Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 24 Status Report on the Valley Ivyglen and Alberhill Trans Line ProjectsText File City of Lake Elsinore 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 www.lake-elsinore.org File Number: ID# 17-200 Agenda Date: 5/23/2017 Status: BusinessVersion: 1 File Type: ReportIn Control: City Council Agenda Number: 24) Page 1 City of Lake Elsinore Printed on 5/19/2017 1 CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM:Grant Yates, City Manager DATE:May 23, 2017 SUBJECT:Status Report on the Valley Ivyglen and Alberhill Transmission Line Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept a presentation from staff, provide comments and consider Staff’s strategy as set forth in the Report. BACKGROUND Southern California Edison (SCE) has submitted two Project applications to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for the Valley Ivyglen Subtransmission Line Project and the Alberhill System Project. The Lead Agency for environmental review is the CPUC who has elected to prepare a single Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for both Projects. The Valley Ivyglen project consists of approximately 27 miles of transmission lines including 115-kv lines and fiber optic line. The Alberhill Project is construction of a new substation just north of the Lake Elsinore City limits near Temescal Canyon Road and install approximately 20 miles of transmission lines. In addition, 3.3 miles of 500kv lines would be installed to connect to the existing Serrano-Valley transmission line. The Project also includes a 120-foot tall microwave antenna tower. Some of the transmission lines and poles will be new while other components will replace existing transmission lines and poles. The two Projects traverse throughout the City creating significant negative impacts regarding but not limited to aesthetics, hazards to sensitive receptors, airport, socioeconomic, environmental justice, and alternatives. The two Projects will serve Riverside County, Menifee, Perris, Wildomar, Temecula, Murrieta and Murrieta Hot Springs but the bulk of the Projects will produce significant negative impacts the City of Lake Elsinore with either minor or no impacts to other communities benefitting from the Projects. 2 ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION The CPUC prepared a Draft EIR to which the City provided comments in a timely manner pursuant to a very detailed letter dated July 13, 2016. The CPUC issued the Final EIR in April along with its response to comments. The Final EIR provides two minor concessions to the City regarding landscaping around Alberhill Substation and installation of smaller wooden poles. The City’s primary request to underground the transmission lines and all the other requests and concerns were rejected. Undergrounding of transmission lines will occur along Highway 74 but are outside the City limits. In order to protect the quality of life for residents and businesses the City Council has discussed future actions to encourage the CPUC to reconsider some comments and require undergrounding transmission lines in critical and highly visible areas. The Projects have been assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hallie Yacknin and to CPUC Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves. The ALJ has set a pre-hearing conference on June 5, 2017. The ALJ will likely consider the City’s request for “party status” which would allow the City to participate in the yet to be scheduled formal evidentiary hearing before the ALJ. The ALJ will also set a briefing schedule and set a formal evidentiary hearing date that will likely occur late this year. The ALJ will not take testimony at the pre-hearing conference concerning the relative merits of the projects; that will be part of the formal evidentiary hearing later this year. Following the formal evidentiary hearing, the ALJ will issue a proposed decision which is subject to a 30 day public review and comment period prior to being voted on by the PUC Commissioners. An alternate proposal can be filed at any time by any CPUC Commissioner. Staff is recommending that the City Council direct staff to pursue the following courses of action: 1) Initiate formal lobbying strategy directed at the CPUC Commissioners, especially assigned Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves. The City could prepare form letters for residents to lobby as well. 2) Conduct a field meeting and survey of the entire projects paths of travel with SCE representative(s). 3) Direct the City Attorney to participate in the June 5, 2017 pre-hearing conference for the purpose of addressing the City’s request for party status. 4) Reach out to and partner with neighboring impacted cities including Wildomar, Perris, Menifee, Corona and Riverside County. 5) Pursue drafting a new updated utility undergrounding ordinance. 6) Consider contracting with a consultant with expertise in transmission line Projects. 7) Create a City website with updated information and form letters to lobby Commissioners for the public. 8) Consider conducting a future community town hall meeting to inform the residents and businesses and encourage their participation. 9) Provide periodic updates to the public at regular City Council meetings. 3 These two transmission line projects and the new substation, if developed as proposed, have the potential to damage the City’s quality of life, aesthetics, business community and economic development. The proposed strategy is designed to strongly encourage the CPUC to make decisions about the projects that implement mitigation measures for the protection of the City of Lake Elsinore. FISCAL IMPACT Unknown at this time. The proposed Projects would negatively impact commercial and industrial commerce with poles and transmission lines along Mission Trail, Malaga Street, Casino Drive, Auto Center Drive, Third Street and Pasadena Street. The proposed Projects would negatively impact property values and home sales in residential areas along Nichols Road and Lake Street. Prepared By:Grant Taylor Community Development Director Approved By:Grant Yates City Manager Exhibits: Exhibit A - Project Overview Map Exhibit B - Projects Fact Sheets Exhibit C - City of Lake Elsinore Letter dated July 13, 2016 Exhibit D - Final EIR Comments to City of Lake Elsinore letter IVYGLEN b t*r, 4l ,t' {'' sr - r SKYLARK4/'€ d ,$il- ,rff #" r'l# P.) *'*f 4p5 4 lr." '' " .r.s CITY OF PERRIS 500:kv trinsmission linealignments ,,_atr(l \u,n\F LAKE ELSINORE A Substation location Existing 500-kV Senano-Valley transmis5i0n line Alberhill Syrtem Projed (modifed, replaced, or new I I 5-kV subtransmission line) Valley-lvyglen proposed 1 I 5-kV subtransmission lines (as proposed April 2014) t- -- -ct,/ WILDOMAR CITY 1002451.0005 04.r,i I 2/l,li20l 5 Figure 2-1 Overview of thc Proposcd Proiects Alberhlll and Vallcy-lvyglen Projects [Be Lake .too fi. segmenr'1 ' inot to scalel A NEWcoM84 NEWPoRT Rd I{{ I t VALLEY ; : oe Ea q€ = ctTY $F.I.4EN'FEE I i,. \ _slelIj-D_ t,{. CITY OF CANYON LAKE $ Proiect Overview Soulhern Colifornio Edison ISCEI is proposing to conshuct the Volley-lvyglen Proiecl lo reduce reliobility concerns ossocioted wilh the exisling single-circuit I l5-kV subtronsmission line thot serves Fogoriy ond lvyglen substotions ond to eliminole lhe potenliol for o 115-kV system overlood within the Eleckicol Needs Areo (Figure l). To oddress these concerns, SCE is proposing to conslrucl o new single-circuit I ls-kv sublrqnsmis- sion line ond fiber optic line between the exisling Volley ond lvyglen Substotions (Figure 1|. The 27-mile-long primorily overheod sublronsmission line would be locoted in opproximole- ly 23 miles of new right-of-woy. The fiber optic line would be inslolled overheod on proposed overheod siruclures ond under- ground in new ond exisling conduil. The Colifornio Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), os Leod Agency under the Colifornio Environmen]ol Quolity Act (CECAI, will prepore on Environmentol lmpoct Report (ElR| for the Volley-lvyglen Proiect. The CPUC is olso the leod Agency lor onolher SCE proposed proiect-lhe Alberhill System Project (Alberhill Proiectl-which would be consiructed within opproxi- motely 6-5 miles of ihe some right-of-woy ond would be locoied on some of the slructures constructed for the Volley-lvyglen Proiect. Due lo geogrophic proximily, overlopping impocls, ond similor tirnelines, the CPUC determined lhot it would be in lhe publlc's best interesi lo disclose fhe environmeniol impocts of the Volley-ivyglen ond Alberhill Proiects in o single EIR The EIR will provide seporote onolyses for eoch proiect. This EIR will describe lhe noture ond exient o[ the impocts resuhing from the Volley*lvyglen ond Aiberhill Proiects. Fhere will be opporlunities during lhe EIR process for the public lo leorn obout ond comment on lhe proposed projects ond iheir environmenlol impocls. Emoil: lvyglen@ene. com iloil: Volley-lvyglen Proiect c,/o Ecology ond Environmenl, lnc., 505 Sonsome Skeei, Suite 300, Son Froncisco, CA 94 I ll Fox! (4151 398-5326 Voicemoil: ,.855]1277-9051 FACT SHEET ln its initiol review of the Volley-lvyglen Proieci, the CPUC hos identified the following potentiol odverse environmentol impocls: Aerthclicr - Operotion of o new sublronsmission line could resull in impocls on scenic roods. Air Ouolity - Conskuction octivities could result in fugitive dust emissions lhot excoed locol oir diskict lhresholds. Biologico! Rcsourccl - Construction octivities could resuit in impocls on speciol stolus species ond sensitive hobitots. Hozqrdour llotcriolr - Conslruction octivities could resuh in temporory effecls from lhe use of hozordous mqteriols Hydrolcgy ond Wolcr Quolity - Construction octivities could result in impocts on droinoge potterns ond woter quolity- Lond Usc - Operolion of o new sublronsmission line could conflict with locol lond use policies, Noirc - Conslruction oclivilies could result in noise levels thot lempororily exceed locol thresholds. Trofftc - Helicopter use during construction could result in lemporory impocts on oir lroffic. The CPUC invites the public to present comments obout he Volley-lvyglen ond Alberhill Proiects ond the scope of the ElR. Commenls moy be moiled, emoiled, or foxed, All public scoping comments must be received or postmorked by June 5, 201 5, Once the public scoping period ends, the CPUC will prepore o Droft ElR, State of Celifornia Publlc Utllities Commission MAY 2OI5 Potentiol Environmentol lmpocts ldenrified ! siwlorrdLo;*r Erirtlog Codix*r ?.., r rL; For more informotion...Public Scoping Comments snd Next Sleps Volley-lvyglen Subrrsnsmission Line Proiect a a a I \ A sub{nlio(lol.tio) - ix6ting sm.lv sera.o,v.rley ranrierim line I I 5-kv r!blr.nrmirrio^ liner {approved in 20101 m lfr#:,lf*vntrn'mts'bn Ih6 City boundari.t r .r: r tl€.vi(.| netdr.r€. boond..y a ,UC O rn of r IVYGLTH a{ 'OGAi.]Y a, flEWCOdBa T )' lnr ., \?l t?t I lt. .,,ln5XYLARK : :rT) OF v,U+r( I n"^t' "'u' i3t: 1\:- :rT) OF v,U+r( !,r Figure 1 Valley-lvyElen Subtransmission Line Project As Approved in 20 I 0 & As Propored in 20 ' 4 'i-"..-) o{*" *.qlIrorh\ $?lake Elsinote oro the odminisaolive p 20r4 SCE filed Substotion {ror 20r 5 The CPUC deeme \*-"-l' Bockground for the - Abbrevialed fimeline ++n (} {,{ Jtl: il LCt St.te of California Public Utilities Commission FACT SHEET MAY 2OI5 The proposed Alberhill Project includes construction of the following components (Figure 2): . A new 5OO/l l5-kV substotion (Alberhill Subslorion|; o Two, opproximotely I .,5-mil+.long, 500-kV tronsmission lines lo connect the Alberhill Substolion to the existing Serrono-Volley SOO-kV tronsmission line; . One new ond four modified subtronsmission lines, ]o]oling opproximotely 20.5 miles, to tronsfer five substolions served by the Volley South I l5-kV Sysrem to the Alberhill Substorion; Telecommunicolions lines on lhe new ond reploced tronsmis- sion ond sublronsmission lines ond in new ond existing underground conduit; ond o A l2Gfool microwove onlenno lower ol the proposed Alber- hill Subslotion sile, microwove telecommunicoiions ontennos ot the exisiing Sontiogo Peok communicotions site ond Serrono Substolion, ond olher lelecommunicotions equipment insiollolions ot existing ond proposed subslolions. ln ils initiol review of the Alberhill Projecr, rhe CPUC hos identified the following potentiol odverse environmentol impocts: Acrlhctics - Operoiion of o new subsiotion, ironsmission lines, ond sublronsmission lines could resull in impocls on scenic roods ond visuol quolity. Air Gluolity - Construction octivilies could result in fugiiive dust emissions thot exceed locol oir district threshoids. Biologitol R.esources - Construction octivities could result in impocls on specioi sloius species ond sensilive hobitots Hozsrdour Motcriols - Consiruction octivities could result in temporory effects from lhe use o[ hozordous moteriols. Opero- tion of o substotion could resull in impocls during on occidentol releose ol hozordous moteriols, Hydrology ond Ulctcr Gluolity - Consiruction ocfivities could result in Impocts on droinoge potterns ond woter quolity. Emoil: olberhill@ene.com Website: http://rinyurl.com,/Alberhill Mqil: Rlberhill System Proiecr c/o Ecology ond Environment, lnc., 505 Sonsome Street, Suite 300 Son Froncisco, CA 94 I I I Fox: (4ls) 398.s326 Voicemoil: t|77l 31 3-s395 Prolect Overview Southern Colifornio Edison [SCE) is proposing to conslruct o new 5OO/115-kV Substotion (Alberhill Substorion! wirhin the Volley South I l5-kV Syslem service oreo (Figure ll to meei proiecred eleclricol demond thot would exceed the current operoting limit of the Volley South l l5.kV System. The Colifornio Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), os leod Agency under the Colifornio Environmentol Quolity Act ICEeA), will prepore on Environmentol lmpoct Reporl (ElR| for the Alberhill Proiect. The CPUC is olso the teod Agency for onother SCE-proposed proiect: ihe Volley-lvyglen Subtronsmission line Proiect (Volley-lvyglen Proiect). The Alberhill Prolecr would be constructed within opproximotely 6.5 miles of the some right-of-woy os the Volley-lvyglen Proiect ond would be locoted on some of lhe structures conslructed for the Volley-lvyglen Proiecl- Due io geogrophic proximity, overlopping impocts, ond similor iimelines, the CPUC determined thot it would be in rhe public's best interest to disclose the environmentol impocts of lhe Volley-lvyglen ond Alberhill Projecls in o single EIR The EIR will provide sepqrote onolyses for eoch proiecl. This EIR will describe lhe noture ond extent of lhe impocts resulting from the Volley-lvyglen ond Alberhill Proiects There will be opporlunities during the EIR process for the public to leorn oboul ond comment on the proposed proiects ond their environmenlol impocls. The CPUC invites the public to present comments obout the Alberhill ond Volley-lvyglen Proiecrs ond rhe scope ol rhe EIR Comments moy be moiled, emoiled, or foxed. All public scoping commenls must be received or postmorked by june 5, 2015. Once the public scoping period ends, rhe CPUC will prepore o Drofl ElR, which will be circuloled for public review ond commenl. I Alberhill System Proiect Public Scoping Comments ond Nex? Steps Components Poteniiol Environmentol lmpocts ldentified 'q. ! For more informotion... SAN BEFNAROINO COUNTY f&iw /j dt @. fjl i*rrtrrrirth El i*rhntntb-atlrrdLrarrt mwm rtrdilnHrtrroorFo r olifilr/&kdHhrft a ,elrlil*dc I llvlt.w#. - .t'lum A-\ I sEll lloABAC @ 'onqr ORI\NGE COUNTY {b*--*-i-a asraFdtr&-$!ilr*-'t*- ---tilAE.rlrn{- a"- tvYGLtlt SAN OIFGD CBUN'TY G'- Figure l Vrlby 3outh llr-lv Sr.t.rn rtrd ll..t kd ]l..dr Ar.. AIb.rhU 5rrr.n Prer(t .ttrerilt Eri.l lrlll Ibelll.ltffil b A a-t ?OGAiIY a I!c a CITY OF MTNIFEE lr?wcolral nEw?oef eD II aI a CITY <)F CANYON T.AKE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ".*\." ' /y ) f 5ub5t.tlon location Erlstlng 50GlV Scrr.oevalhy tr.nrmlrrlon iln. P.oposld 50GkV tranimirsion line Modlfiad. rapiaccd, or new I ls-kv subtr.nrhl$lon lln. City boundarlrr ,lA ot2 MILE5 -e.-* t + *t q{ ^ts .o$ WILDOMAR Figure 2 Albrrhil! Syrt.m Proi.ct u\!aj slN()r(t lXrRlivrt July 13, 2016 California Public Utilities Commission RE: VIG/ASP c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. 505 Sansome Street, Suite f300 San Francisco, CA 941.11 Re: Comments to Droft Environmental lmpact Repott for Southern California Edison's Alberhill System Project (CPUC Applicotion 4.09-09-O22) ond Volleflvyglen Subtonsmission Line Project ICPUC Applicotion A.0741- 0i 1) Fo whom it may concernl The City of Lake Elsinore ("City"l has reviewed the Draft Environmental lmpact Report ("DElR"), State Clearinghouse Nos. 2008011082 and 2010041031, which was prepared in connection with two Southern California Edison {"SCE"} proposals in Lake Elsinore and surrounding communities. sCE's Alberhill System Proiect (California Public Utilities Commission ["CPUC"l Application A.09-09-022) (the "Alberhill Project"] will consist of construction of the proposed Alberhill Substation along with the above-ground installation of approximately 21 miies of llS-kilovolt (kV) transmissions lines weaving throuBh some of Lake Elsinore's most heavily traveled thoroughfares, including Mission Trail, Malaga Street, Casino Drive, Auto Center Drive, Third Street, Pasadena Street, Nichols Road, and Lake Street in proximity to established commercial zones and residential neighborhoods. sCE's second proposal, the Valley-lvyglen Subtransmission Line Proiect (CPUC Application A.07-01-031) (the "Valley-lvyglen Project") will enter the City at State Route 74 just east of lnterstate 15 and, like the Alberhill Pro.iect, will wind its way along Third Street, Pasadena Street, Nichols Road, and Lake Street and impact those areas with a dual set of transmission lines standing side by side 100 feet in the air. 