Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project

Transcription

1 Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Recirculated Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration December, 2013

2

3 Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Recirculated Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Lead Agency: Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street, MS B203 Sacramento, CA or P.O. Box MS B203 Sacramento, CA Attn: Kim Crawford (916) or Kimberly.Crawford@smud.org

4

5 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Introduction This Recirculated Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to evaluate Sacramento Municipal Utility District s (SMUD s) proposed project for compliance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SMUD is the lead agency responsible for complying with the provisions of CEQA. SMUD proposes the Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project (proposed project) to accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. Project Description To accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project, SMUD proposes the following project, which includes construction and operation of a new relocated and expanded substation at one of two optional locations described below, dismantling an existing substation, and altering the proposed alignment for the overhead 69,000-volt (69kV) subtransmission line that would connect to the relocated substation. SMUD proposes to construct and operate a neighborhood distribution substation that would relocate and expand an existing substation in the SMUD electrical system. The proposed substation would step down from 69kV to 12kV for residential and commercial service. The proposed substation would be at the 4700 block of Hazel Avenue, which is situated on the west side of Hazel Avenue in between Sunset Avenue and Timm Avenue, in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. The proposed substation would initially consist of one electrical transformer, and may ultimately consist of two transformers with a total capacity of up to 40 million volt amperes (MVA) as electricity demand increases in the service area. SMUD is considering two optional locations for the proposed relocated substation. In this IS/MND, SMUD will evaluate the following substation optional sites: Site A (southern site): A substation located at 4737 and 4733 Hazel Avenue. This substation option would be square-shaped, measuring approximately 160 feet by 140 feet (approximately 0.50 acre). This substation location was previously evaluated in the 2012 Draft Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project IS/MND (SMUD 2012). Site B (northern site): A substation located at 4743, 4737, and a portion of 4733 Hazel Avenue. This substation option would be rectangular-shaped measuring approximately 200 feet by 120 feet (approximately 0.50 acre) with the exception of a section excluded for parking for the adjacent storage facility. In addition, this option would include an additional approximately 0.10-acre of property located west of the substation, which would not be incorporated into the substation footprint. No land uses of the 0.10 acre property are planned, and use of this parcel is not evaluated in this IS/MND. SMUD will maintain this property in accordance with SMUD maintenance policies and local ordinances such as weed abatement. The proposed project would also consist of dismantling an existing substation located at 4665 Hazel Avenue (south of Timm Avenue and directly west of the Kruitof Way/Hazel Avenue intersection) and approximately 600 feet south of the optional locations for the proposed relocated substation. Additionally, the proposed project would consist of altering the proposed alignment for the overhead 69kV subtransmission line that would connect to the relocated substation. Construction of the proposed substation is anticipated to start in early summer 2014

6 and would continue for approximately 5 months. Once the proposed substation is operational, the dismantling of the old substation would require approximately 3 months, starting in winter 2014/2015. Dismantling of the old substation would not start until the proposed substation is energized and in service. The proposed change in the subtransmission line extension over Hazel Avenue would occur in spring Replacing the poles and subtransmission line would require approximately 1 month. Findings As lead agency for compliance with CEQA requirements, SMUD finds that the proposed project would be implemented without causing a significant adverse impact on the environment. Mitigation measures associated with cultural resources and greenhouse gas emissions would be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level (see Appendix A). Cumulative Impacts CEQA requires that SMUD assess whether its proposed project s incremental effects are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of other projects. Based on the analysis presented in this IS/MND, the proposed project would not contribute incrementally to considerable environmental changes when considered in combination with other projects in the area. This is because potential environmental effects of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant, and identified potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Growth-Inducing Impacts SMUD exists as a public agency to supply electricity. The proposed project is being completed to accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project, which would require SMUD relocating an existing substation. As part of the relocation, the new substation location would include sufficient space to accommodate a future expansion of capacity from a single 20-MVA transformer to two 20-MVA transformers as electricity demand increases in the service area. SMUD has an obligation to serve its existing customers and new development approved by Sacramento County. SMUD does not designate where and what new development may occur. The presence of the substation and subtransmission line would not induce population growth; it would accommodate the electrical service needs of the community of Fair Oaks. Therefore, SMUD projects are not considered growth-inducing as defined by CEQA. In addition, SMUD s proposed project would not cause increased demand on public infrastructure, public services, housing, circulation, or other resources.

7 Determination On the basis of this evaluation, SMUD concludes: a. The proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. The proposed project would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c. The proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. d. The proposed project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. e. No substantial evidence exists to demonstrate that the proposed project would have a substantive negative effect on the environment. This IS/MND has been prepared to provide the opportunity for interested agencies and the public to provide comment. Pending public review and SMUD Board approval, this IS/MND will be filed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Written comments should be submitted to SMUD at the address identified below by 5:00 p.m. on January 31, Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street, MS B203 Sacramento, CA Signature Kim Crawford Environmental Specialist December 13, 2013 Date

8

9 Table of Contents 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction Public Review Process SMUD Board Approval Process CEQA Considerations Tiering Scope of this Environmental Review Hazel Avenue Widening EIR Project Objective SMUD Substation Site Selection Guidelines Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Project Features Neighborhood Distribution Substation Substation Fencing Substation Signage Substation Drainage Substation Landscaping Substation Demolition Subtransmission Line Crossing Construction, Operation and Maintenance Project Schedule ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Evaluation Terminology Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance REFERENCES

10 5 LIST OF PREPARERS Tables Table 3-1 Project Construction Emissions (Pounds/Day) Table 3-2 Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary Table 3-3 County of Sacramento Exterior Noise Level Standards Table 3-4 Noise Generated by Substation Construction Table 3-5 Noise Generated by Substation Dismantling Table 3-6 Noise Generated by Subtransmission Line Construction Table 3-7 Noise Reduction Coefficient for Temporary Acoustical Barriers Table 3-8 Site A Daytime Temporary Oil Processing Noise Table 3-9 Site A Nighttime Temporary Oil Processing Noise Table 3-10 Site A Operational Daytime Noise Table 3-11 Site A Operational Nighttime Noise Table 3-12 Site B Oil Processing Daytime Noise Table 3-13 Site B Oil Processing Nighttime Noise Table 3-14 Site B Operational Daytime Noise Table 3-15 Site B Operational Nighttime Noise Figures Figure 1-1 Project Area and Vicinity Figure 1-2 Existing and Proposed New Substation Locations Figure 1-3 Proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation Site Plan, Site A Option Figure 1-4 Proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation Site Plan, Site B Option Figure 1-5 Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) Figure 1-6 Executive Summary and Mitigation Summary, Section Figure 3-1 Viewing Locations Map Figure 3-2 Existing View of the Project Area from the West On Barrister Lane (Viewing Location 1) Figure 3-3 Simulated View of Site A from the West Figure 3-4 Simulated View of Site B from the West Figure 3-5 Existing View of the Project Area from the Southwest on Barrister Lane (Viewing Location 2) Figure 3-6 Simulated View of Site A from the Southwest Figure 3-7 Simulated View of Site B from the Southwest Figure 3-8 Existing View of the Project Area from the South from a Vacant Lot Along Hazel Avenue (Viewing Location 3) Figure 3-9 Simulated View of Site A from the South Figure 3-10 Simulated View of Site B from the South Figure 3-11 Existing View of Site A from the East Along Hazel Avenue (Viewing Location 4) Figure 3-12 Simulated View of Site A from the East Figure 3-13 Existing View of Site B from the East along Hazel Avenue (Viewing Location 5) Figure 3-14 Simulated View of Site B from the East

11 Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Mitigation Measures Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations Noise Technical Report, Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Public Comments and Responses to Prior IS/MND 3

12 4

13 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Introduction This Recirculated Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is for Sacramento Municipal Utility District s (SMUD s) proposed Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project (proposed project) to accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. SMUD proposes to construct and operate a neighborhood distribution substation within the SMUD electrical system. The proposed substation would replace and expand an existing substation. The proposed substation would step down from 69,000 volts (69kV) to 12kV for residential and commercial service. The proposed substation would be located at the 4700 block of Hazel Avenue, which is situated on the west side of Hazel Avenue in between Sunset Avenue and Timm Avenue, in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. An overview of the project area and vicinity, including the 69kV subtransmission line is shown in Figure 1-1. The locations of the existing Hazel-Timm substation proposed for dismantling and proposed project are shown in Figure 1-2. The proposed substation would initially consist of one electrical transformer, and may ultimately consist of two transformers with a total capacity of up to 40-million volt amperes (MVA) as electricity demand increases in the service area. Substations are generally named by SMUD for the roadway intersections to which they are adjacent or near. SMUD is considering two optional locations for the proposed project. In this IS/MND, SMUD will evaluate the following substation optional sites: Site A (southern site): A substation located at 4737 and 4733 Hazel Avenue (Figure 1-3). This substation site would be square-shaped, measuring approximately 160 feet by 140 feet (approximately 0.50 acre). This substation location was previously evaluated in the 2012 Draft Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project IS/MND (SMUD 2012). Site B (northern site): A substation located at 4743, 4737, and a portion of 4733 Hazel Avenue (Figure 1-4). This substation option would be rectangular-shaped, measuring approximately 200 feet by 120 feet (approximately 0.50 acre) with the exception of a section excluded for parking for the adjacent storage facility. In addition, this option would include an additional approximately 0.10-acre of property located west of the substation, which would not incorporated into the substation footprint. No land uses of the 0.10 acre property are planned, and use of this parcel is not evaluated in this IS/MND. SMUD will maintain this property in accordance with SMUD maintenance policies and local ordinances such as weed abatement. The proposed project would also consist of dismantling the existing Hazel-Timm substation located at 4665 Hazel Avenue (south of Timm Avenue and directly west of the Kruitof Way/Hazel Avenue intersection) and approximately 600 feet south of the optional locations of the proposed relocated substation. Additionally, SMUD is proposing to slightly alter the proposed alignment for the overhead 69kV subtransmission line that would connect to the relocated substation. An overview of the project area and vicinity, including the 69kV subtransmission line is shown in Figure 1-1. The existing and proposed new substation locations are shown in Figure 1-2. This document is organized into the following sections: 5

