REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Route Approval for the Silicon Valley Power 115 kilovolt Transmission Line from the Northern Receiving Station to the Kifer Receiving Station (Continued from October 8, 2024)
Report
COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High-Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure
BACKGROUND
On October 8, 2024, City Council was asked to (1) approve Route A for a new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the Northern Receiving Station (NRS) to Kifer Receiving Station (KRS); and (2) adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (RTC 24-751, Attachment 2). Route A begins at NRS exiting southeast toward Lafayette Street and continues southeast within the median of Lafayette Street to Agnew Road, where it transitions to the east side of Lafayette Street until Montague Expressway. From there, Route A shifts and enters Bassett Street proceeding southeast down the west side of Bassett Street to Bayshore Freeway, where the route crosses Bayshore Freeway and continues south along Duane Avenue interconnecting to KRS from the north side.
At the October 8 City Council meeting members of the public expressed concerns regarding Route A and the health impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMF). The City Council continued the item for a later date, so that staff can provide the City Council with additional information regarding the health effects of electromagnetic fields. This action did not limit the future discussion to only electromagnetic fields, as a continuation postpones action by the City Council, and all options and alternatives of the original item can be considered when the item returns to the City Council.
Additional feedback was provided by the community and City Council at the October 22, 2024, City Council meeting regarding interest in having more information presented regarding Route C feasibility and Route C EMF impacts.
DISCUSSIO
The SVP evaluation team identified and evaluated three routes for the new 115kV Transmission Line prior to selection of the final route. These routes are described below.
- Route A begins at NRS exiting northeast toward Lafayette Street continuing southeast within the median of Lafayette Street to Agnew Road where it transitions to the east side of Lafayette Street until Montague Expressway, where Route A enters Bassett Street. Route A proceeds southeast down Bassett Street to Bayshore Freeway, where the route crosses Bayshore Freeway and continues south along Duane Avenue interconnecting to KRS from the north.
-
- Route B begins at NRS and parallels Route A within the median of Lafayette Street, proceeding southeast, crossing Bassett Street near the intersection with Montague Expressway, continuing southeast to the intersection of George Street. Route B continues southeast within Bassett Street until the intersection of George Street, where it crosses the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) southeast, entering Lafayette Street and entering an existing utility corridor along the UPRR. The route proceeds southeast, crossing Bayshore Freeway and continues along the railroad before turning west onto private commercial properties and parking lots before exiting onto Comstock Street. The route proceeds west on Comstock Street before crossing Lafayette Street and entering KRS.
-
- Route C begins at NRS traveling west toward San Tomas Aquino Creek. The route turns south and follows the Creek for just over 1.5 miles. Route C then turns east and travels along Central Expressway before continuing along Comstock Avenue. The route follows Comstock Avenue and turns north into KRS.
After completing a draft alternative route analysis report, the SVP evaluation team assessed the three routes, considering their impact on existing transportation routes, conflict with utilities, land use and easement requirements, constructability, cost, schedule, and environmental considerations. Following a comprehensive comparison and evaluation, Route A emerged as the recommended route for a number of reasons including:
• Overall feasibility
• Ability to meet the schedule
• Flexibility in power delivery
• Ease of maintaining the system
• Reduced construction disruption to the public
Route B, while similar to Route A, has additional constructability and easement acquisition concerns and enters the UPRR right-of-way. At this location, the UPRR right-of way is narrow and would not allow for an overhead transmission line to be located at a safe distance from the track. For these reasons, Route B was excluded.
The main challenges with Route C include: (1) easement acquisition along most of the alignment, (2) permitting requirements of Santa Clara Valley Water District on the San Tomas Aquino Creek levee, and (3) the presence of existing transmission lines which would need to be rebuilt and incorporated into the proposed transmission line. These issues would significantly impact the project schedule; therefore, Route C was not preferred.
Staff also evaluated an underground option for a section of Route A. To assess feasibility the team conducted preliminary utility potholing and ground-penetrating radar surveys to investigate potential conflicts with underground utilities. The SVP evaluation team compared overhead and underground alternatives between NRS and Agnew Road, considering near-term construction and access constraints, long-term operational factors, power delivery and line rating, and aesthetic benefits. The findings favored the overhead option for the following reasons:
• Ability to meet schedule.