'l-he Alberhill Project and the Valley-lvyglen Project are collectively referred to as the "Proposed Proiects." sCE is to be com mended for its comm itment to ensuring lhat Lake Elsinore and the surrounding communities are adequately served with both sufficient resources to serve future growth and system redundancy to ensufe greater reliability, However, SCE's obligation to serve its custorners is not singular. lts role is not simply to supply electricity; it must diligently assure that its facilities not blight already-impacted communities and, perhaps rnore importantly, it must Alberhill System Project and Vdlley-lvyglen Subtronsmission Line Project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. July 13,2016 Page 2 recognize opportunities to improve communities by thoughtfully investing in undergroundin g transmission lines. The City believes that the DEIR fails to comply with the requirements the California Environmental Quality Act ("cEaA") (Pub. Res. Code 55 21000, seq.), and the State of California Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act ("Guidelines"Xl4 Cal. Code Regs. !S15000 et seg.,l. Accordingly, the city requests that CPUC suspend any further consideration of the Alberhill and the Valley-lvyglen Proiect until a DEIR that fully discloses and analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed Projects, fully considers feasible alternatives (including alternative locations and alternative technologies), and fully complies with all other CEQA requirements has been prepared and recirculated for public review and comment- The DEIR for the Proiects is lnadequate. The DEIR fails to satisfy the requirements of the CEQA on the grounds, as addressed in detail below: (1) inadequate aesthetics impact analysis; (2) inadequate hazards impact analysis of EMF; (3) inadequate hazard related to the Skylark Field Airport; (4) inadequate socioeconomics analysis; (5) environmental justice concerns; and (6) inadequate analysis. As a result ofthese failings, ma.ior revisions to the DEIR are necessary comply with CEOA and require recirculation. L. Aesthetic lmpocts within the City ol Lake Elinore. The DEIR analysis of aesthetic impacts is not merely inadequate; it is fundamentally flawed. The drafters of the DEIR have simply failed to appreciate the Proposed Projects before the CPUC and the impacts on the Lake Elsinore environment. The DEIR creates a paradigm largely guided by the sense that the only visual impacts associated with the Proposed Projects is how they are viewed from the Interstate L5 freeway and State Route 74 and, having adopted that paradigm, employs the Federal Highway Administration's 1988 Visuql lmpact Assessment for Hiqhway Projects. With over 11 miles of power lines to be added within the City's municipal boundaries, the DEIR presents a paltry 15 keyl z+a-z viewpoints, focusing on views from the freeway or busy State Route 74. And yet virtually none of the proposed powerlines within the City will be within the lnterstate 15 or State Route 74 rights of way. lndeed, the Proposed Projects here are simply ill-suited for analysis using criteria dev€loped for the federal interstate system. The proiects barely touch the lnterstate 15 right of way. lnstead, the Proposed Proiects' impacts are felt in Lake Elsinore on a distinctly local level. Alberhill System Project ond Valley-lvyglen Subtronsmission Line project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. luly L3,20L6 Page 3 Sorely missing from the OEIR'5 aesthetic analysis are key viewpoints from streets within the City in which there are no existing overhead powerlines but that will now have such lines, streets that have overhead lines on one side ofthe street that due to project development will have lines on both sides of the street, and streets that have existing modest powerlines capable of future undergrounding at a reasonable cost that will now be burdened with a set of dual powerlines foreclosing a financially viable potential for future undergrounding- ln the few instances in which the DEIR actually discloses visual impacts, that disclosure shows marked indifference to local impacts within the City. The DEIR's analysis of Key Viewpoint I exemplifies this approach, The City of Lake Elsinore carefully conditioned the retail and commercial centers bordered by Third Street and Pasadena Street to underground utilities, as demonstrated by the retail center shown in Key Viewpoint 8 at the corner of Central and pasadena. Those commercial and retail businesses have thrived in this modern business center which meets the aesthetic expectations of both its owners, their patrons, and the community. The Proposed Projects lay waste to those expectations as both projects will run 100-foot poles and powerlines down Third Street and the entire length of Pasadena (ASP 3/VIG 4.) Oespite the City's efforts to successfully implement development of modern communities and retail centers in which utilities are routinely undergrounded as exemplified on Pasadena Street, the DEIR response in effect says: "we don't think anyone will notice these powerlines." Using the above- referenced federal guidelines for interstate freeways and scenic highways, the DEIR concludes that visual impacts in the City's prime business park are somehow "moderately low because it is experienced mostly by people working or traveling in the area for work or personal business." (p.4.1-22) This disconcerting bias against impacts experienced by both local businesses and the local community is further exemplified in "moderately low,, visual sensitivity attributable to the installation of taller power lines on Mission Trail "because it is experienced on a regular basis by a moderate number of viewers consisting primarily of local residents, workers, commuters, and people engaged in shopping and business activities who would not have a high concern for visual changes." (Key Viewpoint L3, p. 4.L-241 tf the drafter of the DEIR so readily dismisses the sensibilities of residents, workers, commuters and persons engaged in commerce within the City; whose sensibilities are left to consider when assessing visual impacts? lndeed, if the drafter ofthe DEIR is to be believed, any aesthetic appeal tol undergrounding utilities in neighborhoods and commercial centers is simplyl Alberhill System Project ond Valley-lvyglen Subtrqnsmission Line Project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. July 13,2016 Page 4 illusory. Those users, according to the DEIR, will simply not notice above-ground powerlines. This point of view stands in stark contrast to the development expectations of virtually every city within the State which routinely mandate undergrounding of utilities in new subdivisions and commercial centers. That undergrounding is performed without question or dispute because undergrounding of utilities is consistent with the community's development expectation along with the expectation of property owners, theirtenants, visitors and patrons who have grown to place a premium on development aesthetic. Why has the DEIR so profoundly missed the mark on aesthetic impacts? Because it utilizes an utterly outdated aesthetic standard-now 28 years old-that even the notoriously glacial Federal Highway Administration has abandoned. The Federal Highway Administration's 2015 replacemenl Guidelines for the Visuol lmpoct Assessment ol Highwoy Projects acknowledge that the 1988 guidelines as simply antiquated: 'The new guidelines recommend engaging the public to a higher degree than earlier IVisual lmpact Assessment] VIA methods, to achieve a better understanding of how people define visual quality and how they interpret changes to it." (2015 Guidelines, p. 1-3). By failing to engage the public and instead relying on outdated (and, candidly, inapplicable guidelines for the Proposed Project), the DEIR'S consistently understates the visual impact of the Proposed Projects. The modern expectation that visual impacts will be at the forefront of new development is embodied in the City's applicable land use standards which seek to protect the character of the surrounding environment and not limit that protection to designated "scenic" view sheds as proposed in the DEIR. The City, like many municipalities, has authorized the formation of utility undergrounding districts (Lake Elsinore Municipal Code ["LEMC"I 12.16), mandated that new development underground utilities of less than 34.5 kv (LEMC 16.64), and mandated the undergrounding of utilities in specific plan districts to the extent feasible (LEMC 17.204.030.H). The Alberhill and Valley-lvyglen Projects will degrade the visual quality of every area of the City they touch, as the developments in those areas will be less attractive amongst the imposing pole structures and power lines. Undergrounding of these transmission lines is feasible to mitigate the significant impacts to aesthetics from the Proposed Projects. The CPUC should mandate that mitigation. 248-8 Alberhill System Project ond Valley-lvyglen Subtrdnsmission Line project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. July 13, 2016 Page 5 2. Hozords to Sensiuve Receptors, Ten schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Proiect. (p. 4.8-4.) Moreover, "lslensitive receptors are as close as 20 feet from" the 115-kV subtransmission line. (p.4.3-30-) The DEIR's discussion ofthe health effects on sensitive receptors considers the use of hazardous substances such as motor fuel, solvents, and lubricating fluid but it does not consider emissions of electric and magnetic currents. The DEIR recognizes that the potential health effects of electromagnetic fields ("EMFs") is an area of community concern, but ls steadfast in refusing to discuss it: At present, the CPUC does not consider EMFs, in the context ofthe California Envlronmental Qualily Act (CEQA), to be an environmental impact because there is no agreement among scientists that EMFs create a potential health risk and because CEQA does not define or adopt standards for defining any potential risk from EMFs. Therefore, EMFs are not addressed in the Environmental lmpacts and Mitigation Measures section of this document. (pp.4.8.