14 Section 1: Project Description. Provides an introduction, a description of the CEQA considerations and the proposed project s setting and characteristics. Section 2: Environmental Checklist Form (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). Includes an environmental evaluation/checklist form that identifies the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and a discussion of evaluation terminology. Section 3: Environmental Analysis (Initial Study Checklist). Contains the IS Environmental Checklist from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G with a discussion of potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures, if necessary, are noted following each impact discussion. Section 4: References. Contains bibliographic references of information sources cited in the text. Section 5: List of Preparers. Provides a list of the document preparers. Appendix A: Mitigation Measures. Summarizes mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations. Provides data on potential air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Appendix C: Noise. Includes a technical report prepared about the potential construction- and operation-related noise impacts of the proposed project. Appendix D: Public Comments. Includes comments and responses from the prior 2012 Draft Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project IS/MND (SMUD 2012). 1.2 Public Review Process In December 2012, SMUD released a Draft IS/MND for public comment that analyzed substation location Site A, dismantling the existing substation, and the subtransmission line alignment modification as described in this IS/MND. Public comments received during the public comment period and SMUD s written responses have been included as Appendix D and have been considered when drafting this document. The IS/MND was finalized on March 26, 2013, but was not adopted by the SMUD Board of Directors. At the suggestion of stakeholders of the proposed project, SMUD opted to evaluate an optional location for the proposed substation. Therefore, this Recirculated Draft IS/MND evaluates both the previously analyzed Site A and the newly identified Site B. This Recirculated Draft IS/MND is being circulated for a 45-day public review period (per CEQA Guidelines 15073) to individuals who have requested a copy, local libraries (Sacramento Central Library and the Fair Oaks Library), the County of Sacramento, and appropriate resource agencies. A Notice of Intent (NOI) is also being distributed to property owners and occupants of record identified by the Sacramento County Assessor s office within 1,000 feet of the proposed project boundaries. The NOI identifies where the document is available for public review and invites interested parties to provide written comments for incorporation into the final IS/MND. The NOI also invites interested parties to attend future public meetings about the proposed project. Reviewers of the Recirculated Draft IS/MND should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing potential impacts on the environment and ways in which the impacts of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Since SMUD has not yet determined which substation site to construct, commenters may wish to provide their preference, if any. Comments are most helpful when they provide preference for substation Site A or Site B as presented in this IS/MND. 6

15 A final IS/MND, including written responses to comments received about environmental issues, will be prepared. The final IS/MND will be circulated to parties commenting on this Recirculated Draft IS/MND before a decision about the proposed project is made. 1.3 SMUD Board Approval Process The SMUD Board of Directors must adopt the IS/MND and approve the mitigation monitoring plan before it can approve the proposed project. SMUD staff will present environmental documentation pertaining to the proposed project, and staff will recommend the preferred project to the SMUD Board of Directors for their information at an Energy Resource and Customer Services Committee meeting. The SMUD Board of Directors will then consider adoption of the final IS/MND at the next Board of Directors meeting. Energy Resource and Customer Services Committee and Board of Directors meetings are held at SMUD s Headquarters at 6201 S Street, Sacramento, CA 95817, and are open to the public. The public may comment at both meetings. Once the IS/MND has been adopted, the SMUD Board of Directors may render a decision on project approval or defer such a decision to a later date. 7

16 Figure 1-1 Project Area and Vicinity. 8

17 Figure 1-2 Existing and Proposed New Substation Locations. 9

18 10

19 Figure 1-3 Proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation Site Plan, Site A Option. 1

20 Figure 1-4 Proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation Site Plan, Site B Option. 2

21 1.4 CEQA Considerations Tiering This Recirculated Draft IS/MND is tiered from the Hazel Avenue Widening Project, Madison Avenue to U.S. Highway 50 Final Environmental Impact Report (Hazel Widening EIR), State Clearinghouse Number , certified by the County of Sacramento Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2006, (Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment [DERA] 2006). Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader environmental impact report (EIR) when preparing a later IS/MND on a narrower project, incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the later IS/MND solely on the issues specific to the later project (CEQA Guidelines 15152(a)). Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses that they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later IS/MND on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a plan, policy, or program to a sitespecific negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines 15152(b)). Tiering from the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) is considered appropriate for this IS/MND because the proposed project is being undertaken due to the previously analyzed Hazel Avenue Widening Project. The substation and subtransmission line must be relocated to accommodate the widening of Hazel Avenue. The County of Sacramento has acquired and cleared the two parcels where the proposed project would be constructed. Similarly, approximately 32 existing utility poles supporting the overhead 69kV subtransmission line are being relocated to accommodate the Hazel Avenue Widening Project and to connect to the substation at its new location. The Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) recognized the necessity of substation relocation in the Executive Summary and Mitigation Summary, Section 2, Public Facilities and Services, Electrical (SMUD) which is reproduced in Section That section also recognized that SMUD may procure a larger-than-minimal relocation parcel, but did not specifically define the new site or the proposed site layout. CEQA Guidelines 15152(c) states that, where an EIR has been prepared and certified for a program, plan, policy, or ordinance consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 15152, any lead agency for a later project pursuant to or consistent with the program, plan, policy, or ordinance should limit the IS/MND on the later proposed project to effects which: Were not examined as significant effects on the environment in the prior EIR; or Are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the proposed project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means. 1

22 1.4.2 Scope of this Environmental Review The extent of SMUD s proposed Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project that was not previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) (Figure 1-5) is limited to the following proposed project components: Doubling substation capacity from one to two 20-MVA transformers. Construction and operation-related effects of the larger footprint of the proposed substation. The specific parcels where the proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation would be located. Moving the 69kV subtransmission line crossing of Hazel Avenue 600 feet north of the current crossing location. The expansion of substation capacity would require a larger ground disturbance footprint than the existing substation, and may have an increased impact on aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gases, and noise. The proposed footprint of the relocated substation would be within the area of ground disturbance previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006), but the specific location was not known at the time the EIR was prepared. Figure 1-5 Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). Therefore, while the environmental resource issues are re-evaluated in this IS/MND, the analysis focuses on those environmental resources for which the IS/MND indicates further analysis is appropriate, including aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gases, and noise. 2

23 1.4.3 Hazel Avenue Widening EIR The Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) described the existing setting along the portion of Hazel Avenue that was proposed to be widened, including the characteristics of the land uses surrounding SMUD s currently proposed project. The Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) recognized the necessity of substation relocation in the Executive Summary and Mitigation Summary, Section 2, Public Facilities and Services, Electrical (SMUD), which is reproduced below (Figure 1-6). That section also recognized that SMUD may procure a larger-than-minimal relocation parcel, but did not specifically define the new site or the proposed site layout. Figure 1-6 Executive Summary and Mitigation Summary, Section 2. The Hazel Avenue Widening EIR found that the Hazel Avenue Widening Project would have no impacts related to land use, community impacts, public facilities and services, aesthetics, hydrology, and geology and soils. The following information summarizes environmental impacts identified in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). Less-Than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated Air quality Construction would result in emissions of NO x that exceed the thresholds of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Construction would result in PM 10 emissions. Biological resources Construction activities and tree removal may impact migratory birds such as raptors. 3

24 Cultural resources (subsurface) No significant prehistoric or historical archaeological sites, historic resources, or ethnographic sites resources are known in the Hazel Avenue Widening Project area. However, subsurface resources may be uncovered during project construction. Hydrology and water quality (stormwater) Land grading activities associated with the Hazel Avenue Widening Project may cause adverse water quality and siltation impacts to existing drainage systems and the American River. Hazardous materials Construction activities may encounter contaminated soil and groundwater, underground storage tanks, lead-contaminated soil, asbestos, and lead-based paint. Traffic and Circulation (except the intersection of Hazel Avenue and Madison Avenue) Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Traffic and Circulation (intersection of Hazel Avenue and Madison Avenue) The Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) concluded that these impacts, with the exception of the significant and unavoidable impact to the operation of the intersection of Hazel Avenue and Madison Avenue, are reduced to less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Table 2-1 of the Final EIR. The County adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Hazel Avenue Widening Project that identifies the parties responsible for implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The existing setting discussion and summary of project impacts and mitigation measures included in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) are hereby incorporated by reference into this IS/MND, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Printed copies of the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) referenced here are available for review at the DERA s offices at th Street, Room 220, Sacramento, California. Electronic copies are available online at / pdf. 1.5 Project Objective The objective of SMUD s proposed project is to relocate an existing substation to accommodate the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. As part of the relocation, the proposed substation would include sufficient space to accommodate the future expansion of capacity from a single 20-MVA transformer to two transformers with a total capacity of up to 40 MVA if electricity demand increases in the service area. 4