• Flexibility in power delivery.
• Ability to accommodate future growth.
• Ease of maintaining the system.
• Reduces construction disruption to the public.
Additional details and information can be found in previous Council reports and included as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 of this report.
EMF Information.
In response to the request of City Council at their October 8 meeting, SVP staff and their consultants have prepared more in-depth information on EMF to present to the City Council and the public. This presentation is included as Attachment 1.
The information will be presented by:
Gary Johnson Ph.D. (Focus on EMF)
• Ph.D., Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1979
• M.S., Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1976
• B.S., Engineering Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1974
Gabor Mezei, M.D., Ph.D. (Focus on Health)
• Ph.D., Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), 1995
• M.D., Medicine, Semmelweis University of Medicine, 1990
Route C Feasibility
It is unknown if Route C is feasible due to easement and permit requirements; however, SVP staff had completed a draft Route Analysis Report and determined that if the route is feasible, the project would require an estimated 5 years more to complete than Route A. It is staff’s estimation, based on previous projects that require the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) easements and permits, the Route C project would require changing the completion date from 2028 to approximately 2033. The Route C’s main challenges include:
• Easement acquisition along most of the alignment for the SCVWD. Even if feasible, acquisition of these easements would be a multi-year process.
• Permitting requirements of SCVWD on the San Tomas Aquino Creek levee. This would add additional years to the project.
• The presence of existing transmission lines which would need to be rebuilt and incorporated into the proposed transmission line.
• Proximity to the creek could require construction be limited to the dry months (April to October).
There is also existing residential development in proximity to Route C (Attachment 4). Staff completed a review of residential addresses within 450 feet of Route C. See Table 1 below. It should be noted Table 1 does not include the approved Greystar Development that will be constructed adjacent to Route C. This development will include approximately 1,000 new units. The Greystar Development is currently in the building permit stage.
Table 1
|
Residential Addresses within 450 ft of New line |
|
|
|
|
Total Addresses |
|
Route C |
|
|
653 |
|
Route A |
|
|
1000 |
Route C EMF Study
Staff completed preliminary EMF calculations for Route C and the results are included in Attachment 1 as part of the presentation. As no conceptual design has been prepared for Route C, assumptions have been made to facilitate the EMF calculations (pole heights, alignment, and phasing). Further due to the time constraints, EMF has only been calculated in residential areas along Route C. This analysis is not to the same level of detail or certainty as Route A which benefited from a more complete engineering design. It would be expected that the Route C results could change in the future if any additional analysis is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The MND and MMRP were prepared for the Project in conformance with CEQA. These documents and Notice of Availability were posted on the City’s website at <http://www.santaclaraca.gov/ceqa> and circulated for 30-day review from July 31, 2024, to August 30, 2024.
The MND examined environmental impacts associated with the Project. The MND identified potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water, noise, and traffic/transportation. However, the MND and MMRP incorporates mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for adopting the MND and MMRP other than administrative staff time and expense. The anticipated construction costs for the Project are currently budgeted within the Electric Utility Capital Fund.
The completion of the 115kV line will increase SVP’s system capacity to approximately 1300 MW. Until the 115kV line is completed SVP’s system capacity will be limited to 819 MW. This addition of 481 MW of needed capacity will also significantly increase SVP sales. It is estimated that, based on 2024 rates, sales would be increased by approximately $500 million a year and the General Fund contribution would be increased by approximately $25 million a year. For any number of years the project is delayed, these annual revenue increases would be lost.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department, City Manager’s Office, and City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Adopt a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the New 115kV Transmission Line Project between the Northern Receiving Station and Kifer Receiving Station; and
2. Approve Route A, Option 1, for an entirely overhead alignment of the New 115kV Transmission Line, with authorization to Silicon Valley Power staff to make minor alignment adjustments based on final project engineering and design.
Staff
Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Presentation
2. RTC 24-751 - Action on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Route Approval for the Silicon Valley Power 115 kilovolt Transmission Line from the Northern Receiving Station to the Kifer Receiving Station
3. RTC 24-1614 with Attachments - Informational Report Regarding Route Analysis for 115kV Transmission Line from Northern Receiving Station to Kifer Receiving Station
4. Route C Residential Overview
5. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
6. Resolution