-6.7.) The fact that "CEQA does not define or adopt standards for defining any potential risk from EMFs" does not relieve the DEIR preparer from the responsibility to evaluate the potential impacts of EMFS. The intent of CEeA is to regulate activities to prevent both adverse effects on the environmental and to the health and safety of the people of the state. (See Pub. Res. Code, g 2100O.) Section 15126.29(a) of the CEOA Guidelines specifically states that EtR discussion should include "health and safety problems caused by the physical changes." The CEQA Guidelines acknowledge that when adopting thresholds of significance, "a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts-" (Guidelines, $150il.71 The United States Environmental Protection Agency identifies exposure to electromagnetic fields and falling power lines as potential hazards relevant to the siting of schools. (EPA School Siting Guidelines.) As such, the DEIR should address the health effects of electric and magnetic fields as a potential impact to sensitive receptors. The DEIR should quantify the levels of EMFs that sensitive receptors may be exposed to, and then provide studies relatinB to those levels. 248-'tO Alberhill System Project and Valley-tvyglen Subtransmission Line project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. July 13, 2015 Page 6 The DEIR acknowledges that the CPUC has authorized "[n]o-cost and low- cost" measures to reduce magnetic fields that may be incorporated into the design of a prolect, such measures are not provided in the DEIR. The DEIR should provide a description of the potential "no-cost and low-cost" measures to reduce EMF and should explain how such measures would be effective in reducing exposure to EMFs. 248-11 3. Airport. I I The DEIR's discussion of airports indicates that "sections of 115-kVl Segments ASP4 and ASP5 are located within the lnfluence Area of the Skylark Fieldf Airport ...." 1p.4.8-19.). The DEIR goes on to disclose that: I I Sections of 115-kV Segments ASP4 and ASP5 would be I located less than 1,000 feet east of Skylark Field Airport I (Figure 2-2b). Construction would occur along an existing I 1L5-kV subtransmission line and within an existing ROW. I I The lightweight steel poles installed along 115-kV Segments I ASP4 and ASP5 within the lnfluence Area of Skylark Field I zna-tz Airpon would range in height from 70 to 115 feet (Figure 2- | 6). The Skylark Field Airport manager stated that an initial I review of the project did not raise concerns with regard to I the proposed Alberhill Project as long as the structures I installed are less than 120 feet high (Gulledge personal I communication 2010). The 115-kV structures would range I from 70 to 115 feet tall. Because the proposed structures I would be less than 120 feet in height, installation of I structures along ASP4 and ASP5 within the vicinity of the I Skylark Field Airport would not result in a safety hazard for I people working in the project area. lmpacts under this I criterion would be lessthan significant. I (p a.s-al) | Bluntly stated, this anecdotal information masquerading as analysis is simply incredible. As a point of beginning, while the office and airport hangars at Skylark Field are approximately 1,000 feet away from the project, the flight path appears to be significantly less than 1,000 feet away from the corner of Waite and Mission Trail where ASP 4 and ASP 5 meet. And that the entirety of the safety analysis is a casual conversation with the airport "manager" who had conducted an "initialreview" of the project is shocking. (p. a-8-41) 248-13 Alberhill System Project ond Voltey-lvyglen Subtronsmission Line project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. July 13,2016 Page 7 There is no analysis of the actual flight patterns at Skylark Field or the reduce plane altitudes to accommodate a visual landing. There is no information as to the impact of strong cross winds that are widely known to occur in the afternoons in Lake Elsinore. Moreover, in considering the apparent safety ,threshold,, of 120_feet proposed by the airport "manager," no allowance has been made for the fact that the airport runway is at a lower elevation than the elevation at Waite and Mission 24&14 Trail. lndeed, the runway at Skylark field lies in a floodplain. And, while the City recognizes that the Federal Aviation Administration does not assert jurisdiction over Skylark Field, it nonetheless gives guidance to the placement of powerlines within a flight path of any airport. yet, the guidance from one the government,s most knowledgeable agencies is left unreviewed in favor to the musings of the airport "manager." ln summary, the powerlines in A5P 4 and ASp 5 could potentially create typical altitude of planes as they approach the runway. There is no analysis of likely flight patterns that may be utilized during inclement weather as pilots (and appear likely to create) a hazard for aircraft. Accordingly, the DEIR is required to address potential impacts related to the Alberhill project,s vicinity to the Skylark Field Airport and propose mitigation measures, including undergrounding, to ensure the public's safety. The an alysis of airport safety in the existing DEIR is not merely inadequate; it is irresponsible. 4. SocioeconomiclmpacB. CEQA requires analysis of reasonably foreseeable indirect physical impacts as well as direct impacts. (cuidelines, S 15084(d).) tndirect impacts that must be considered include social or economic effects that result in a physical change in the environment. (Guidelines, 5 1506a(el.) The Proposed Projects will have significant aesthetic impacts on the commercial uses along Mission Trail, Malaga Street, Casino Drive, Auto Center Drive, Third Street and Pasadena Street; residential development along Nichols Road, and Lake Street will likewise be heavily impacted. The commercial uses impacted by the placement of transmission structures and lines will be less attractive and have less appeal to shoppers than non-impacted sites. These powerlines will make ingress and egress more difficult- Signage restrictions due to conflicts with the overhead transmission lines will also result in reduced visitors and profitability to the commercial uses. As a result, those commercial uses will only be able to draw lower quality tenants, and/or 248-15 Alberhill System Projed and Volleflvyglen Subtronsmission Line project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. luly !3, ZOL6 Page 8 commercial development will be shifted away from the freeway frontage to other sites. Consequently, businesses along the commercial corridors in the City will have reduced income. Development for residential uses will also be less successful due to the Proposed Projects, as people do not find the transmission structures and lines attractive and they fear the health and safety consequences of living near the high EMFS. Property values along the Proposed proiects area will be reduced. As a result of the aesthetic and hazard impacts, the planned and foreseeable land uses in the Proposed Projects'area will not be desirable or economically viable. Blight or urban decay may then occur, as land lies underdeveloped, people move from existing residences leaving them vacant and the vacancy rate of existing commercial buildings increase leading to potential urban decay. ln Eakersfield Citizens lor Locol Control v. City ol Bakersfield lZOO4t 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, the court decertified ElRs for failure to consider urban decay. The court held that "land use decisions that cause a chain reaction of store closures and long-term vacancies, ultimately destroying existing neighborhoods and leaving decaying shells in their wake" must be studied, as they may constitute significant impacts- (Bokersfield Citizens for Locol Control, supra, !24 Cal.App.4th at 1204.) 