25 1.6 SMUD Substation Site Selection Guidelines SMUD has developed guidelines for distribution substation site selection. The guidelines include: Proximity to load centers Available (or developable) 69kV circuit (power line) capacity Preference for compatible adjacent land uses Community input Distribution substations are sited as central as practicable to the loads they serve to maintain, in order to meet system performance standards of low electrical losses and high reliability. The Hazel-Timm substation is near the center of an area referred to as a load center. Load centers throughout the SMUD service area overlap with adjacent load centers so that an outage at one substation may still allow continued electrical service to be drawn from adjacent load centers. In replacing an existing substation, the replacement site must still be near the load center; otherwise, two replacement sites might be necessary to ensure full coverage. Proposed substation Site A and Site B would both meet SMUD s siting criteria to serve as an adequate replacement site to the existing Hazel-Timm substation. As described above, SMUD s preference is to site new distribution substations adjacent to compatible land uses when possible. Siting the proposed substation adjacent only to industrial/commercial development was not feasible due to the extent of single- and multi-family residential development adjacent to the Hazel Avenue corridor. Additionally, SMUD s standard land size on which to construct a distribution substation is approximately 150 feet by 150 feet of net usable space. Based on these siting criteria, locating the proposed substation along the Hazel Avenue corridor was determined to be the best fit for meeting the most critical site selection criteria as described above. 1.7 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) described the visual setting for the proposed project vicinity as a typical suburban setting with a mix of housing and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. The proposed substation sites were formerly used for residential uses. Sacramento County acquired the parcels encompassing substation Site A and Site B and several adjacent parcels to the south as part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project, and cleared existing residential structures from the site (DERA 2006). Currently, substation Site A and Site B are vacant. Pre-existing structures were removed by the County. Ornamental and ruderal vegetation, including native and non-native tree species and a non-native annual grassland understory, remain. The proposed substation sites are bounded to the north by a storage facility, to the west by a residential neighborhood, to the south by a residential neighborhood followed by Timm Avenue, and to the east by Hazel Avenue, which is an undivided four-lane arterial road. 1.8 Project Features The proposed Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project is composed of construction and operation of a new neighborhood distribution substation (Hazel-Sunset), which is larger and has additional future capacity than the existing substation, dismantling the 5

26 existing Hazel-Timm substation, and slightly altering the proposed alignment for the overhead 69kV subtransmission line that would connect to the relocated substation Neighborhood Distribution Substation The proposed project would provide lower voltage electricity to meet the current electrical load of the Hazel-Timm substation and to meet future demand of adjacent County-approved development (within an approximately 1- to 1.5-mile radius of the proposed project site). SMUD is considering two optional locations for the proposed project. In this IS/MND, SMUD will evaluate the following substation optional sites: Site A (southern alignment): A substation located at 4737 and 4733 Hazel Avenue (Figure 1-3). This substation option would be square-shaped measuring approximately 160 feet by 140 feet (approximately 0.50 acre). This substation location was previously evaluated in the 2012 Draft Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project IS/MND (SMUD 2012). Site B (northern site): A substation located at 4743, 4737, and a portion of 4733 Hazel Avenue (Figure 1-4). This substation option would be rectangular-shaped, measuring approximately 200 feet by 120 feet (approximately 0.50 acre) with the exception of a section excluded for parking for the adjacent storage facility. In addition, this option would include an additional approximately 0.10-acre of property located west of the substation, which would not be incorporated into the substation footprint. No land uses of the 0.10 acre property are planned, and use of this parcel is not evaluated in this IS/MND. SMUD will maintain this property in accordance with SMUD maintenance policies and local ordinances such as weed abatement. The proposed substation would initially consist of one electrical transformer, and would ultimately consist of two transformers with a total capacity of up to 40 MVA, when electricity demand in the area warrants its construction. The substation would also house six capacitor banks, two station battery banks, metal-clad switchgear, and two switch poles. Each transformer would contain approximately 5,300 gallons of insulating oil. Project specifications would require that transformer oils be essentially free from polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs) to less than 2 parts per million (ppm). The substation control system would have a battery backup. The sealed battery units would contain diluted sulfuric acid. The substation site would have a gravel surface and electrical equipment would be installed on concrete foundations. Substation equipment would be either a dull green or light gray finish, and sound generating equipment such as transformers or cooling fans would be oriented toward Hazel Avenue. Transformer equipment would extend to approximately 16 feet above finished grade and would have a minimum internal setback of 6 feet from the perimeter masonry wall. Outside lighting would not be installed at the proposed substation Substation Fencing The proposed substation would be enclosed by a masonry wall with a 10-foot minimum height per SMUD s substation security standards. The proposed western masonry wall of both substation sites would extend to a height of approximately 12 feet above the existing grade, which exceeds the 6-foot sound wall along the western portion of the property required by the County s Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). This masonry wall would be offset 10 to 20 feet from the existing wood fence at 8837 Barrister Lane to accommodate the County s proposed drainage easement. Access to the substation would be provided through a 30-foot-wide woven-mesh entry gate on the east side with access to Hazel Avenue. 6

27 The remaining masonry walls would extend to a minimum height of approximately 10 feet above the existing grade, and would range from approximately 10 to 12-feet based on the surface topography. The masonry walls of the proposed substation would be similar in material, color, design, and acoustic properties to the sound barriers to be constructed as noise mitigation for the County s Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). In addition, the proposed substation masonry walls exceed both the height requirement and noise abating properties of the sound barrier to be constructed as noise mitigation as set forth in the County s Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The County s sound wall would extend approximately 30-feet beyond the substation footprint to meet the County s noise mitigation requirements (Steve White, pers. comm.). Where the proposed substation wall and the County s sound wall parallel (in Site A and Site B) or where the proposed substation wall and the storage facility parallel (in Site B), a locked gate would restrict access Substation Signage No Trespassing signs with ownership and emergency contact information would be placed at a minimum of every 50 feet along the perimeter fence and access portals. Signs would have a minimum dimension of 12 inches square with the words Trespassing, Loitering Forbidden by Law or No Trespassing printed in 2-inch block letters. If the words No Trespassing are used, the sign would indicate the type of property posted Substation Drainage Both proposed Site A and Site B would require placement of 1 to 3 feet of fill material to achieve a 2 percent slope gradient to allow storm water to drain to the northwest corner of the proposed substation site. Surface runoff from proposed Site A and Site B would drain from the northwest corner of the proposed substation site to a proposed County drainage pipe and into the existing County drainage ditch located northwest of Site B Substation Landscaping SMUD would remove all existing vegetation from the proposed substation site prior to construction. SMUD does not intend to landscape around the proposed substation. However, with implementation of the County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project, the County committed to providing a landscaping corridor along Hazel Avenue, including the eastern boundary of the proposed substation (Steve White, pers. Comm.). In accordance with SMUD s current guidelines, landscaping vegetation installed by third parties would maintain a 3-foot clearance from the masonry wall and would not exceed 12 inches in height. Limiting the type of vegetation in proximity to the substation reduces unauthorized access, enables clear visibility of the substation perimeter and minimizes the potential use of vegetation itself to scale the substation walls, possibly compromising the proposed substation s security. 7

28 1.8.6 Substation Demolition Once the proposed project is operational, the old Hazel-Timm substation located at 4665 Hazel Avenue would be de-energized, salvageable components would be removed for reuse, nonreusable materials would be recycled or scrapped, and the site would be tested to ensure no residual contamination remains. No hazardous materials impacts are anticipated with decommissioning the Hazel-Timm substation Subtransmission Line Crossing The Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) assumed that the existing above-ground 12kV line along Hazel Avenue would be installed underground and a new 69kV line would remain above ground on new poles in new locations to accommodate the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. The new 69kV line would be routed along Hazel Avenue in two phases. Phase 1 would extend north from the American River Bridge to Sunset Avenue, and Phase II would extend from Sunset Avenue to Madison Avenue. As part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project, the new poles would be moved back to a new public utility easement or right-of-way created by the County near the new rightof-way edge of Hazel Avenue. To accommodate the road widening, the new 69kV line is anticipated to require replacing up to 32 existing wood poles. The new single-phase poles would be 55 foot tall steel poles... The new 69kV poles may temporarily contain the 12kV line strung under the 69 kv line and/or individual 12kV poles may be temporarily installed. However, the 12kV distribution conductors are planned to be installed below ground as part of the County s Hazel Avenue Widening project. The undergrounding of the 12kV line and installation of the 69kV line in two phases was evaluated in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). Therefore, these activities are not evaluated further in this IS/MND. During Phase 1, the 69kV line was planned to cross from the east side of Hazel Avenue to the west side between Kalo Court and La Serena Drive. The crossing of Hazel Avenue by the 69kV line would move further north to accommodate the proposed substation location. The crossing would extend from the southeast corner of Kruitof Way and Hazel Avenue to the southwest corner of Timm Avenue and Hazel Avenue. Moving the crossing of Hazel Avenue further to the north is anticipated to result in two power poles being installed on the east side of Hazel Avenue that would have been installed on the west side with the original alignment. Therefore, this change in alignment is included as a component of the substation relocation being evaluated in this proposed project IS/MND Construction, Operation and Maintenance Construction would consist of site preparation, grading, foundation excavation and concrete pouring for equipment footings, placement of fill and a gravel bed, equipment delivery and installation, and wiring and testing. The proposed project would be accessed from Hazel Avenue. During construction, SMUD would use 50-foot-wide temporary construction easements located immediately north and south of the proposed project site. After the proposed substation is operational, the existing substation would be dismantled and the parcel would be acquired by Sacramento County. The ultimate re-use of the old substation site by the County is not currently known and is outside of the scope of this environmental review. 8

