at the
ratios described above.The Plan shall be submitted to the appropriate
regulatory agencies for approval.The Plan and documentation of such
agency approval shall be submitted to the CPUC prior to construction.
Impact 4.5.1:Project construction could cause an Class II Mitigation Measure 4.5-1:A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to serve
adverse change in the significance of a historical as lead archaeologist and shall prepare a Cultural Resources Treatment and
resource[inclusive of archaeological resources] Discovery Plan prior to Issuance of a grading permit.The Cultural Resources
which Is either listed or eligible for listing on the Treatment and Discovery Plan shall address the Implementation of protective
National Register of Historic Places,the California measures(as detailed in APMs CUL-2 through CUL-5),archaeological
Register of Historical Resources,or a local register monitoring,and procedures for discovery of cultural resources.The Cultural
of historic resources.Less than significant with Resources Treatment and Discovery Plan shall provide detailed plans for data
mitigation recovery for those components of eligible resource CA-VEN-744 that cannot be
avoided during project implementation,and for the capping of those portions of
site CA-VEN-744 that may be indirectly impacted.The plan shall also address
the creation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas within sites CA-VEN-744 and
CA-VEN-1571.The Cultural Resources Treatment and Discovery Plan shall
also state that If significant portions of either site are encountered during
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable).Gass II(less than significant with mitigation Incorporated):Class III(less than significant),Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential&IDStauon Proiea ES-27 ESA i 207W02
(A.08-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report
Septsmper 2017
C)
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Class Mitigation Measure(*) Residual Impact
Impact 4.5-1 (cunt.) project implementation outside of protected areas,Proposed Project redesign
should be considered in order to avoid impacts to significant areas.If
avoidance is infeasible,then data recovery shall be implemented.
The Cultural Resources Treatment and Discovery Plan shall detail the duration
and locations of archaeological and Native American monitoring during project
Implementation and shall provide for discretionary modifications to monitoring
procedures by the lead archaeologist based on observations made by the
monitor as construction progresses.The Cultural Resources Treatment and
Discovery Plan shall also create measures for the accidental discovery of
archaeological resources during project implementation.
Impact 4.5-2:Project construction could adversely Class 11 Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a:Prior to issuance of a grading permit,an
impact a unique archaeological resource.Less archaeological monitor shall be retained by SCE and/or its contractors to
than significant with mitigation monitor all ground-disturbing activities,Including grading,excavation,
vegetation clearance and grubbing,and implementation of cultural resources
protective measures(i.e.site capping,pad construction).The procedures for
monitoring shall be outlined in the Cultural Resources Treatment and
Discovery Plan as described In Mitigation Measure 4.5-1,and shall include
provisions for discretionary modifications to monitoring procedures by the lead
archaeologist based on observations made by the monitor as construction
progresses.
The monitor shall be a qualified archaeologist and shall work under the
supervision of an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interiors
professional qualification standards for archaeology.In the event that cultural
resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities,the archaeological
monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities
away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated.
Due to the sensitivity of the project area for Native American resources,at least
one Native American monitor shall also monitor ground-disturbing activities in
the project area,including the implementation of protective measures and data
recovery.Selection of monitors shall be made from the Native American
Heritage Commission list provided for the Project.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2b:If archaeological resources are encountered at
any point during Proposed Project implementation,SCE and/or its contractors
shall cease all activity within 50 feet of the find until the find can be evaluated
by a qualified archaeologist.If the archaeologist determines that the resources
may be significant,and If avoidance is determined to be Infeasible,the
archaeologist shall notify the lead agency and shall follow procedures outlined
In the Cultural Resources Treatment and Discovery Plan(Mitigation
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant.unmitigable);Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated);Class III(less then significant).Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Substation Project ES-28 ESA zmsaain
(A.08-12-023)Draft Environmental Irrpad Rep-on September 2011
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Classa Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.5-2(cont.) Measure4.5-1),in consultation wlth the lead agency and with appropriate
Native American representatives(if the resources are prehistoric or Native
American in nature).
Impact 4.5-3:The project could adversely affect Class li Mitigation Measure 4.5-3:Applicant Proposed Measures PAL-01 and PAL-02
unidentified paleontological resources.Less than shall be implemented for all paieontologically sensitive portions of the project
significant with mitigation area.The Paleontological Mitigation Plan,as described in Applicant Proposed
Measure PAL-01,shall be based on prior paleontological evaluations,shall
identify paleontologically sensitive formations within the project area,and shall
address the locations of and procedures for paleontological resources
monitoring,including the identification of specific paleontological monitoring
locations;microscopic examination of samples where applicable;the
evaluation,recovery,identification,and curation of fossils;and the preparation
of a final mitigation report.
All earth moving activities within those formations identified as sensitive within
the Paleontological Mitigation Plan shall be monitored on a full-time basis,
unless the project paleontologist determines that sediments are previously
disturbed or there is no reason to continue monitoring in a particular area due
to other depositional factors,which would make fossil preservation unlikely or
deemed scientifically insignificant.In the event fossils are exposed during earth
moving,construction activities shall be redirected to other work areas until the
procedures outlined In the Paleontological Mitigation Plan have been
Implemented or the paleontologist determines work can resume in the vicinity
of the find.