5. Envircnmentoltustice. Environmental iustice refers to the concept that minority or low-income populations should not be disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards. ln 1999, the State of California enacted legislation establishing environmental justice as an aspect of state law. California law defines environmental iustice as "the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures. and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policaes." (Gov. Code,9 65040.12(e); see also pub. Res. Code, $ 71110. ) Residents ofthe cities of Murrieta, Murrieta Springs, Perris, Menifee, and Wildomar, along with portions of the County of Riverside, would benefit from the Proposed Projects to the detriment of residents ofthe City of Lake Elsinore. While these residents will gain increased power reliability from the Proposed projects, Lake Elsinore residents will potentially suffer from exposure to high levels of EMFs, aesthetic impacts, decline in property values, reduced socioeconomic conditions, and blight. The DEIR should analyze whether the residents of Lake Elsinore are disproportionately exposed to the Proposed Projects' impacts as compared to the residents of these other benefitted communities. The DEIR should also propose 244.16 248-17 Alberhill System Projed and Volley-lvyglen Subtronsmission Line P@ect c/o Ecoloty and Environment, lnc. July 13,2016 Page 9 :lr1l"J:ll[:*te that does not disproportionately burden residents of the citvl 6. Altenotives. The Proposed Proiects include the undergrounding of transmission lines in some discrete areas outside of the City- Clearly, then, undergrounding is technically feasible. Undergrounding the U.5 kV lines could reduce impacts to aesthetics, socloeconomics, and urban decay to less than significant. CEQA requires the adoption of all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that substantially reduce the environmental impacts of projects. (pub. Res. Code, $ 2L002; Guidelines, $ 15L26.5 (a).)The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. (Center for Eiologicdl Diversity v. County of Son Berndrdino (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 866, 883.) CEQA also requires an EIR present a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location ofthe project which reduce the environmental impacts of the project. (Guidelines, I 15125.6(a); Citizens of Goletd Volley v. Boord of Supervisors (L990) 52 Cal.3d 553.) The DEIR fails to present a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternatives should include other technologies and routes. The DEIR does not analyze any alternative routes for the Proposed Projects. 248-18 244-19 It appears that seven alternative routes were considered for the V lvyglen Proiect but were eliminated from the alternatives analysis. (p. 4.5-3 Particularly troubling is the failure to explore a route through the populated and largely undeveloped areas east of lnterstate L5, north of State Route 74. These alternative routes were at least presented in the environmental analysis of the Valley-lvyglen Subtransmission Line and Substation Project in 2007. Yet, the CPUC has been deprived of considering alternatives in this OEIR. ln light ofthe Proposed Project's striking visual within the City of Lake Elsinore, the so-called "Northern Corridor" route consideration by the CPUC as a viable alternative. lnstead, both Projects trounced through Lake Elsinore's highly business parks and then head northwest to further impact critical residential development along Nichols Road and Lake Street. oespite the of the proposed Alberhill Substation on the north side of lnterstate 15, the VIG and VIG 7 remain on the southern side of lnterstate 15 in order to deftly impacting the highly-prized commercial centers located at Temescal Canyon unincorporated Riverside County, just north ofthe City's boundaries. the new shopping center at De Palma Road and the residential development analysis. ln addition to making Appendix B available for public review, the oElR I analysis should have included a summary of the Air Quality and GHG Emission I Calculations for each alternative and then evaluated whether additionall mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to the same o, lo*", Ilevels than the Proposed Proiects. Alberhill System Project and Volley-lvyglen Subtronsmission Line Project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. .luly 13,2016 Page 10 lies just north, the powerlines once again cross over the freeway apparently in order to avoid impacting these sensitive receptors. lndeed, it appears, based on the repeated freeway crossovers, that the featured route is particular sensitive to impacts in virtually every community except Lake Elsinore. Furthermore, although the EIR analysis of the alternatives is not required to be as comprehensive as the EIR analysis of the Proposed Projects, the alternative's discussion is so cursory as to prevent a meaningful comparison. For example, the Air Quality discussion of VIG Alternative M (Underground along the Entire Proposed Project Alignment) states that "[a]s shown in Appendix B, the undergrounding activities ofthe proposed project would create the greatest Peak Oaily Emissions." (p. 5-18) However, the CPUC web site posting ofthe DEIR fails to provide Appendix B for public review. Without the supportinE data to support the DEIR conclusion, the public is denied a reasonable opportunity to evaluate thisl The OEIR'S analysis of Land Use and Planning for Alternative M states that "Iu]ndergrounding the entire alignment would neither create nor avoid a land use conflict that would result in significant environmental impacts. lmpacts would be the same underthis alternative as forthe proposed pro.iect." (p. 5-20lAs discussed above, this conclusion is clearly false. The undergrounding of the Proposed Project would avoid many of the land use conflicts of the Proposed Project. Additionally, the Table 5-1 Summary of the Valley-lvyglen Project Alternatives Analyses and Determination (p. 5-3) is structured to be misleading. For example, this table states that the VIG Alternative M impacts on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Transportation and Traffic are "greater" than the Proposed Projects, but fails to point out that these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the mitigation measures similar to those developed for the Proposed Project. (pp. 5-19 through 5-21). lt is clear that th e com parison of project alternatives is biased toward the Proposed Projects. Rather than propose an all or (almost) nothing approach to undergrounding, the DEIR should propose a thoughtful alternative taking into account the areas where undergrounding may not be appropriate due to disturbance of sensitive habitat or the location of known cultural resources but providing for undergrounding in urban areas in which such concerns are lessened and aesthetic impacts are heightened. Th is type of "hybrid" l,-" 248-?0 248-21 Alberhill System Projed and ValleVlvyglen Subtronsmission Line project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. July 13,2015 Page L1 alternative has the potential to be the environmentally superior alternative and should be included. The range of alternative presented in the DEIR are not just inadequate; they are mystifying. ln summary the DEIR fails to comply with CEQA's direct've to "describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the pro.iect, or to the location of the project.,, (Guidelines, $ 15126.6(al.) 7. lmpocts Ou$de of the City of Lake Elsinorc. We have purposefully focused our comments above to those impacts that will be experienced within the City's municipal boundaries. However, we do believe that the Alberhill Substation deserves additional comment. The DEIR correctly identifies the visual impacts of the substation as "moderately high" and "high." However, the DEIR falls short in providing elevation drawings of the substation, dimensions, and depictions of proposed building materials. ln failing to do so, the DEIR deprives those parties commenting on the DEIR an opportunity to make specific recommendations as to color, architecture and landscaping that could go a long way toward minimizing those identified "moderate high" and high visual impacts. We urge the CPUC to require that the DEIR include detailed elevation drawings (including the 49-feet tall switch racks), dimensions, building materials, and proposed landscaping of the Alberhill Substation for review and comments by the public. Recirculation Required. "When significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice" that the DEIR is available for public review, recirculation ofthe EIR is required. (Pub. Res. Code, $ 21092.1.) ln Laurcl Heights lmprovement Assn. v Regents of Univ- of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th t1,L2, 7L3O, the court gave four examples ofsituations in which recirculation is required: When the new information show5 a new, substantial environmental impact resulting either from the proiect or from a mitigation measure; o When the new information shows a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, except that recirculation would not be required if mitigation that reduces the impact to insignificance is adopted; o When the new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure, considerably different from those considered in the ElR, that clearly would lessen the Alberhill System Project and Valley-lvyglen Subtronsmission Line Project c/o Ecology and Environment, lnc. July 13,2016 Page L2 environmental impacts of a project and the proiect proponent declines to adopt it; and . When the draft EIR was "so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature" that public comment on the draft EIR was essentially meaninSless. The problems with the DEIR discussed above require recirculation for similar reasons as those set forth in Lautel Heights.The DEIR failed to consider the potentially significant impact of blight or urban decay. lmpacts to aesthetics; hazards to sensitive receptors, impacts to the Skylark Field Airport, and socioeconomic effects are more severe than the DEIR recognized. Moreover, undergrounding is a feasible alternative or mitigation measure. Therefore, a DEIR revised to address the issues set forth herein and raised by other comment letters must be prepared and recirculated. C. Conclusion. ln sum, the Proposed Projects will adversely affect private property values and result in impacts to land that make it no longer be suitable for residential or high quality commercial uses. This will, in turn, result in a lower socioeconomic base for the City of Lake Elsinore and its residents and businesses, and raises environmental iustice concerns. As an indirect physical result, the Proposed Pro.iects have the potential to cause bliBht or urban decay. We request that the DEIR be revised to address the issues set forth herein and raised by other comment letters, and that the revised OEIR be recirculated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQ{. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Alberhill System Project dnd Volley-lvyglen Subtrdnsmission Line project c/o Ecology and Environment. lnc. July 13, 2016 Page 13 Sincerely, Daryl Hickman Council Member Supervisor Kevin Jeffries, Board of Supervisors, Countv of Riverside Assemblywoman Melissa A. Melendez, California State Assembly Senator.leff Stone, California State Senate Steve Manot Riverside County Airport l_and Use Commissioner Jeremy Goldman, Regional Manager of Southern Caltfornia Edison 6rant Yates, Chy Manager, City of l-ake Elsinore Robert E, 50-4: Vau-rv-lw6tEil AND ALBERHTU Pnotrcrs AppENDrx L - REspoilsEs ro Comnnerurs 50-3: The impacts of the proposed project on MSHCP lands are discussed in detail in the EIR. SCE intends to become a Participating Special Entity for all phases of the project and will be subject to all applicable provisions of the MSHCP for the duration of the project, which would ensure there are no significant impacts. The CPUC acknowledges Riverside Counfy's concems related to siting of Altemative DD within the Serrano Commerce Center Site, including its potential placemeut within the Open Space Conservation areas identified in Specific Plan 353. The description of Alternative DD has been updated to clarify that Temescal Canyon Road would be consffucted per the specifications of Specific Plan 353. tn addition, per responses to comments I l3-7 through I l3- 23, as well as cumulative impacts related to the Nevada Hydro LEAPS project, Alternative DD is no longer considered the Environmentally Superior Altemative. The Commission will take all comments into account when making a decision on the project. The CPUC acknowledges Riverside County's concerns related to mincral resources. The discussion under "Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources" in Section 5.3.2has been updated to disclosc the potcntial of greater impacts on this resource. Per response to commcnt 50-4, Altemative DD is no longer considered the Environmentally Superior Altemative. For an explanation of potential increases in aesthetic and habitat impacts related to this altemative. see the revised discussions under Section 5.3.2. Riverslde County, Tranrnofiatbn Deaartment (Lelt?rJ lQTl l?7-l: See response to comment 337-1. Note that exact placement of components would be determined during final engineering. 137-22 The CPUC reviewed the Temescal Canyon Area Plan and the County of Riverside Transportation Department's Transportation Improvement Program 2015116 &2016117 Biennial Report (TIP). While the Ternescal Canyon Area Plan identifics Temescal Canyon Road as an arterial highway, the future expansions described in the available TIP are located northwest of the lvyglen Substation and the proposed VIG8 segment. Currently, there is no documented timeline associated with upgrading the portion of Temescal Canyon Road that coincides with VIG 8. Therefore, this expansion is considered speculative, and impacts associated with the roadway expansion cannot be assessed. No changes have been made to the EiR. Citv of tahe Elsirtore (letter * 2tl8) 248-l: See responses 248-2 through 248-26. 248-2: In cases where a visual impact was identified, mitigation was included to reduce the impact, which included either undergrounding or other measures. See Section 4.1, Aesthetics. In addition, the CPUC considered undergrounding altematives. See Chapter 5.0, Comparison of Alternatives. 248-3: See response to comment 248-2. 50-5: 50-6: 18 Vlrr.gv-lwerEN luo Alsennu PnorEcrs AppEr{otx t- REspoNsEs ro Corvrrururs 248-4: 248-5: 248-6: See response to comment 248-2. See response to comment 248-2. See response to comment 248-2. 248-8: 248-7: See response to comment 248-2. 248-9: See response to comment 248-2. The commenter is correct regarding the CPUC's position on the scientific evidence of Electric and Magrretic Fields (EMFs). Note that the CPUC's position regarding EMFs has been moved to Section 2.5.4, Electric and Magnetic Fields. 248-1O: See response to comment 248-9- 24J}-1tz See response to comment 248-9. 248-12: Comment noted. 248-L3: A comment letter received from the Califomia Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics during scoping stated that: "Skylark Field Airport operates with a Special-Use Airport Permit issued by the Division. The tansmission lines should not result in hazards to flight, such as: obstructions to the navigable aircpace required for flight to, from, and around an airport; visual hazards associated with distracting lights, glare, and sources of smoke: or, electronic hazards that may interfere with aircra{t instruments or radio communication. We advise coordinating with the Airport Manager, Karl Gulledge, at (951) 245-9939, to ensure that the proposal is compatible with future as well as existing airport operations." The Division has technical expertise in the areas ofairport operations safefy, noise and airport land use compatibility. Pursuant to this comment letter, Karl Gulledge, the Skylark Field Airport Manager, was consulted regarding potential impacts on the airport. Mr. Gulledge indicated via a phone conversation on May 17,2010 that he did not have any concerns with regard to operation of the Alberhill System Project as long as the poles were no taller than 120 feet. lv1r. Gulledge was again contacted on July 13,2015 to verifu his previous staternents, and stated that he'\rill stand by [his] support of[the] project." The prqject's hazards and hazardous materials impacts related to the influence area of the Skylark Airport were evaluated Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, under Section 4.8.5 .2. As described therein, pursuant to the hndings of the airpod manager, the project would not result in any significant impacts under project or cumulative conditions because the lightrveight steel poles to be installed along segments ASP4 and ASP5 would be less than 120 feet in height and would not result in a safety hazard. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The commenter does not offer any evidence that the installation of lightrveight t9 Valuv-lwerrN nuo Alarnnu PRorecrs Apperuox [- REsPoNsEs ro CoMMENTS polcs iess than 120 feet in height along segments ASP 4 and ASP 5 would result in significant hazard impacts; therefore, no further response can be provided. 248-L4: See the response to comment 248-13 for further analysis of impacts to Skylark Field Airport. In addition, the applicant is required to comply with all applicable laws, including Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. 248-t5: Potentialimpactsoningress/egressareevaluatedaspartofSection4.l5,Transportationand Traffic. A traffic management plan will be developed to help maintain emergency access, to ensure limited delays or to plan detotrs, and to prevent safety hazards. It would not be possiblc to place overhead signage within l0 feet of radial clearance per the CPUC regulations, as noted in Section 4.8.2.2. Traffrc impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Per CEQA Section I 5 1 3 I , CEQA does not require an analysis of economic impacts. 248-16: Per CEQA Section 15131, CEQA does not require an analysis of economic impacts. Per Section 4. l, Aesthetics, visual impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Considering that the project would result in less than significant aesthetic impacts or impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant, the construction of the project would not result in blight or urban decay. 248-17: Lake Elsinore is a community that is primarily comprised of a population identifying as white (77)% asofJuly 1,2015-USCensus)andwith all.3% povertyrateasnotedinthe2014 American Community Survey (as compared to 12.3%o for the state ard, 14.8%o for the country). In this manner, Lake Elsinore as a whole is not a population at risk due to its minority or low- income population. A detailed evaluation of the economic composition of the communities in which the project is located is not required as part of the CEQA analysis. Instead, the physical changes are evaluated and the significance of them is noted with regard to social and economic aspects. Consideration was made for the potential impacts associated with ths aesthetics of the project (see Section 4.1, Aesthetics), See Section 2,5.4, Electric and Magnetic Fields, for a discussion of EMFs. 248-18: As documented in the Alternatives Screening Report and Addendum (Appendix D), the CPUC analyzed 32 altematives to the Alberhiil Systems Project and l4 alternatives to the Valley- Ivyglen Substransmission Line Project. Of these alternatives, the CPUC carried forward2 alternatives to the Alberhill System Project and 5 alternatives to the Valley-tvyglen Substransmission Line Project. A number of alternatives included undergrounding; however, note that CEQA requires that impacts on all resources be anaiyzed, and in some cases, undergrounding altematives may result in reduced aesthetic impacts at the expense of greater impacts on other resource areas. Due to the volume of comments related to undergrounding, the CPUC reviewed the alternatives analyses in Chapter 5 during preparation of the FEIR, and upon closer examination, determined that none of the altematives carried forward for analysis would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project; however, mitigation has been required in cases where impacts on the environment were identified in Chapter 4. 