29 Construction would typically require a 10-person crew, with up to 13 workers on the site during peak activities. Construction activities would occur from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Saturday, and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday. Construction and dismantling equipment includes: For substation construction: crane, backhoe/excavator, cement truck, grader, line truck, 18-wheel tractor-trailer, two pick-up trucks, oil processor and generator (oil processing unit) and a compactor. For substation dismantling: crane, backhoe/excavator, dump truck, 18-wheel tractor-trailer, and two pick-up trucks. For subtransmission line construction: two line trucks, two pick-up trucks, truck-mounted machine auger, truck-mounted pole jack, and a truck-mounted reel trailer. Construction materials would be delivered to the site and stored in a designated location at the site or on the adjacent temporary construction easement. Deliveries would be made by concrete trucks, flatbed trucks, and tractor-trailer rigs. Hazardous materials, including paints, greases, epoxies, and oil would be delivered to the site, and stored in either storage lockers or covered containers, in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Once the electrical equipment has been installed, transformer oil and sealed batteries would be delivered and stored in approved containers. The proposed substation would operate continuously. Substation maintenance would occur on a regular basis from two to four times per month for internal inspections and four times per year for perimeter maintenance. Major maintenance would occur about every 3 years. After the substation has been in operation for an extended period of time, the transformer oil would require filtering. Impurities in the filtrate would either be removed and recycled or disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local requirements Project Schedule Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to start in early summer 2014 and would continue for approximately 5 months. Once the proposed substation is operational, the dismantling of the existing Hazel-Timm substation would require approximately 3 months starting in winter 2014/2015. Dismantling of the old substation would not start until the proposed substation is energized and in service. The proposed change in the subtransmission line extension over Hazel Avenue would occur in spring

30 10

31 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving at least one impact requiring mitigation to bring it to a less than significant level. The proposed project was determined to have a less than significant impact or no impact on unchecked resource areas as indicated by the checklistincluded in Section 3. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 2.2 Evaluation Terminology The following terminology is used to describe the levels of significance for impacts identified for each resource area discussed in Section 3. A conclusion of no impact is used when it is determined that the proposed project would have no impact on the resource area under evaluation. A conclusion of less than significant impact is used when it is determined that the proposed project s adverse impacts to a resource area would not exceed established thresholds of significance. A conclusion of less than significant impact with mitigation is used when it is determined that mitigation measures would be required to reduce the proposed project s adverse impacts below established thresholds of significance. A conclusion of potentially significant impact is used when it is determined that the proposed project s adverse impacts to a resource area potentially cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. 11

32 2.3 Determination (To Be Completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Kimberly Crawford Printed name December 13, 2013 Date Sacramento Municipal Utility District for 12

33 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) et seq. and the state CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) et seq. A lead agency prepares an IS/MND to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Under CEQA Guidelines 15064(a), an EIR must be prepared if there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. An IS/MND is prepared if the lead agency determines that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures, (i.e., there is no substantial evidence from which it can be fairly argued that such an effect may occur), and therefore, that the project would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines 15070). The CEQA Guidelines state that an IS/MND may identify environmental impacts by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that conclusions are briefly explained and supported by relevant evidence. If it is determined that a particular physical impact to the environment could occur, then the checklist must indicate whether the impact is Potentially Significant, Less Than Significant with Mitigation, or Less Than Significant. Findings of No Impact for issues that can be demonstrated not to apply to a proposed project do not require further discussion. For each resource area below, the environmental setting and impact discussion are discussed together where there is no distinction between the environmental effects of either proposed Site A or Site B. Where construction and operation of Site A or Site B would have different environmental effects, those effects are discussed in separate paragraphs. 13

34 14

35 3.1 Aesthetics Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Setting The Hazel Avenue Widening EIR (DERA 2006) described the visual setting for the proposed project vicinity as a typical suburban setting with a mix of housing and commercial development. Vegetation consists of mature landscape and native trees, ornamental shrubs and plants associated with residential structures and commercial landscaping. The corridor is generally flat with occasional retaining walls and/ or minor relief. Hazel Avenue is an undivided four-lane arterial road. The Hazel Avenue Widening EIR (DERA 2006) concludes that the contrasting visual elements within the Hazel Avenue corridor result in a general lack of visual unity that is neither striking nor distinctive. The Hazel Avenue corridor is described as being predominantly developed and lacking in compositional harmony between the roadway and adjacent development. This relatively nondescript visual character is due to the lack of a single unifying theme that has resulted from lack of consistent design taking place over the years. Individual property owners have made modifications to their properties ranging from gravel lot interfaces, to well landscaped store fronts, to stark masonry walls, to typical residential driveways and lawns. The EIR concluded that the Widening Project would not result in substantial negative effects on visual resources or viewers in the Widening Project area. The EIR, however, did not analyze potential aesthetic impacts associated with the following components of the proposed project: The specific parcels for the relocated substation; Expansion of substation capacity from one 20 MVA transformer to two 20 MVA transformers; The increased substation size from approximately 0.10 acre to 0.50 acre; and The new location where the 69kV subtransmission line would cross Hazel Avenue approximately 600 feet north of its current location. The description and analysis of the potential impacts to aesthetic resources is therefore focused on potential impacts associated with these specific components of the proposed project. 15

36 Discussion a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact No designated scenic vistas appear in the proposed project vicinity. The proposed project would not substantially alter the local area s scenic resources.the proposed project site is not adjacent to a State scenic highway and would have no effect on the visual resources adjacent to scenic highways. Therefore the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources or vistas, and no mitigation is required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings Less than Significant The proposed project would change the existing visual character of the site from vacant land with scattered vegetation to one that is fenced with a masonry wall with a gravel and concrete surface, electrical transformers and other equipment including a switch pole and an overhead power line. The project area is located adjacent to a heavily used roadway characterized by existing commercial and single- and multi-family residential development. The Hazel Avenue Widening EIR (DERA 2006) described the visual setting for the proposed project vicinity as a typical suburban setting with a mix of housing and commercial development. The proposed substation optional sites were formerly residential. Sacramento County acquired the parcels for optional substation sites and several adjacent parcels to the south as part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project and cleared existing residential structures from the site (DERA 2006). Currently, the proposed project area is vacant with the exception of scattered ornamental and ruderal vegetation, including native and non-native tree species and a non-native annual grassland understory. The proposed substation sites are bounded to the north by a storage facility, to the west by a residential neighborhood, to the south by a residential neighborhood followed by Timm Avenue, and to the east by Hazel Avenue, which is an undivided four-lane arterial road. The implementation of the Widening Project includes the installation of a 6-foot masonry sound wall adjacent to the residential properties along the western side of Hazel Avenue. Along SMUD s proposed project s western boundary, the County s masonry sound wall would extend approximatley 30-feet beyond the substation footprint (Steve White, pers.comm). The wall would be set back approximately feet from the existing residential fence line to allow for a proposed drainage easement between the residential fences and the substation wall. The substation walls would be approximatley feet in height above finished grade. Substation access would be provided through a 30-foot-wide metal gate on Hazel Avenue. The most prominent visual features of the proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation would be the masonry wall, vehicle access gate, and overhead equipment. The tallest structure within the proposed substation is the approximately 30-foot-tall 69kV drop (switch) poles. The switch poles would be located in the eastern portion of the substation and closest to Hazel Avenue. 16

37 The relocated 69kV subtransmission line poles and conductors would be visible outside of the substation wall along Hazel Avenue. The 69kV poles would be approximately 55 feet tall. The placement of fill and the increased size of the proposed project would result in its being more visually prominent than the existing Hazel-Timm substation. The view of the site from Hazel Avenue would differ with project implementation by converting two vacant lots into a developed substation. The primary differences between the existing Hazel-Timm substation and the proposed project include the increased size and fencing material. The existing Hazel-Timm substation is approximately 0.10 acre, and the proposed project would be approximately 0.50 acre. The existing Hazel-Timm substation is fenced by chain-link fence and the proposed substation will be fenced by a masonry wall. With implementation of the Widening Project, the County committed to providing a landscaping corridor along Hazel Avenue, including along the eastern boundary of the proposed project area (DERA 2006; Steve White, pers.comm). This landscaping corridor would soften the views of the site from Hazel Avenue. The Widening Project would underground several communication cables and 12kV distribution lines that are currently aboveground, resulting in a net improvement in the visual quality of the Hazel Avenue corridor (DERA 2006). The relocation of the existing overhead 69kV subtransmission line and poles, with the crossing of Hazel Avenue approximately 600 feet north of its current location, is expected to constitute a minor change to the existing visual character of the area. Simulated Views A photosimulation analysis was completed to provide a visual representation of the proposed project s visual effects. Five representative photographs of the existing conditons at the proposed project area are provided, and simulated views were developed to represent the visual appearance of the substation and overhead equipment. A map of viewing locations is shown in Figurr 3-1. Simulated views were developed for Site A and Site B from the representative viewing locations. 17