Impact 4.5-4:Project construction could result in Class 11 Mitigation Measure 4.5-4:If human remains are uncovered during
damage to previously unidentified human remains. construction,SCE and/or its contractors shall Immediately halt all work,contact
Less than significant with mitigation the Ventura County Coroner to evaluate the remains,and follow the
procedures and protocols set forth in§15084.5(e)(1)of the CEQA Guidelines.
If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American,SCE
shall contact the NAHC,in accordance with Health and Safety Code§7050.5,
subdivision(c),and PRC5097.98(as amended by AB 2841).Per PRC
5097.98,the landowner shall ensure that the Immediate vicinity,according to
generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices,where the `
Native American human remains ate located,Is not damaged or disturbed by
further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferr ed,
as prescribed in this section(PRC 5097.98),with the most likely descendents
regarding their recommendations,if applicable,taking into account the
possibility of multiple human remains.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable);Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated);Class III(less then significant);Class IV(beneficial)
Presloentil Substation Project ES-29 ESA 1207594 02
(A 0 8-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2011
N
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact 5igniflcant Unavoidable
Impact Class Mitigation Measures) Residual Impact
No Impacts No Mitigation
Impact 4.7-2:The Proposed Project could conflict Class II Mitigation Measure 4.7-2:SCE shalt ensure that the circuit breakers installed
with CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan.Less at the proposed Presidential Substation have a guaranteed SF6 annual leak
than significant with mitigation rate of no more than 0.5 percent by volume.SCE shall provide CPUC with
documentation of compliance,such as speclflcation sheets,prior to installation
of the circuit breakers.In addition,SCE shall annually monitor the SF6-
containing circuit breakers at the proposed Presidential Substation for the
detection and repair of leaks.SCE shall annually report its Presidential
Substation-related SF6 emissions to the CPUC until a regulation is approved
by the State of Catifomia Office of Administrative Law that approves a
regulation requiring annual reporting of SF6 emissions to the CARE.
Impact 4.8-1:Construction,operations,and Class II Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a:SCE and/or its contractors shall implement BMPs
maintenance activities would require the use of including but not limited to the following:
certain materials such as fuels,oils,solvents,and Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use,storage,and other chemical products that could pose a potential a P roducts used in construction; disposal of
chemical g
hazard to the public or the environment through
routine transport and use or accidental release. a Avoid overtopping construction and maintenance equipment fuel gas tanks;
Less than significant with mitigation
a Use tarps and adsorbent pads under vehicles when refueling to contain and
capture any spilled fuel;
e During routine maintenance of construction and operations equipment,
properly contain and remove grease and oils;and
Property dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
MMgation Measure 4.8-1 b:SCE and/or its contractors shall prepare a
Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response Plan and Implement
it during constriction,operations,and maintenance to ensure compliance with
all applicable federal,State,and local laws and guidelines regarding the
handling of hazardous materials.The plan shall prescribe hazardous material
handling procedures to reduce the potential for a spill during construction,or
exposure of the workers or public to hazardous materials.The plan shall also
include a discussion of appropriate response actions in the event that
hazardous materials are released or encountered during excavation activities.
The plan shall be submitted to the CPUC for review and approval prior to the
commencement of construction activities.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable);Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated);Class III(less then significant):Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Substation Protect ES-30 ESA/207594.02
(A.08-12-023)Draft Enrronmemal Impact Report September 2011
W
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
-T-
Impact Signiflcant Unavoidable
Impact Class Mldgatlon Measure(s) Rasid'al Impact
Impact 4.8-1 (cont.) Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Handling:A project operations-
specific hazardous materials management and hazardous waste
management program shall be developed prior to operations of proposed
Presidential Substation project.The program shall outline proper hazardous
materials use,storage,and disposal requirements,as well as hazardous
waste management procedures.The program shall Identify types of
hazardous materials to be used at the proposed Presidential Substation
project and the types of wastes that would be generated.All project
personnel shall be provided with project-specific training.This program shall
be developed to ensure that all hazardous materials and wastes are
handled in a safe and environmentally sound manner.Employees handling
wastes would receive hazardous materials training and shall be trained in
hazardous waste procedures,spill contingencies,waste minimization
procedures and Treatment,Storage,and Disposal Facility training in
accordance with OSHA Hazard Communication Standard.
• Transport of Hazardous Materials:Containers used to store hazardous
materials shall be properly labeled and kept in good condition.Written
procedures for the transport of hazardous materials used shall be
established in accordance with U.S.Department of Transportation and
Caltrans regulations.A qualified transporter shall be selected to comply with
U.S.Department of Transportation and Caltrans regulations.
• Emergency Release Response Procedures:An Operations Emergency
Response Plan detailing responses to releases of hazardous materials
would be developed prior to Substation operational activities.It would
prescribe hazardous materials handling procedures for reducing the
potential for a spill and would include an emergency response program to
ensure quick and safe cleanup of accidental spills.All hazardous materials
spills or threatened release,including petroleum products such as gasoline,
diesel,and hydraulic fluid,regardless of the quantity spilled,would be
immediately reported to the applicable agencies if the spill enters a storm
drain,if the spill migrates from the site,or if the spill causes injury to a
person or threatens Injury to public health.The plan shall identify and make
all personnel aware of the local,State,and federal emergency response
reporting guidelines.