248-19: The analysis for the Valley-Ivyglen Subtransmission Line Project has been prepared in response to an amended Petition for Modification of a previously approved project. The commenter correctly asserts that many altematives to both the original project design and the moditied project design have been analyzed by the CPUC. In particular, the commenter mentions the'Northem Corridor" aiternative, which was analyzed and eliminated during the 20 Vnuey-lwcrgru ANo ATBERHILT PRoJEcrs AppENDtx [- Respousrs ro Corunnetrs previous CEQA review. This route was eliminated for, among other reasons, failing to reduce aesthetic impacts. Given that the commenter's principle concem is aesthetics, the CPUC notes that the "Northern CorridoC'altemative would merely shift any aesthetic impacts alleged by the commenter onto different receptors. Given that impacts associated with the Lake Elsinore commercial area, represented in Key Viewpoint 8, would be less than significant without mitigation and considering that the "Norther Corridof'was previously eliminated for failing to reduce aesthetic impacts, as well as for technical considerations, the CPUC declines to add this previously eliminated altemative to the current analysis for the modified project. With respect to the commenter's statements about Lake Street, mitigation is considered adequate to reduce this impact to less than significant; however, the following language has been added to Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-4: "SCE shall coordinate with the Cityof Lake Elsinore prior to hnalizing landscaping desigrr. SCE shall submit the design to the CpUC, along with evidence that SCE has coordinated with the City of Lake Elsinore, prior to pole erection along Lake Street." Therefore, the City of Lake Elsinore would be consulted during the landscaping design for Lake Street. Impacts would remain less than significant. 248-20: The DEIR in its entirety, including Appendix B, was posted on the CPUC's website in April 2016. Note that Appendix B contains ten separate files, all of which are located on the CPUC's website. Note that the refercnce to Appendix B in Chapter 5, Comparison of Alternatives, is intended to demonstrate that undergrounding activities have the greatest ernissions. Appendix B does not include detailed emissions estimates for the altematives. CEQA does not require that the analysis of altematives be as detailed as the proposed project. Therefore, Chapter 5 provides a more qualitative analysis than what was provided for the proposed project. See rcsponse to comment 248-18. 248-21: See response to comment 248-20. 248-22: Note that land use conflicts in and of themselves do not result in a physical impact on the environment. Therefore, the analysis is correct as written. See response to comment 108-9. 248-21: Comment noted. DEIR text revised. 248-24: Comment noted. 248-25:Visual simulations depicting the substation are included in Section, 4. l, Aesthetics. The commenter has not provided comments on the adequacy of the simulations. Therefore, no further response is required. Per responses 248-2 through 248-25, the commenter has not demonstrated a deficiency in the analysis of the EIR. Therefore, recirculation is not required. See responses to comment 248-2 through 248-26. 248-26: 248-27: 2t P a g e 1 M a y , 2 0 1 7 Third Street Storm Drain Project IS/MND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PROJECT NAME:Third Street Storm Drain Project PROJECT MANAGER:Richard J. MacHott, Planning Manager, City of Lake Elsinore PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Project addressed in this Initial Study consists of all actions related to the phased installation of an underground reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain and reinforced concrete box (RCB) structure beginning at Cambern Avenue and heading southeast along Third Street to terminate at Welch Drive PROJECT LOCATION:The proposed Project is located south of State Route 74 (Central Avenue), in the central portion of the City of Lake Elsinore, and is generally aligned within Third Street, but also includes portions of Collier Avenue, Cambern Avenue, Conard Avenue, and Welch Drive. INTRODUCTION:This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for Third Street Storm Drain Project. An MMRP is required for the proposed Project because the IS/MND has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” As the lead agency, the City of Lake Elsinore will be responsible for monitoring compliance with all mitigation measures. Different City departments are responsible for various aspects of the Project. The MMRP identifies the department with the responsibility for ensuring the measure is completed; however, it is expected that one or more departments will coordinate efforts to ensure compliance. The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below. Mitigation Measure: The mitigation measures are taken from the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), in the same order they appear in the IS/MND. Method of Verification: Identifies the method that will be used to confirm that each mitigation measure has been implemented. Timing of Verification: Identifies at which stage of the Project the mitigation must be completed. Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the department in the City with responsibility for mitigation monitoring. Date Completed and Signature: Provides a contact who reviewed the mitigation measure and the date the measure was determined complete. P a g e 2 M a y , 2 0 1 7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix City of Lake Elsinore Third Street Storm Drain Project MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY AQ-1 Prior to construction, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan and project specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, as specified in the SCAQMD’s Rules and Regulations. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Implementation of the following measures would reduce short- term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors: •Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering shall occur if dust is observed migrating from Verify inclusion in project specifications, site inspection Prior to Construction During construction City of Lake Elsinore City Engineer Project construction manager(s) P a g e 3 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE the site during site disturbance; •Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material shall be enclosed, covered, or watered twice daily, or non-toxic soil binders shall be applied; •All grading and excavation operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; •Disturbed areas shall be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is completed in the affected area; •Track-out devices such as gravel bed track-out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) shall be installed to reduce mud/dirt track-out from unpaved truck exit routes. Alternatively, a wheel washer shall be used at truck exit routes; •On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; •All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to P a g e 4 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE prevent excessive amounts of dust prior to departing the job site; and •Trucks associated with soil-hauling activities shall avoid residential streets and utilize City-designated truck routes to the extent feasible. SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Where feasible, construction shall occur outside of the avian breeding season (generally January 1–August 30). If construction occurs during the avian breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey in all work areas and all areas within 500 feet of the general construction zone. This survey shall occur no more than one week prior to construction. Active nests shall be given an avoidance buffer, typically 300 feet for non-listed non-raptor species and 500 feet for listed and raptor species. The buffer is a no-work zone, and construction activities may not resume until the nest is no longer active (i.e., avian species are no longer showing nesting behavior, young have fledged). Verify inclusion in project specifications, site inspection prior to commencement of vegetation removal/ground disturbance. Prior to construction and during construction. During the nesting bird season (January 1 through August 30). City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division /Public Works