38 Figure 3-1 Viewing Locations Map. 18

39 Viewing locations 1 and 2 are from the west and southwest, respectively, on Barrister Lane. From Barrister Lane to the west, the views of overhead equipment at both Site A and B would be substantially screened by the three homes and associated landscaping located at the western terminus of the street. From Barrister Lane, the views of the substation equipment would be visually screened by the proposed masonry wall that would extend approximately 12 feet above the existing grade. Figure 3-2 shows an existing view from Barrister Lane looking east. A simulated view of Site A from this viewing location is shown in Figure 3-3 and a simulated view of Site B from this same viewing location 1 is shown in Figure 3-4. Figure 3-2 Existing View of the Project Area from the West On Barrister Lane (Viewing Location 1). Figure 3-3 Simulated View of Site A from the West. 19

40 Figure 3-4 Simulated View of Site B from the West. Figure 3-5 shows an existing view from Barrister Lane looking toward the northeast. A simulated view of Site A from this viewing location is shown in Figure 3-6 and a simulated view from Site B from this same viewing location 2 is shown in Figure 3-7. Based on these Barrister Lane simulations, the most noticeable visual change would be the removal of the existing trees on the project site and the introduction of two relocated 69kV poles and conductors. Figure 3-5 Existing View of the Project Area from the Southwest on Barrister Lane (Viewing Location 2). 20

41 Figure 3-6 Simulated View of Site A from the Southwest. Figure 3-7 Simulated View of Site B from the Southwest. Viewing location 3 is from the vacant lot to the south, looking north along the west side of Hazel Avenue to the proposed substation sites. Figure 3-8 shows the existing view of the site, which consists of scattered ornamental and ruderal vegetation. Figure 3-9 shows the simulated view of Site A and Figure 3-10 shows the simulated view of Site B. The masonry wall is the most visually prominent feature. For Site A, the wall is located noticebly closer to the viewpoint than for Site B. Overhead poles and equipment are visibile extending above the wall in both simulations. The relocated 69kV poles and conductors are also visible. Views of the proposed project are partially obscured by vegetation in both simulations. 21

42 Figure 3-8 Existing View of the Project Area from the South from a Vacant Lot Along Hazel Avenue (Viewing Location 3). Figure 3-9 Simulated View of Site A from the South. 22

43 Figure 3-10 Simulated View of Site B from the South. The proposed substation would be most visually prominent along Hazel Avenue. Hazel Avenue is a heavily traveled roadway, and the substation would be visible to passing motorists. Viewing locations 4 and 5 are on the east side of Hazel Avenue, and look west across Hazel to the proposed substation. The Site A substation site is shown from viewing location 4 in Figure 3-11 and the simulated view of Site A is shown in Figure The Site B substation site is shown from viewing location 5 in Figure 3-13 and the simulated view of Site B is shown in Figure Figure 3-11 Location 4). Existing View of Site A from the East Along Hazel Avenue (Viewing 23

44 Figure 3-12 Simulated View of Site A from the East. Figure 3-13 Location 5). Existing View of Site B from the East along Hazel Avenue (Viewing 24

45 Figure 3-14 Simulated View of Site B from the East. The simulated views from Hazel Avenue do not show the proposed widened alignment, proposed landscaping along Hazel Avenue, or storage facility future parking. The road widening, landscaping, and additional parking would be provided by the County as part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project (DERA 2006, Steve White, pers.comm.). The simulated views show the approximate location of the Site A and Site B substations as they would be setback from the proposed new road alignment, but the County s final road or landscaping features are not known at this time and therefore are not depicted in the simulated views. Views of the substation along Hazel Avenue are expected to be of very short duration and limited to the peripheral vision of motorists due to their location behind masonry walls. The substation masonry wall, entry gate, and overhead equipment would be the primary project components visible to motorists. The relocated 69kV subtransmission poles and conductors would be substantially similar to the existing subtransmission line and poles along Hazel Avenue. The proposed project would be more visually prominent than the Hazel-Timm substation due to its larger size. However, the new substation is expected to have a minor change on the existing visual resources along Hazel Avenue due to the existing commercial, retail, and residential development along the this road corridor. Summary The Hazel Avenue Widening EIR (DERA 2006) assumed that the Hazel-Timm substation would be relocated within the Hazel Avenue corridor, and the proposed project would not substantially differ visually from the existing substation, the new facility would be built on empty lots with little visual character, and new landscaping would be installed between Hazel Avenue and the proposed project site. The relocated and expanded electrical facilities would be largely consistent with the existing visual character and quality of the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a minor change to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. This is considered a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. 25

46 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area Less than Significant The relocation of the substation and 69kV subtransmission line would introduce no new sources of light and glare. No nighttime project construction would occur and no lights are planned. Transmission oil processing may occur onsite over 1-2 nights post-construction, but the equipment would be surrounded by acoustical barriers that would also block lighting. This would be a single, temporary event. Routine operation and maintenance work would be performed during the day. Proposed project facilities would be treated with either a dull green or light gray finish, which would minimize the potential for project facilities to emit a glare. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. 26

47 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. No agricultural or forestry resources occur in the project area or vicinity. Discussion a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use No Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code 51104(g)) No Impact d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use No Impact 27

48 The proposed project area is characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. The proposed project involves no new areas of ground disturbance beyond those previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). No agricultural or forestry resources occur in the proposed project area or vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have no impact on agricultural or forestry resources, and no mitigation would be required. 28

49 3.3 Air Quality Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. Environmental impacts associated with the demolition of the existing substation, relocation of the substation to a new location along Hazel Avenue, and the replacement of existing 69kV subtransmission line poles were previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006), however, did not analyze potential air quality impacts associated with the following components of the proposed project: The specific parcels for the relocated substation Expansion of substation capacity from one 20 MVA transformer to two 20 MVA transformer for a total capacity of 40 MVA The increased substation size from approximately 3,200 square feet (0.10 acre) to 0.50 acre The new location where the 69kV subtransmission line would cross Hazel Avenue approximately 600 feet north of its current location. The description and analysis of the potential impacts to air quality is therefore focused on potential impacts associated with these specific components of the proposed project. 29

50 Discussion The proposed project at either Site A or Site B would require a larger area of ground disturbance than was previously described to accommodate the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. Therefore, the proposed project was analyzed to determine if the larger footprint would have an impact on air quality. a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan Less than Significant The proposed project site is in Sacramento County, in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. Sacramento County is currently designated as a nonattainment area for federal and state ozone, PM 10, and PM 2.5 standards. The air districts within the lower Sacramento Valley develop plans designed to achieve the state and federal ozone, PM 10, and PM 2.5 standards. These plans present comprehensive strategies to reduce ozone precursors (reactive organic gas [ROG] and nitrogen oxide [NO x ]), PM 10, and PM 2.5 emissions from stationary, area, mobile, and indirect sources. Such strategies include the adoption of rules and regulations, enhancement of CEQA participation, adoption of local air quality plans, and stationary, area, mobile, and indirect-source control measures. The proposed project would result in construction of a new neighborhood distribution substation. Specific air quality impacts related to criteria pollutants are discussed in our responses to questions b) and c) below. The proposed project would comply with Air District regulations and would not produce any emissions above the thresholds of significance. The proposed project s construction activities would not facilitate growth beyond what is already anticipated in the Sacramento County General Plan, as described in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Sacramento Area Air Quality Attainment Plan. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. b) Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Less than Significant Construction emissions are typically short term or temporary in duration. Grading would generate fugitive dust, including PM 10 and PM 2.5. Fugitive dust emissions are primarily associated with site preparation and vary as a function of parameters such as soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbed area, and miles traveled by construction vehicles on- and off-site. Substation construction activities are anticipated to be completed within approximately 5 months, from May 2014 to September Dismantling of the existing substation would take place from December 2014 through February Subtransmission line construction would occur for 1 month during the spring of Although construction would generate emissions of ROG, NO x, PM 10, and PM 2.5, Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) has only developed mass emission thresholds for NO x. As Table 3-1 shows, proposed project construction would not exceed SMAQMD s NO x thresholds. 30

51 Table 3-1 Project Construction Emissions (Pounds/Day). Totals/Threshold ROG NO x PM 10 Dust 2013 totals (lbs./day unmitigated) 2013 totals (lbs./day mitigated) PM 10 Exhaust Total PM 10 PM 2.5 Dust PM 2.5 Exhaust SMAQMD Threshold N/A 85 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2014 totals (lbs./day unmitigated) 2014 totals (lbs./day mitigated) SMAQMD Thresholds (SMAQMD, 2011) Total PM 2.5 N/A 85 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: Emissions estimated using the URBEMIS2007 model. SMAQMD has established concentration based thresholds for PM 10 fugitive dust emissions. PM 10 and PM 2.5 dust generation occurs primarily during new substation construction and existing substation demolition, both slated to occur in Subtransmission line installation occurs in SMAQMD has also established significance thresholds for PM 10 that are based on the proposed project s contribution to ambient PM 10 concentrations. Projects that implement SMAQMD s Basic Construction Emission Control Practices and that cover less than 15 acres are considered by the District to not have the potential to exceed or contribute to the District s concentration-based threshold of significance for PM 10 (and, therefore, PM 2.5 ) at an off-site location (SMAQMD 2011). The proposed project would be subject to SMAQMD s Rule 403, which restricts fugitive dust generation during construction. The project would also be subject to California regulations that limit vehicle idling (California Code of Regulations Title 13, 2449(d)(3) and 2485). Compliance with these regulations would ensure that project construction would be consistent with SMAQMD s Basic Emission Control Practices. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a significant PM 10 or PM 2.5 impact. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The proposed project s operational emissions include minor maintenance activities that would not differ substantially from maintenance on the existing substation. Consequently, the proposed project s increase in operational emissions would be negligible and is considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 31