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 c:SCE and/or its contractors shall prepare and
implement a Health and Safety Plan to ensure the health and safety of
construction workers and the public during construction,operations,and
maintenance.The plan shall Include Information on the appropriate personal
protective equipment to be used during construction,operations,and
maintenance.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmdigable).Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated),Class III(less than significant).Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential SUbstatlon Project ES-31 ESA f 207584.02
(A 08.12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report September 2011
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Class" Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.8-1 (cont.) Mitigation Measure 41-1 d:SCE and/or its contractors shall ensure that oil-
absorbent material,tarps,and storage drums shall be used to contain and
control any minor releases.Emergency spill supplies and equipment shall be
kept at the project staging areas and adjacent to a0 areas of work,and shall be
dearly marked.Detailed information for responding to accidental spills and for
handling any resulting hazardous materials shall be provided in the project's
Hazardous Substance Control and Emergency Response Plan(see Mitigation
Measure 4.8-1b),which shall be implemented during construction operations.
and maintenance.
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1e:SCE shall prepare and submit a Hazardous
Materials Business Plan for the proposed Presidential Substation project.The
required documentation shall be submitted to the Ventura County Department
of Environmental Health and SCE.The Hazardous Materials Business Plan
would Include hazardous materials and hazardous waste management
procedures and emergency response procedures,including emergency spill
cleanup supplies and equipment.
Impact 4.8-2:Project activities could release Class II Mitigation Measure 4.8.2:SCE's Hazardous Substance Control and
previously unidentified hazardous materials into Emergency Response Plan(as required under Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 b)shall
the environment.Less than significant with include provisions that would be Implemented if any subsurface hazardous
mitigation materials are encountered during construction.Provisions outlined in the plan
shall include Immediately stopping work in the contaminated area and
contacting appropriate resource agencies,Including the CPUC designated
monitor,upon discovery of subsurface hazardous materials.The plan shall
include the phone numbers local and State agencies and primary,secondary,
and final cleanup procedures.The Hazardous Substance Control and
Emergency Response Construction Plan shall be submitted to the CPUC for
review and approval prior to the commencement of construction activities.
Impact 4.8-3:Project activities could release Class 11 Mitigation Measure 4.8-3:Implement Mitigation Measures 4.8-1 a through
hazardous materials within the vicinity of an 14.8-1 a and 4.8-2.
existing day care facility.Less than significant with
mitigation
Impact 4.8-4:The Proposed Project could result in Class 11 Mitigation Measure 4.8-4:SCE shall provide written notification to the Ventura
a safety hazard for people working in the project County Sheriff Department and the land owner of the Tierra Rejada Valley
area because a nearby private airstrip.Less than landing strip stating when the new subtransmission line and poles would be
significant with mitigation erected.SCE shall also provide the Sheriff Department and the landing strip
owner with recent aerial photos or topographic maps dearly showing the
location of the new lines and poles.The photos or maps shall also indicate the
heights of the poles and conductors.SCE shall provide documentation of
compliance to the CPUC.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable):Class 11(less than significant with mitigation incorporated);Class III(less than significant),Class IV(beneficial)
Presidenbal Substation Project ES-32 ESA/207584.02
(A.08-12.023)Draft Enrronmental Impact Report September 2011
t.Tl
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impace Significant Unavoidable
Impact Class Mitigation Measures) Residual Impact
Impact 4.8-5:Construction of the Proposed Class II Mitigation Measure 4.8-5:Implement Mitigation Measures 4.15-1 b and
Project could interfere with an emergency 4.13-2.
response or evacuation plan.Less than significant
with mitigation
Impact 4.8-6:Construction and maintenance- Class 11 Mitigation Measure 4.8-8:SCE aridlor its contractors shall have water tanks
related activities could Ignite dry vegetation and and/or water trucks sited/available at active project sites for fire protection.Ali
start a fire.Less than significant with mitigation construction and maintenance vehicles shall have fire suppression equipment.
Construction personnel shall be required to park vehicles away from dry
vegetation.Prior to construction,SCE and its contractors shall contact and
coordinate with the California Department of Forestry(CalFire)and applicable
local fire departments(I.e.,Ventura County)to determine the appropriate
amounts of fire equipment to be carried on the vehicles and appropriate
locations for the water tanks if water trucks are not used.SCE shall submit
verification of its consultation with CalFire and the local fire departments to the
CPUC.
Impact 4.9-1:Construction and maintenance Class II Mitigation Measure 4.8-1:For all segments of new or Improved access roads
activities associated with the Proposed Project that would be within 300 feet of an existing surface water channel(i.e..one that
could result in increased erosion and has a distinct bed and banks,including irrigation ditches where no bermAevee
sedimentation and/or pollutant(e.g..fuels and is currently in place)and traverse a ground slope greater than two percent,the
lubricants)loading to surface waters,which could following protective measures shall be adhered to and/or installed:
increase turbidity,suspended solids,settleable All access roads shall be out-sloped;
solids,or otherwise degrade water quality.Less
than significant with mitigation a Cross-drains(road surface drainage,e.g.,waterbars,idling dips,or channel
drains)shall be installed at Intervals based upon the finished road slope:
road slope 5 percent or less,cross-drain spacing shall be 150 feet;road
slope 6 to 15 percent,cross-drain spacing shall be 100 feet:16 to
20 percent,cross-drain spacing shall be 75 feet;and 21 to 25 percent,
cross-drain spacing shall be 50 feet;
• Energy dissipation features(e.g.,rock rip-rap,or a rock-filled container)
shall be installed at all cross-drain outlets;and
e No new or improved road segments with finished slopes greater than
25 percent.