Department P a g e 5 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE To determine when nesting behaviors are finished, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest weekly until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction burrowing owl surveys in the area of the Project that is within the Ramsgate Specific Plan Area for the basin, headwall and pipeline portion of the Project. The pre-construction survey shall take place within 30 days prior to disturbance of the site. If burrowing owl is present, CDFW shall be consulted and a passive relocation effort shall be undertaken outside the nesting season. Burrowing owls shall be relocated passively to an area outside the impact zone and existing burrows shall be destroyed once they are vacated. No disturbance of active nests shall occur. BIO-2 Phase 2 of the project will be permitted through the Riverside County MSHCP DBESP and wetland permitting process. Impacts will be further detailed in project-specific DBESP and biologically equivalent or better mitigation identified. Mitigation for impacts to Corps/CDFW Review of MSHCP DBESP and compliance with wetland permitting process. Prior to Commencement of Phase II City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division /Public Works Department P a g e 6 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE jurisdictional areas shall occur at a ratio agreed to between the City and regulatory agencies, and may include off-site, compensatory mitigation, or a combination thereof. SECTION 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1 At least 30 days prior to excavation within any previously undisturbed native soils, the City shall contact both the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians to notify each Tribe of excavation activities and coordinate with the Tribes to develop Monitoring Agreements. The Agreements shall address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of Native American Tribal monitors during excavation and other ground disturbing activities within undisturbed native soils and construction scheduling. Native American monitoring shall be limited to only those periods during project construction where excavation within previously undisturbed areas is occurring. Ground disturbing activities within previously disturbed areas shall not require notification, monitoring or an Agreement. Verify inclusion in project specifications, site inspection Prior to Construction City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division /Public Works Department P a g e 7 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE CR-2 In accordance with the agreement required in CR-1, the designated tribal monitor(s) assigned to the project by the Luiseño Tribe(s) shall have the authority to stop and redirect excavation in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Verify inclusion in project specifications, site inspection Prior to Construction During construction City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division /Public Works Department Construction manager(s) CR-3 All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the Native American monitor(s). If any artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, all activities in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 50- foot radius) shall stop. The Native American monitor(s) shall analyze the Native American artifacts for identification as everyday life and/or religious or sacred items, cultural affiliation, temporal placement, and function, as deemed possible. The significance of Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and shall consider the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Luiseño tribes. All items found in association with Native American human Verify inclusion in project specifications, site inspection Prior to Construction During construction City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division /Public Works Department Construction manager(s) P a g e 8 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE remains shall be considered grave goods or sacred in origin and subject to special handling. The City and/or landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources. Native American artifacts that cannot be avoided or relocated at the Project site shall be prepared in a manner for curation. Within a reasonable amount of time, the archaeological consultant shall deliver the materials to a qualified repository in Riverside County that meets or exceeds federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and which shall be made available to all qualified researchers and tribal representatives. If more than one Native American Group is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center by default. CR-4 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/ cultural resources are discovered during grading, the City and the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (Tribes) shall assess the significance of such Verify inclusion in project specifications, site inspection Prior to Construction City of Lake Elsinore Community Development Department, Planning Division /Public Works Department P a g e 9 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the Developer and the Tribes cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director (CDD) for decision. The CDD shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs and practices of the Tribes. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the CDD shall be final. During construction Construction manager(s) CR-5 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner Verify inclusion in grading plan notes, site inspection Prior to Construction During Construction City of Lake Elsinore Public Works Department Construction manager(s) P a g e 10 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant.” The most likely descendant may then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98 SECTION 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1 In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, the Project Contractor shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for approval by the City and CalTrans prior to grading activities. The SWPPP shall include relevant Best Management Practices (BMPs) in order to minimize soil erosion and water quality impacts during Project construction. Prior to Grading Activities City of Lake Elsinore Public Works Department SECTION 3.12 NOISE P a g e 11 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE N-1 Prior to construction, the City of Lake Elsinore Department of Public Works shall verify that the Project complies with the following: • Construction contracts specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. • Property owners and occupants located within 200 feet of the Project boundary shall be sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the proposed Project. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the Project construction site. All notices and signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Lake Elsinore Public Works Department, prior to mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction Review of construction plans which shall include applicable construction noise standards in contractor specifications and onsite verification. Prior to Construction City of Lake Elsinore Public Works Department P a g e 12 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE process and register complaints. • Construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). • During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. • Construction equipment staging areas shall be located as far away from adjacent sensitive receptors as possible. • Construction activities shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 17.176.080(F) (7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; construction activities are not permitted on Saturday, Sundays or national holidays). SECTION 3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC TRA-1 Short-term mitigation for temporary impacts to local roadways shall be mitigated by a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be approved by the permitting agency (i.e., City of Lake Elsinore), prior to any Review of Traffic Management Plan and onsite verification. Prior to Construction in Public Streets City of Lake Elsinore Public Works Department P a g e 13 M a y , 2 0 1 7 MITIGATION MEASURE METHOD OF VERIFICATION TIMING OF VERIFICATION MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY DATE COMPLETED SIGNATURE trenching in public streets for pipelines. The TMP shall consist of prior notices, adequate sign posting, detours (if needed), phased construction and temporary driveways where necessary. The TMP shall specify implementation timing of each plan element (prior notices, sign posting, detours, etc.) as determined appropriate by a City Engineer. Adequate access to and from residential areas shall be provided at all times. Proper detours and warning signs shall be established to ensure public safety. The TMP shall be devised so that construction shall not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. Construction activities shall proceed in a timely manner in an effort to reduce impacts.