52 c) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors Less than Significant The District is currently designated as a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone, PM 10, and PM 2.5. As discussed in response to air quality question b), the proposed project s construction related activities would result in temporary increases in ROG, NO x, PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions. However, these emission increases are less than the applicable SMAQMD significance thresholds. The proposed project would generate a negligible amount of operational emissions since the primary component of the proposed project is an electrical substation with infrequent maintenance requirements. The proposed project would not require workers for its daily operation. As shown in Table 3-1, the proposed project s emissions would be limited to construction and those construction emissions are considered to be less than significant; consequently, the proposed project s cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. As discussed in a) above, the proposed project would be consistent with the SMAQMD s Air Quality Attainment Plan, which is designed to ultimately achieve attainment of air quality goals and standards. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Less than Significant The closest sensitive receptors are homes located west of the proposed substation sites (either Site A or Site B) and the existing Hazel-Timm substation. The pollutants of concern that would impact sensitive receptors in the proposed project area are fugitive PM 10 and PM 2.5 dust, and diesel particulate matter exhaust from construction equipment. Emissions of PM 10 and PM 2.5 are discussed above in section b), and would not be significant. The construction period for the proposed substation is 5 months and would not use substantial quantities of construction equipment. Thus, the proposed project construction activities would not pose long-term or significant health risks to nearby residents in the proposed project vicinity, and no mitigation would be required. e) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Less than Significant The closest sensitive receptors are homes located west of the proposed substation sites (either Site A or Site B) and the existing Hazel-Timm substation. to the proposed project site is a residence located just west of the proposed substation. The proposed project would not generate long-term objectionable odors. During construction, odors associated with the intermittent operation of diesel-powered equipment may be detected at nearby residences. However, this effect would be of short duration. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 32

53 3.4 Biological Resources Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, Sacramento County, California. Vegetation remaining at the site includes ornamental and ruderal vegetation, including native and non-native tree species and a non-native annual grassland understory. Discussion a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS No Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means No Impact 33

54 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan No Impact Potential impacts to biological resources associated with the demolition of the existing substation, relocation of the substation to a new location along Hazel Avenue, and the replacement of existing 69kV subtransmission line were previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). SMUD s proposed project involves no new areas of ground disturbance beyond those previously described and analyzed to accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. No new impacts to biological resources are expected to occur. The findings of the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006), which are summarized above in Section of this IS/MND, are hereby incorporated by reference. 34

55 3.5 Cultural Resources Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, had been subject to a previous cultural resource assessment conducted in support of the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006, PAR Environmental Services, Inc. [PAR] 2004a, 2004b). PAR performed a record search at the North Central Information Center, an affiliate of the California Historical Resources Information System. The results of the record search conducted December 10, 2002 were described in the report as follows: Four previous reports investigated areas within 1 mile of the APE [Project area]. No historic resources or archaeological sites had been identified within the area of the record search (PAR 2004a). An additional record search was not required for this assessment because SMUD s project area was included in the record search performed in Further review of the cultural resources documents produced as part of the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) indicated the consulting archaeologists also performed archaeological and historic property (built environment) surveys of the accessible portions of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project area. Upon review of the document and associated survey coverage maps, it was determined that access to the two parcels where the proposed substation would be constructed was not granted. As a result the parcels were not subject to a systematic walk over or pedestrian survey. On October 31, 2012, URS conducted a pedestrian survey to identify any historical properties in SMUD s proposed project area including Site A and Site B. During the pedestrian survey, the entire SMUD project area was accessible and ground visibility was good. Grasses and leaf litter obscured approximately 40 percent of the ground surface. Where visible, the ground surface was inspected for the presence of cultural material including, but not limited to, prehistoric and historic-era habitation debris, prehistoric features, and historic-era structural remains. CEQA (PRC ) requires that the lead agency determine whether a project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources. A unique archaeological resource is defined in CEQA as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that there is a high probability that it: 35

56 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is demonstrable public interest in that information; Has a special or particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. Though not specifically inclusive of paleontological resources, these criteria may also help to define a unique paleontological resource or site. Measures to avoid, conserve, preserve, or mitigate significant effects on these resources are also provided under CEQA (PRC ). CEQA Guidelines notes that, a Project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a Project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse changes include both physical changes to the historical resource or to its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Lead agencies are expected to identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of a historical resource before they approve such projects. Historical resources are: Listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC (k)); Included in a local register of historical resources (PRC ) or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC (g); or Determined by a lead agency to be historically significant. CEQA Guidelines also prescribes the processes and procedures found under California Health and Safety Code (HSC) and PRC for addressing the existence of, or probable likelihood, of Native American human remains, as well as the unexpected discovery of any human remains within the proposed project. This includes consultations with appropriate Native American tribes. CEQA Guidelines provides further guidance minimizing effects to historical resources through the application of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures must be legally binding and fully enforceable. The lead agency having jurisdiction over a project is also responsible to ensure that paleontological resources are protected in compliance with CEQA and other applicable statutes. Paleontological and historical resource management is also addressed in PRC , entitled Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites. This statute defines as a misdemeanor any unauthorized disturbance or removal of a fossil site or remains on public land and specifies that state agencies may undertake surveys, excavations, or other operations as necessary on state lands to preserve or record paleontological resources. This statute applies to any construction or other related project impacts that occur on state-owned or state-managed lands. The CRHR (PRC and 14 CCR 4850) establishes the register. The register lists California properties considered to be significant historical resources. The CRHR includes properties listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, including properties evaluated under 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The criteria 36

57 for listing are similar to those of the National Register of Historic Places. Criteria for listing in the CRHR include resources that: Are associated with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California s history and cultural heritage; Are associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The regulations set forth the criteria for eligibility as well as guidelines for assessing historical integrity and resources that have special considerations. Sacramento County currently does not have an historic preservation ordinance. However, the Sacramento County General Plan (County of Sacramento, Community Planning & Development Department 2011) states the following goal and six objectives related to cultural and historic resources: Discussion Goal: Promote the inventory, protection and interpretation of the cultural heritage of Sacramento County, including historical and archaeological settings, sites, building, features, artifacts and/or areas of ethnic, historical, religious or socio-economic importance. Objectives: 1. Comprehensive knowledge of archeological and historic site locations. 2. Attention and care during Project review and construction to ensure that cultural resource sites, either previously known or discovered on the Project site, are properly protected with sensitivity to Native American values. 3. Structures with architectural or historical importance preserved to maintain contributing design elements. 4. Known cultural resources protected from vandalism unauthorized excavation, or accidental destruction. 5. Properly stored and classified artifacts for ongoing study. 6. Public awareness and appreciation of both visible and intangible historic and cultural resources. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? Less than Significant with Mitigation No prehistoric or historical archaeological resources were identified during archival research conducted in 2002 in support of the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) or during the pedestrian survey conducted October 31, The relocation of the 69kV transmission line connection would result in a minor change to the visual setting of the proposed project area. As a result, no potential built environment resources are anticipated to be impacted by the 69kV transmission line relocation. Grading and vegetation removal, however, has potential to result in the identification of previously unknown or unrecorded archaeological or historical resources. Potential impacts to these resources would be less-than-significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which is described below. 37

58 Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Historical or Archaeological Resources. Before construction activities, workers shall be informed of the potential historical and archeological resources by a qualified environmental scientist. SMUD shall require that, in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, such finds shall be subject to PRC and CEQA Guidelines Procedures for inadvertent discovery include the following: Work within 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a professional archaeologist, or paleontologist if the find is of a paleontological nature, can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with National Register of Historic Places and CRHR criteria. If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, or paleontologist as appropriate, then representatives of SMUD shall meet with the archaeologist, or paleontologist, to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, the Applicant shall provide a Treatment Plan, prepared by an archeologist (or paleontologist), outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan shall be submitted to SMUD for review and approval prior to resuming construction. Significant cultural or paleontological materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by a professional archaeologist, or paleontologist, according to current professional standards. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Less than Significant with Mitigation No prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources were identified as a result of the cultural resources assessment. However, previously unrecorded subsurface archaeological resources have potential to occur in the proposed project area or be affected during ground disturbance. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, described above, would reduce this impact to less than significant. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature Less than Significant with Mitigation No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known or reported to occur in the proposed project area. Minor surface grading for the construction of the proposed substation is not expected to result in potential disturbance of unknown paleontological resources, and no mitigation would be required. However, previously unrecorded subsurface paleontological resources have potential to occur in the proposed project area or be affected during ground disturbance. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, described above, would reduce this impact to less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Less than Significant with Mitigation No evidence of human remains was detected during the course of the survey. However, project construction could encounter buried human remains where there is no surface indication of their presence. This is considered a potentially significant impact. 38

59 Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 described above would ensure that the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on human remains uncovered during the course of construction by halting work if human remains are uncovered, and contacting the County Coroner. Adherence to these procedures and other provisions of the California Health and Safety Code would reduce potential impacts on human remains to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Immediately Halt Construction if Human Remains are Discovered and Implement California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are discovered during the proposed project s construction activities, the requirements of HSC must be followed. Potentially damaging excavation must halt in the area of the remains, with a minimum radius of 50 feet, and the local County Coroner must be notified. The Coroner is required to examine discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (HSC [b]). If the Coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (HSC 7050[c]). Pursuant to the provisions of PRC , the NAHC shall identify a Most Likely Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant designated by the NAHC shall have at least 48 hours to inspect the site and propose treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods. 39