The mitigation measures for roads are based on measures and recommendations contained in the Handbook for Forest and Rench Roads—A Guide for Planning,Designing,Constructing,Reconstruc6rlg,
Maintaining,end Closing Midland Roads(Weaver and Hagans,1994).
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant.unmftigable);Class II(less than signMcant with mitigation incorporated);Class III(less than significant);Class IV(beneficial)
PresidenoM Substation Project ES-33 ESA 1 207594.02
(A 08-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 2011
ON
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact class° Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.9-2:Dewatering during Project Class II Mitigation Measure 4.9-2:Regarding dewatering activities and discharges(if
construction activities could release previously necessary),the following measures shall be Implemented as part of Proposed
contaminated groundwater to surface water bodies Project construction:
and/or increase sediment loading to local surface If degraded soil or groundwater is encountered Burin excavation(e.
water channels through overland discharge and theme is an obvious sheen,odor;or unnatural color to the soil or g
subsequent erosion,both processes could degrade groundwater),SCE and/or its contractor shall excavate,segregate.test.and
water quality in receiving surface waters.Less than g )�
significant with mitigation dispose of degraded soil or groundwater in accordance with State
hazardous waste disposal requirements.
• An dewatering activities shall,where feasible,ultimately discharge to the
land surface in the vicinity of the particular installation or construction site.
The discharges shall be contained,such that the water is allowed to infiltrate
back into the soil(and eventually to the groundwater table)and the potential
for inducing erosion and subsequent sediment delivery to nearby surface
waterways is eliminated.Further,the holding tank or structure shall be i
protected from the introduction of pollutants(e.g..oil or fuel contamination
from nearby equipment).Concerning such activities,SCE shall apply and
comply with the provisions of SWRCB Order 2()03-01303-DWQ,including
develop and submit to the LARWQCB a discharge monitoring plan.
• If discharging to a community sewer system is feasible or necessary,SCE
shall discharge to a community sewer system that flows to a wastewater
treatment plant.Prior to discharging,SCE shall inform the responsible
organization or municipality and present them with a description of and plan
for the anticipated discharge.SCE shall comply with any specific
requirements that the responsible organization or municipality may have.If
discharging to surface waters(including to storm drains)would be
necessary,SCE shall obtain and comply with the provisions of the
LARWQCB Dewatering General Permit.SCE Shall perform a reasonable
potential analysis using a representative sample(s)of the groundwater to be
discharged;this shall include analyzing the sample(s)for the constituents
listed In the LARWQCB Dewatering General Penult,including TDS and
nitrate.Further,the sample(s)shall be compared to the screening criteria
listed In the LARWQCB Dewatering General Permit and the Basin Plan,and
it shall be demonstrated that the discharge would not exceed any of the
applicable water quality criteria or objectives.If necessary,SCE shall
develop and submit to the LARWQCB a treatment plan and design
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable).Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated):Class III(less than significant).Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Substation Project ES-34 ESA/207584.02
(A.08-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report September 2011
J
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impaca Significant Unavoidable
Impact Class Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.9-3:Installation of the proposed Class II Mitigation Measure 4.9-3:The following storm water quality control measures
Presidential Substation would after the local and BMPs shall be implemented at the proposed Presidential Substation site
drainage pattern,potentially resulting in substantial (see Appendix D for the related worksheet and calculations):
on-or off-site erosion or sedimentation,and/or
substantially increasing the rate or amount of • SCE shall Implement a Retention BMP(s)(as defined in the Ventura County
surface runoff in a manner which would result in TGM[20101)with a design volume of approximately 0.01 acre-feet.The
flooding on-or off-site.Less than significant with drainage area to this feature shall comprise at least 0.17 acre of the
mitigation proposed impervious surface area.This BMP shall be selected,designed,
and Implemented according to the guidance and requirements summarized
in the Ventura County MS4 Permit and the Ventura County TGM(2010).
Alternatively,SCE shall demonstrate that the proposed storm water
Infiltration swale,or modifications thereto,would meet these mitigation
requirements.
• SCE shall implement a Treatment Control BMP(s)(as defined in the
i Ventura County TGM[20101)with a design volume of approximately 0.05
acre-feet.The drainage area to this feature shall comprise at least the
remaining 3.83 acres of the proposed Presidential substation site(i.e.,the
residual drainage area not captured by the Retention BMP(s)).This BMP
shall be selected,designed,and implemented according to the guidance
and requirements summarized in the Ventura County MS4 Permit and the
Ventura County TGM(2010).Alternatively,SCE shall demonstrate that the
proposed storm water infiltration swale,or modifications thereto,would meet
these mitigation requirements.
No Impacts No Mitigation
Impact 4.11-1:Construction activities would Class I Mitigation Measure 4.11-1a:SCE and/or its contractors shall develop a I Project construction activities
generate noise levels in unincorporated Ventura Construction Noise Reduction Plan.The Plan shall include,but not be limited would generate noise impacts on
County that would exceed Ventura County to,the following measures for daytime construction activities: sensitive receptors at levels that
construction noise threshold criteria.Significant would violate standards.
unavoidable Publish and distribute to the potentially affected community within 300 feet,
a'Hot Line"telephone number or pager number,which shall be attended
during active construction working hours,for use by the public to register
complaints.All complaints shall be logged noting date,time,complainants'
name,nature of complaint,and arty corrective action taken. i
• All construction equipment shall have intake and exhaust mufflers
recommended by the manufacturers thereof,to meet relevant noise
limitations.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant.unmdigable);Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated);Class III(less than significant):Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Sumation Protect ES-35
(A.08-12-023)Draft Environmental Impact Report ESA i 207524 02
vi
SspNmoer 2071
00
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Classe Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.11-1 (cont.) Maximize physical separation,as far as practicable,between noise sources
(construction equipment)and noise receptors.Separation may be achieved
by providing enclosures for stationary items of equipment and noise barriers
around particularly noisy areas at the project sites and by locating stationary
equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community.
• Utilize construction noise barrieri such as paneled noise shields,barriers,or
enclosures adjacent to or around noisy equipment associated with access
road construction,pole installation and removal,and underground trenching
for distribution line and fiber optic cable in the immediate vicinity(i.e.,within
200 feet)of sensitive receptors.Noise control shields shall be made
featuring a solid panel and a weather-protected,sound-absorptive material
on the construction-activity side of the noise shield.Shields used during
linear construction activities shaft be readily removable and moveable so
that they may be repositioned,as necessary,to provide noise abatement for
construction activities located near residential receptors.
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 b:The Construction Noise Reduction Plan required
by Mitigation Measure 4.11-1a shall include a nighttime noise and nuisance
reduction strategy In the event that nighttime construction activity is determined
to be necessary within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.The strategy shall
include a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures that apply state of the
art noise reduction technology to ensure that nighttime construction noise levels
and associated nuisances are reduced to the extent feasible.
The attenuation measures may Include,but not be limited to,the control
strategies and methods for implementation that are listed below.If any of the
following strategies are determined by SCE to not be feasible,an explanation
as to why the specific strategy is not feasible shall be included in the
Construction Noise Reduction Plan.
• Plan construction activities to minimize the amount of nighttime
construction.
• Offer temporary relocation of residents within 200 feet of nighttime
construction activities.
• Temporary noise barriers,such as shields and blankets,shall be installed
immediately adjacent to all nighttime stationary noise sources(e.g.,auger
rigs,bore rigs,generators,pumps,etc.).
• Install temporary raise barriers that block the tine of sight between nighttime
activities and the closest residences within 1,000 feet.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmitigable);Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated);Class III(less than significant);Class IV(beneficial)
Proslden5il Substation Project ES-36 ESA 1207584.01
(A 08.12-023)Drag Enrronmental Impact Report
SeplemDer 2011
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Classa Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact 4.11-1 (cont.) • The notification requirements identified In Mitigation Measure 4.11-1a shall
be extended to include residences within 1,000 feet of pending nighttime
construction activities.
Impact 4.11-4:Construction activities could Class II Mitigation Measure 4.11-4:Implement Mitigation Measures 4.11-18 and
increase ambient noise levels In Thousand Oaks 4.11-1 b.
and Simi Valley.Less than Significant with
Mitigation
No Impacts No Mitigation
No Impacts No Mitigetion
No Impacts No Mitigation
Impact 4.16-1:Project construction would Class II Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 a:SCE shall obtain and comply with local road
temporarily Increase traffic volumes on roadways encroachment permits for public roads that are crossed by the proposed
in the study area,and would potentially conflict subtransmission alignment.SCE shall also coordinate short-term construction
with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy activities at private road crossings with the applicable private property owners.
establishing measures of effectiveness for the Copies of all encroachment permits and evidence of private property
performance of the circulation system.Less then coordination shall be provided to the CPUC prior to the commencement of
slgniticant with mitigation construction activities.
Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 b:SCE shall prepare and implement a Traffic
Management Plan subject to approval of the appropriate state agency and/or
local government(s).The approved Traffic Management Plan and
documentation of agency approvals shall be submitted to the CPUC prior to the
commencement of construction activities.The plan shall:
• Include a discussion of work hours,haul routes-work area delineation,
traffic control and flagging;
• Identify all access and parking restriction and signage requirements;
• Require workers to park personal vehicles at the approved staging area and
take only necessary Project vehicles to the work sites;
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant,unmibgable);Class II(less than significant with mitigation incorporated),Class III Qess than significant):Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Substation Pro)ect ES-37
(A08-12-023)DraftErrnronmental impact Report ESA!September ber 20071 11
CT1
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact SignMicant Unavoidable
Impact class• Mitigation Measure(is) Residual Impact
Impact 4.1 5-1(cunt.) • Lay out plans for notifications and a process for communication with
affected residents and landowners prior to the start of construction.Advance
public notification shall include posting of notices and appropriate signage of
construction activities.The written notification shall include the construction
schedule,the exact location and duration of activities within each street(i.e..
which road/lanes and access point/driveways would be blocked on which
days and for how long),and a toll-free telephone number for receiving
questions or complaints;and
• Include plans to coordinate all construction activities with emergency service
providers in the area prior to construction to ensure that constriction
activities and associated lane closures would not significantly affect
emergency response vehicles.Emergency service providers shall be
notified of the timing,location,and duration of construction activities.All
roads shall remain passable to emergency service vehicles at all times.