60 40

61 3.6 Geology and Soils Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) iii) iv) Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. The proposed project area, including specific components not previously analyzed, involves no new areas of ground disturbance beyond those previously described and analyzed to accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. Discussion a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 No Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking No Impact iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction No Impact 41

62 iv) Landslides No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil Less than Significant c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse No Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property No Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water No Impact SMUD s proposed project would occur within the area of ground disturbance previously described to accommodate the County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. Potential impacts to geology and soil resources associated with the demolition of the existing substation, relocation of the substation to a new location along Hazel Avenue, and the replacement of existing 69kV subtransmission line poles were previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). Best Management Practices would be implemented during construction activities to reduce or eliminate potential soil erosion from the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project at Site A or Site B is expected to have no impact on geology and soil resources beyond those previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The findings of that existing EIR, which are summarized above in Section of this IS/MND, are hereby incorporated by reference. 42

63 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting Scientists have concluded that climate change ( global warming ) is a regional as well as global concern that is very likely caused primarily by human activity. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from fossil fuel combustion and vegetation removal, are increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and are believed to be the primary cause of contemporary global warming. GHGs from human activities are shown to trap more of the sun s heat in the earth s atmosphere, resulting in warming. Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and methane (CH 4 ) also contribute to global warming. As part of SMUD s commitment to the environment, it is SMUD s goal to drastically cut CO 2 emissions. Executive Order S-3-05 establishes a goal to reduce California s GHG emissions to: 2000 levels by levels by percent below 1990 levels by 2050 This goal was further reinforced with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 [AB 32]). AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals, while further mandating that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) create a plan (including market mechanisms), and implement rules to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases. Executive Order S directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32. Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in 2008, outlining measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction limits (CARB 2008). To meet these goals, California must reduce its GHG emissions by 30 percent below projected 2020 business-as-usual emissions, or about 15 percent from today s levels. The Scoping Plan estimates a reduction of 174 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) from the transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, and high global warming potential sections. CARB has identified an implementation timeline for the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan. Some measures may require new legislation to implement, some would require subsidies, some have already been developed, and some would require additional effort to evaluate and quantify. 43

64 Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) provides greater certainty to lead agencies that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. Pursuant to SB 97, the state s Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines to address analysis and mitigation of the potential effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents and processes. Discussion a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment Less than Significant with Mitigation The proposed project area, which includes Site A or Site B, would generate GHGs during construction of the proposed substation, demolition of the old substation, and installation of subtransmission lines. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2011), does not establish significance thresholds for construction-related emission impacts. However, SMAQMD has developed a list of Basic Construction Emission Control Practices to reduce construction GHG emissions. These have been listed as project requirements in the air quality section. GHGs would be generated by on- and off-road construction vehicles and equipment, and by worker commute trips to the site. Table 3-2 shows that emissions from construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate up to 156 metric tons CO 2 e during 2014 and 107 metric tons during This is considered a potentially significant impact, and mitigation measure GHG-1 is identified to reduce the impact to less than significant. Table 3-2 Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary. Construction Year CO 2 e (metric tons per year) Source: URBEMIS2007 model. Additional details in Appendix B Air Quality. The proposed project would not increase operational emissions. There would be periodic maintenance activity and associated GHG emissions at the proposed substation. However, these emissions would simply replace maintenance activity and emissions at the existing substation (slated to be demolished as part of this proposed project). Therefore, the proposed project would not increase operational GHG emissions. There would be no GHG impacts from substation operation, and no mitigation is required. SMUD shall implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1 for construction-related emissions, described below. 44

65 Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement Additional Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions SMUD s vehicles and contractor onsite off-road construction equipment shall comply with the following measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during construction: Train equipment operators in proper use of equipment. Maintain construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated. Use the proper size of equipment for the job. Implementation of the above listed measures would maintain the proposed project s construction-related GHG emissions at a less than significant level. b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases Less than Significant The California Office of Public Resources has amended Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines to address impacts of GHG emissions. Although the amendments provide criteria to evaluate a project s GHG emissions, they do not establish quantitative significance thresholds. According to the revised Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, an impact related to global climate change is considered significant if the proposed project would: generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The SMAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines establish no construction-related thresholds for GHG emissions. Furthermore, as is described in response to question a), the proposed project would not increase operational GHG emissions, while the proposed project s construction-related GHG emissions would be less than significant with implementation of SMAQMD-recommended mitigation measures. The proposed project is consistent with Sacramento County s Draft Climate Action Plan (Sacramento County 2011). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable local plans, policies, and regulations and would not conflict with the provisions of AB 32, the applicable air quality plan, or any other state or regional plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this impact is less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 45

66 46

67 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006) analyzed potential hazardous materials associated with implementation of the road widening activities, including the relocation of the Hazel-Timm substation. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) conducted for the EIR was based on a reconnaissance of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project area and vicinity, review of recent and historical aerial photographs of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project area, review of environmental databases, and review of files at the County Environmental Management Department. The Phase I ESA evaluated potential hazardous substances affecting soil and/or groundwater below the Hazel Avenue Widening Project area and impacts to that area from potential and known contaminated sites. The Phase I ESA did not identify any hazardous material concerns related to the Hazel Avenue Widening Project site. The EIR addressed necessary lead and asbestos tests and control measures implemented during the demolition of the residences on the property. In 2011, Nichols Consulting Engineers conducted a soil investigation of 4737 Hazel Avenue (Site A and Site B) and of 4743 Hazel Avenue (Site B). Soil samples were collected for both properties to evaluate if there have been impacts to the properties from historical uses. The soil 47

68 investigation concluded that with the exception of lead, arsenic, and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D) in one soil sample, petroleum hydrocarbons and metals were either not reported or reported at concentrations less than the screening levels. For the contaminants detected, their presence was associated with prior residential activities. A Phase I ESA and limited Phase II soil sampling for 4733 Hazel Avenue (Site A and Site B) of the two proposed project parcels has been completed (AECOM 2012). The Phase I ESA identified a potential recommended environmental condition with respect to the potential for residual organochlorine pesticides and lead in the soil. The soil sampling conducted found that organochlorine pesticides and lead were not reported or reported at concentrations less than the screening levels. Based on the results of the soil investigations, if contaminated soil is present, Sacramento County would remediate the site prior to SMUD taking ownership of the properties. Electrical and Magnetic Fields Homeowners in neighborhoods adjacent to overhead power lines frequently express concerns regarding the potential for health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMFs). Available medical and scientific research has not demonstrated that EMF creates a health risk. However, research has not dismissed the possibility of such a risk. Natural and human created EMFs occur everywhere. Electric fields are created between two objects that have a different voltage potential. Magnetic fields are created only when there is current flowing through a conductor or device. For example, when a lamp is plugged into a wall, an electric field is created around the cord to the lamp. A magnetic field is present when the lamp is turned on and current flows through the light bulb. Typically, the main sources for electric and magnetic fields associated with a substation are the power lines that enter and exit the substation. Power frequency (60 hertz (Hz) [cycles per second]) EMF are invisible fields of force created by electric voltage (electric fields) and by electric current (magnetic fields). These fields are associated with power lines, electric appliances, and the wiring in buildings of homes, schools, and work structures. Voltage on wire produces an electric field in the area surrounding the wire. Magnetic fields are produced from the flow of electricity (current) in a conductor (circuit) and can be calculated and measured. Widespread misunderstanding exists regarding EMF levels from different types of facilities and the rate at which these levels decline with distance from the source. There are four basic factors that affect the strength of EMF: distance, conductor spacing, load, and phase configuration. An alternating current power line typically consists of three energized phase wires. The nature of three-phase alternating power systems results in a partial cancellation effect of the magnetic fields if the conductors are adjacent to each other. Magnetic fields are very difficult to shield; placing the line underground does not shield the magnetic field. Overhead electric power lines also produce electric fields; however, a structure of a house would shield most of the electric field from outside sources. Other objects, such as trees, shrubs, walls, and fences, also provide electric field shielding. 48

69 Discussion a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials environment Less than Significant b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment Less than Significant The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. During construction activities, the use of equipment and vehicles containing petroleum products would occur on the site. However, refueling would occur offsite at a SMUD facility. Mineral oil would be transported to the site in the sealed transformer equipment. This oil is used to cool transformers. Substation battery backup systems contain liquid sulfuric acid. However, battery systems would be transported to the site in sealed cases. The potential for rupture of the battery is negligible. During construction, minor spills of fuel or oils/lubricants from ruptured fuel and/or hydraulic lines on the construction equipment may occur. However, the risk of hazardous material spills is low due to the small size of the proposed project and the short construction period. During substation operation, transformers and switchgear equipment contain substances considered to be hazardous. However, the substances are enclosed within the equipment. In the event of equipment structure or system malfunction, the transformer and switchgear dielectric fluids are kept from leaving the site by a spill containment system consisting of a berm, curb or sump. The substation would have a supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA) system that would send alarms to SMUD s dispatch center if malfunctions occur. Therefore, the potential for a leak or accidental release to occur is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. Once the proposed project is operational, the old Hazel-Timm substation would be deenergized, salvageable components removed for reuse, non-reusable materials recycled or scrapped, and the site would be tested to ensure no residual contamination remains. No hazardous materials impacts are anticipated with decommissioning the Hazel-Timm substation. Homeowners in neighborhoods adjacent to substations and overhead power lines frequently express concerns regarding the potential for health effects from exposure to EMFs. The nearest residence to the existing Hazel-Timm substation is approximately 12 feet from the transformer (transformer to garage wall). The closest residence to the proposed project transformers would be greater than 70 feet. The medical and scientific communities generally agree that the available research evidence has not demonstrated that EMFs create a health risk. However, they also agree that the evidence has not dismissed the possibility of such a risk. Finally, they agree that while this is an important issue that needs resolution, it is uncertain when such a resolution would occur. The present scientific uncertainty means that public health officials cannot establish any standard or level of exposure that is known to be either safe or harmful. No CEQA standards or health-based standards exist that indicate that EMF emissions are a potentially significant impact. Therefore, potential impacts relating to EMFs are considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 49