SCE shall submit verification of its consultation with emergency service
providers to the CPUC.Identify all roadway locations where special
construction techniques(e.g.,night construction)would be used to minimize
Impacts to traffic flow.
Mitigation Measure 4A5-1c:The County and SCE shall insure that
appropriate warning signs are posted alerting bicyclists to bike lane closures
and instructing motorists to share the road with bicyclists.In addition,in order
to remove potential roadway hazards to bicyclist in the construction areas the
SEC shall ensure that all contract haul tricks are covered to prevent spillage of
materials onto haul routes,and that the area adjacent to the Substation site
shall be kept free of debris and dirt that may accumulate from entering and
exiting trucks by conducting regular sweeping of the project area.
Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 d:SCE shall coordinate with the appropriate local
government departments in Thousand Oaks,Simi Valley,with county agencies
such as the Ventura County Public Works Agency,with state agencies such as
Caltrans,and with other utility districts and agencies as appropriate,regarding
the timing of constriction projects that would occur near the Proposed Project.
The Ventura County Public Works Agency reviews environmental documents
to ensure that all individual and cumulative adverse impacts to the Regional
Road Network and County-maintained local roads have been adequately
evaluated and mitigated to insignificant levels.SCE shall submit verification of
its coordination to the CPUC.This multi-agency coordination,and
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.15-1 a and 4.15-1 b,would ensure that
the cumulative effect of simultaneous constriction activities in overlapping
areas would be minimized.
a Impact Classes:Class I(significant.untnit gable);Class II(less than significant with mitigation Incorporated);Class III Qess than significant);Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Substation Project ES-38 ESA 1207584 02
(A.08-12-023)Draft Enrronmental Impact Report
September 2011
t.)'I
N
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-3(Continued)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Impact Significant Unavoidable
Impact Classa Mitigation Measures) Residual Impact
Impact 4.16-3:Project construction would increase Class II Mitigation Messure 4.16-3a:Implement Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 a,
potential traffic safety hazards for vehicles, Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 b,and Mitigation Measure 4.15-1c.
bicyclists,and pedestrians on public roadways.
Less than significant with mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.16-3b:Roads damaged by construction would be
repaired to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to
construction activity.The Project Partners and the local jurisdiction shall enter
into an agreement prior to construction that will detail the pre-construction
conditions and the post-construction requirements of the rehabilitation
program.
Impact 4.164:The Proposed Project would not Class 11 Mitigation Measure 4.15-4:Implement Mitigation Measure 4.15-1b.
result in inadequate emergency access.Less than
significant with mitigation
Impact 4.15-6:The Proposed Project would Class II Mitigation Measure 4.15-5:Implement Mitigation Measure 4.15-1c.
temporarily conflict with adopted policies,plans,or
programs regarding public transit,bicycle,or
pedestrian facilities,and would temporarily
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities.Less than significant with mitigation
No Impacts No Mitigation
a Impact Classes:Gass I(significant.unmitigable);Class II Qess than significant with mitigation incorporated):Class III(less than significant);Class IV(beneficial)
Presidential Substation Protect ES-39 ESA/207584.02
(A.08-12423)Draft Environmental Impact Report September2011
(I1
tV
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS INCREASED OR DECREASED BY IMPLEMENTING AN ALTERNATIVE
Alternative Aesthetics Air Quality Noise
Proposed Project Significant unavoidable impacts Significant unavoidable impacts Significant unavoidable
related to Subtransmission related to construction emissions. short term impacts where
Alignment Olsen Road crossing construction occurs near
and also the Proposed Presidential residences in
Substation. unincorporated Ventura
County,
Proposed Presidential Alternative would have similar Aftemative would not include Alternative would result
Substation with impacts as the Proposed Project.In construction of 12,500 feet of duct noise impacts in new areas
Alternative addition,create a new significant bank but would require a longer in addition to the Proposed
Subtransmission aesthetics impact would be created subtransmission alignment and Project.Impacts may be
Alignment 1 associated with Esperance Road more pole construction Overall, slightly reduced in some
subtransmission alignment. construction emission would be areas.
slightly reduced.
Proposed Presidential Aftemative would have similar Alternative would not include Impacts would be similar to
Substation with impacts as the Proposed Project In construction of 12,500 feet of duct the Proposed Project but
Alternative addition,new significant aesthetics bank but would require a longer because of jurisdictional
Subtransmission impacts would result from the subtransmission alignment and boundaries would be less
Alignment 2 alignment adjacent to Olsen and more pole constriction.Overall, than significant.
Madera Roads. construction emission would be
slightly reduced.
Proposed Presidential Alternative would install the Alternative would eliminate Impacts would be less than
Substation with subtransmission line under Olsen construction emissions associated the Proposed Project
Alternative road,thereby eliminating the with access road construction and because construction/pole
Subtransmission aesthetic impacts associated with subtransmission alignment replacement related to the
Alignment 3 the crossing.However,significant construction/pole replacement subtransmission alignment
impacts would remain related to the from Sunset Valley to the would not be required for
proposed Presidential Substation substation.Overall construction much of the alignment.
site.Overall reduced but still emissions would be reduced.
significant unavoidable.
Alternative Substation Alternative would eliminate the Construction of the alternative
Site B with Proposed significant unavoidable impacts substation would require fewer
Project Subtransmission associated with the substation site truck haul trips and grading
Alignment. and Olsen Road crossing.Overall, resulting in reduced construction
impacts would be reduced to less emissions.Construction emissions
than significant. associated with subtransmission
alignment construction would be
similar to the Proposed Project.
Overall,construction emissions
would be reduced.
Aftemative Substation Aftemative would eliminate the Alternative would eliminate
Site B with Alternative aesthetics impacts related to the construction emissions associated
Subtransmission substation site and the Olsen road with 12,500 feet of duct bank
Alignment 1. overhead crossing.However,a construction but would require a
new significant unavoidable impact longer subtransmission alignment
would be created related to the and more pole replacement
Esperance Road alignment. Substation construction is expected
to require fewer truck haul trips.
Overall construction emissions,
would be reduced.
Alternative Substation Alternative would eliminate the Alternative would eliminate
Site B with Alternative aesthetics impacts related to the construction emissions associated
Subtransmission substation site and the Oisen road with 12.500 feet of dud bank
Alignment 2. overhead crossing.However,a construction but would require a
new significant unavoidable impact longer subtransmission alignment
would be created related to the new and more pole replacement.
subtransmission lines parallel to Substation construction is
Olsen and Madera Roads. expected to require fewer truck
haul trips.Overall construction
emissions would be reduced.
Presicieneal substahon Project ES-40 ESA 1207584 02
(A 0&12-023)Draft Enwonmental Impact Report September 2011
53
f
r
t
r
I
Executive Summary
TABLE ES-4(Continued)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS INCREASED OR DECREASED BY IMPLEMENTING AN ALTERNATIVE
Alternative Aesthetics Air Quality Noise
Alternative Substation Alternative would eliminate the Alternative would eliminate Impacts would be less than
Site B with Altemative significant unavoidable impacts construction emissions associated the Proposed Project
Subtransmission associated with the substation site with access road construction and because construction/pole
Alignment 3. and Olsen Road crossing.Overall, subtransmission alignment replacement related to the
impacts would be reduced to less construction/pole replacement subtransmission alignment
than significant from Sunset Valley to the would not be required for
substation.In addition,the much of the alignment
substation construction would
involve less fill and therefore fewer
truck haul trips.Overall
construction emissions would be
reduced
System Alternative B Attemative would eliminate the Alternative would not require Short term construction
significant unavoidable impacts construction of a new substation impacts would be less than
associated with the substation site or subtransmission lines,resulting significant.Long term noise
and Olsen Road crossing.Overall, in less than significant impacts on impacts are expected to
impacts would be reduced to less air quality. increase due to larger
than significant. transformers in the existing
substations but would be
mitigated to less than
significant.
Presioentier substation Protect ES41 ESA/207584 02
(A 06-12-023)Drat!Environmental Impact Report September 2011
54
d
\ ,
, ....„ ,
1 r f,
_ . . ,„,..,72 , ,
,..
, ,
t /7 a r-„`....1
_ _...„_-I'•
9�° � �
23 .�... J
Moor ark foRo'(p-$ 2
. ` ,
jr---- MOO.
rn
1)
b
a
Vp C.8
grg mi
P a,
cJ
T.
ts a
j' o
�; \ s a tey
N Y
0. Read Rd '.,
Overland. ant
Z 1
Underground at II
O _..-_- HVdY 23 Crossing Q -,..., .,,,,.....
0
Q Th � �tSar1`d
D Oaks ` ' /
o
~ , ,„ Proposed Subtransmission
Y r ,Rd. % �..Alignment
Q Q\sex
Ll _ �. -_ _ Proposed 16 kV Distribution
re I'. , Line(underground)
O
O A Proposed Presidential
Jtir1ilet fdi6S gft,�t ,r Substation
Alignment 1(overhead)
-...kik.Alignment 2(overhead)
g I ........Alignment 3(overhead)
1 l.._ -.—-, Alignment 3(underground)
Mier tl._ A Alternative Substation Site 8
i •Algnments would serve me proposed or alternative substation Existing SCE 66 kV
•Alignments would be adjacent to existing roads unless indicated as Subtransmission Line
overland route-
/'
Presidential Substation Project.207584.02
SOURCE:SCE,2010 Figure ES-2
Alternative Subtransmission Alignments
ES-2
CC ATTACHMENT 3
55
PQ PPK Cql � ,
09
F� z9 Czt o I�Woo)Tar.
2 n
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING-BUILDING AND SAFETY-REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CODE COMPLIANCE
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517-6200 fax (805)532-2540
October 2011
Ms. Juralynne Mosley
Presidential Substation Project
c/o Environmental Science Associates
1425 North McDowell Boulevard, Suite 200
Petaluma, CA 94954
Dear Ms. Mosley:
Re: Presidential Substation Draft EIR, September 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Draft EIR for the Presidential
Substation project. The Moorpark City Council and staff have reviewed the Draft EIR, and
continue to have the same comments as expressed in previous correspondence, including
the December 22, 2009 letter from the Mayors of Moorpark, Simi Valley, and Thousand
Oaks requesting that the transmission lines associated with this project be constructed
underground to preserve the quality of the open space in the Tierra Rejada Valley. The
following detailed comments are provided:
1. The draft has not adequately addressed our comments raised during scoping, the
City of Moorpark recommended analyzing a project alternative which includes full
undergrounding of the 66kV transmission lines through the Tierra Rejada Valley.
This alternative was described on pages 3-26 and 3-27, as Alternative
Subtransmission Alignment 4 which was eliminated from consideration in the EIR
because impacts to air quality, and noise resources would increase and an
additional potentially significant cultural resources impact would occur. In addition,
the impacts on aesthetic resources would not be reduced more than under
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 3 which also reduced noise and air quality
impacts and was carried forward for analysis. We request that the EIR include
Alternative Subtransmission Alignment 4 as an alternative and analyze in more
detail its potential for reducing long-range aesthetic impacts on the Tierra Rejada
Valley. During scoping, the City also recommended a 66kV pole route location
alternative, where the new lines would follow the existing north-south 66kV lines to
the west of the Tierra Rejada Valley from Tierra Rejada Road to Read Road instead
of creating a new path along Sunset Valley Road-, from Read Road east, this
alternative .,hould have been explored as both an underground and an above-
ground line. This requested alternative was not evaluated in the EIR, even though
we believe it may show a significant reduction in project impacts to the Tierra Rejada
Valley, thereby improving the decision-making process on this project with this being
analyzed as a reasonable alternative.
CC ATTACHMENT 4
JANICE S. PARVIN KEITH F. MILLHOUSE ROSEANN MIKOS, Ph.D. DAVID POLLOCK MARK VAN DAM
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Councilmember Councilmember Councilmem&6
October—, 2011
Ms. Mosley
Page 2
2. The Draft EIR does not adequately address the City's scoping comments previously
submitted, because it does not provide an alternative for the full undergrounding of
the new 66kV and 16kV transmission lines through the Tierra Rejada Valley. Also,
the EIR alternatives do not include a 66kV pole route location alternative, where the
new lines would follow the existing north-south 66kV lines to the west of the Tierra
Rejada Valley from Tierra Rejada Road to Read Road instead of creating a new
path along Sunset Valley Road. From Read Road east, this alternative should be
explored as both an underground and an above-ground line. The City had originally
requested that these alternatives be included and evaluated in the Draft EIR. These
alternatives, if considered, may significantly reduce aesthetic project impacts to the
Tierra Rejada Valley.
3. The Draft EIR indicates that wood poles are to be replaced and some of the steel
poles will be between 1.5 and 2 feet in diameter and some will be between 2 and 4
feet in diameter; with the wider poles being between 60 and 100 feet'high. Although
poles at either extreme in size may be found in the EIR to have significant adverse
visual impacts as proposed, a 4' wide by 100' high pole would have much greater
visibility than a 2' wide by 60' high pole. Since visual impacts of the poles are one of
the most important issues to the public, aesthetic impacts related to proposed pole
sizing should be included and detailed in the EIR analysis. Page 4.1-47 indicates
that poles are to be made of self-weatherizing steel, which would oxidize to a
natural-looking rust color within about one year. The EIR should provide a visual
simulation of a new pole as compared with a pole that has oxidized for a year to
show the reader- the aesthetic characteristics of this proposed mitigation measure
4.1-2a. Please.note, the size and scale of the visual simulations provided on figures
4.1-3 through Figures 4.1-8 are not adequate to demonstrate the simulated
appearance of the before and after comparisons of proposed overhead utilities. Use
of 11" x 17" pull=out photo simulations may improve the visual quality of comparison,
because'the existing photo simulations'understate the visual impacts.
4. The Draft EIRJacked appropriate discussion about aesthetic impacts to the Tierra
Rejada Greenbeltby not indicating the overall area to be highly sensitive visually;
`however, we concur.:.,with the overall assessment of the Draft EIR that the proposed
project would have significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts. Section 4.10,
Land se and Planning of the EIR analysis does not adequately address impacts on
the Tierra�Rejada Greenbelt, as can be referenced on page 4.10-5. Furthermore,
Section 41 -Aesthetics makes references to the presence of the Tierra Rejada
Greenbelt but,,does not adequately address visual impacts on the rural character of
the area, comprised of prime agricultural and other open space land uses.
Therefore, in light of the aesthetic impacts of the project, particularly to the Moorpark
residents of the Serrenata neighborhood and to those residents traveling along
Tierra Rejada road in Moorpark, staff supports the environmentally superior
alternative: System Alternative B. While the Draft EIR indicates that this alternative
would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts as it does not involve the
construction of a new substation, it would meet most of the basic project objectives
57
October—, 2011
Ms. Mosley
Page 3
compared to the Proposed Project, and other alternatives which involve construction
of a new substation. It goes on to state that this Alternative would result in reduced
operational flexibility and reliability and this should be analyzed in greater detail so
decision makers have a real understanding of whether or not this alternative meets
project objectives and is feasible.
5. On page ES-6, there is a cutoff sentence, as follows: "On Tuesday, March 3, 2009
following the educational workshop"
If you have any questions, please contact Joseph R. Vacca, Principal Planner at (805) 517-
6236 or by e-mail at ivacca ci.moorpark.ca.us.
Respectfully,
David A. Bobardt
Community Development Director
Attachments:
1. September 24, 2010 Scoping Letter (with attachments)
cc: Honorable City Council k
Honorable Planning Commission
Honorable Supervisor Peter Foy
Steven Kueny, City Manager
Mike Sedell, CityManager, City:ofSimi Valley
Scott Mitnick, Ch Manager;'City 4Thousand Oaks
File ,.' r
Chron
58