70 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school No Impact There are no public or private schools within 0.25 mile of the proposed project. A day-care facility is located at 8896 North Winding Way, 445 feet from the Hazel-Timm substation transformer. The proposed project would be a minimum 980 feet from the day-care center from Site A or Site B, respectively. The proposed project would not involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste and no impact would occur. Therefore, no mitigation would be required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment No Impact The proposed project is not located on a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Proposed project implementation would not include any activity that create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no mitigation would be required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area No Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area No Impact No airstrips or heliports lie within 2 miles of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proposed project area or vicinity, and no mitigation would be required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan No Impact The proposed project is not in an area that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, there are no impacts related to emergency response or evacuation plans, and no mitigation would be required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands No Impact The proposed project is in a developed, urbanized area, and not in an area with wildland fuels. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, there are no impacts relative to wildland fires, and no mitigation would be required. 50

71 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is in an area characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. The proposed project area, including specific components not previously analyzed, involves no new areas of ground disturbance beyond those previously described and analyzed to accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. The proposed substation location at either Site A or Site B would require placement of up to 1 to 3 feet of fill material to achieve a 2 percent slope gradient to allow stormwater to drain to the northwest corner of the proposed substation site to a proposed County drainage pipe and into the existing County drainage ditch located northwest of Site B. 51

72 Discussion a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements No Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) No Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Less Than Significant The new substation location (at either Site A or Site B) would require placement of up to 1 to 3 feet of fill material to achieve a 2 percent slope gradient to allow stormwater to drain to the northwest corner of the proposed substation site to a proposed County drainage pipe and into the existing County drainage ditch located northwest of Site B. Placing fill on the proposed site would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area; nor would it alter the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site. The proposed project site grading and fill would allow the existing drainage pattern to continue. No net increase in stormwater runoff is expected with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site No Impact Construction of the proposed substation would include a graveled surface with electrical equipment installed on concrete foundations, and a masonry wall encompassing the substation. Runoff would be directed to the northwest corner of the substation site to a proposed County drainage pipe and into the existing County drainage ditch located northwest of Site B. The small surface area of the transformers would not substantially increase the rate of surface runoff or result in flooding. Runoff quantities would not increase above existing levels. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff No Impact As indicated in Question d, the amount of surface runoff from the proposed substation would not increase above existing levels. The proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the existing storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and there would be no impact. 52

73 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality No Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map No Impact h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam No Impact j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow No Impact SMUD s proposed project would occur within the area of ground disturbance previously described to accommodate the County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the demolition of the existing substation, relocation of the substation to a new location along Hazel Avenue, and the replacement of existing 69kV subtransmission line poles were previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The placement of 1 to 3 feet of fill material to achieve a 2 percent slope to convey surface runoff to the existing County storm drain system is expected to have no impact on hydrology. Due to the placement of a gravel bed, surface runoff is expected to be rare, as precipitation would infiltrate through the gravel into the underlying soil. No increase in stormwater quantities above existing levels is expected. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have no impact on hydrology and water quality beyond those previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The findings of that existing EIR, which are summarized above in Section of this IS/MND, are hereby incorporated by reference. 53

74 54

75 3.10 Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Discussion The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. The optional substation sites both previously contained homes that were purchased and removed by Sacramento County to accommodate the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. (DERA 2006). Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or require the construction of any replacement housing. a) Physically divide an established community No Impact The proposed project would not include any components that would physically divide an established community. The proposed project includes the relocation of an electrical substation on Hazel Avenue to parcels formerly used for residential uses. Sacramento County acquired the parcels as part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project and cleared existing residential structures from the site (DERA 2006). Therefore, no division of an established community would be anticipated with project implementation, and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect No Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Sacramento County General Plan (County of Sacramento, Community Planning and Development Department 2011). The Sacramento County General Plan of identifies the land use designation for the proposed substation sites as Low Density Residential. This designation provides for areas of predominantly single family housing with some attached housing units. It allows urban densities between one and twelve dwelling units per acre. The zoning designation for the two parcels is Residential Land Use Zone RD-3. This zoning designation allows residential and open space uses that do not exceed a maximum density of three dwelling units per gross acre of land. 55

76 Public utilities and public service facilities are permitted within the RD-3 zoning designation (County of Sacramento, Planning Division 2012). Therefore, the proposed project would have no conflict with existing land use plans, policies, or ordinances. c) Conflict with any applicable HCP or NCCP No Impact The proposed project is not within the boundaries of a HCP or NCCP. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a HCP or NCCP, and no mitigation would be required. 56

77 3.11 Mineral Resources Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is in an area characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. Construction and operation would occur within the area of ground disturbance considered as part of the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. No mineral resources exist in the proposed project area. Discussion a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state No Impact b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan No Impact The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources. Potential impacts to mineral resources in the proposed project area were previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The findings of that existing EIR, which are summarized above in Section of this IS/MND, are hereby incorporated by reference. 57

78 58

79 3.12 Noise Would the Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project would initially contain one 20-MVA transformer and supporting equipment (e.g., switch gear, capacitors, wiring and cooling fans). If increased electrical load in the area requires additional capacity, the substation would be upgraded with an additional 20- MVA transformer and associated equipment. SMUD would orient sound generating equipment with the transformer cooling fans facing toward Hazel Avenue. SMUD is considering two optional locations for the proposed relocated substation. In this IS/MND, SMUD evaluates the following substation optional sites: Site A (southern site): A substation located at 4737 and 4733 Hazel Avenue. This substation option would be square-shaped measuring approximately 160 feet by 140 feet (approximately 0.50 acre). This substation location was previously evaluated in the 2011 Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project IS/MND (SMUD 2011). Site B (northern site): A substation located at 4743, 4737, and a portion of 4733 Hazel Avenue. This substation option would be rectangular-shaped measuring approximately 200 feet by 120 feet (approximately 0.50 acre) with the exception of a section excluded for parking for the adjacent storage facility. In addition, this option would include an additional approximately 0.10 acre of property located west of the substation, which would not be incorporated into the substation footprint. No land uses of the 0.10 acre property are planned, and use of this parcel is not evaluated in this IS/MND. SMUD will maintain this property in accordance with SMUD maintenance policies and local ordinances such as weed abatement. An ambient noise survey was conducted October 30, 2012 and October 31, The existing noise environment was measured adjacent to the nearest noise-sensitive receiver located on the parcel immediately west of both Site A and B. 59

80 The following overview of the existing noise environment and applicable noise-related laws and regulations in the proposed project area and vicinity is summarized from the Noise Technical Report, Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project, Fair Oaks, California (URS 2013). The Noise Technical Report is in Appendix C. Noise levels in California are typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dba), which is the A- weighted sound level of decibels (db). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Decibels are a unit of measurement indicating the relative amplitude or intensity of a sound. Sounds in the environment can vary over a short period of time, so environmental sounds are typically described in terms of L eq, which is an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of the time-varying events. Another measurement is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 db penalty added to evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.), and a 10 db addition to nocturnal (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noise levels. The intensity of a sound and the subjective noisiness or loudness are related, as is the intensity of a sound and a sensitive receptor s distance to that sound. A 10 db increase in sound is an approximate doubling of the perceived loudness. Noise from construction activities and stationary sources is considered a point source of noise. Sound from this type of source radiates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The rate at which noise dissipates from a point source is 6 to 7.5 dba for each doubling of the distance, depending on the ground absorption, atmospheric conditions, and other shielding factors. Traffic noise appears to be from a line rather than a point, because the vehicles are moving and the noise spreads cylindrically rather than spherically. The rate at which traffic noise dissipates is 3 to 4.5 dba for each doubling of the distance, depending on other shielding factors. County of Sacramento Noise Element The County of Sacramento General Plan Noise Element uses noise levels expressed in L 50 and L max for community noise planning purposes for noise generated by non-transportation noise sources at noise-sensitive areas. Table 2 of the Noise Element (see Appendix C) presents Non- Transportation Noise Standards for the County. Policy NO-5 states the following in regards to new noise-sensitive areas: The interior and exterior noise level standards for noise-sensitive areas of new uses affected by existing non-transportation noise sources in Sacramento County are shown in Table 2. Where the noise level standards of Table 2 are predicted to be exceeded at a proposed noise-sensitive area due to non-transportation noise sources, appropriate noise mitigation measures shall be included in the project design to reduce projected noise levels to a state of compliance with the Table 2 standards within sensitive areas. The Noise Element applies the same noise level standards found in Table 2 of the Noise Element to planned projects that have the potential to affect existing noise-sensitive land uses. Policy NO- 6 of the Noise Element states: Where a project would consist of or include non-transportation noise sources, the noise generation of those sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the interior and exterior noise level standards of Table 2 at existing noise-sensitive areas in the project vicinity. 60

81 In regards to which land use should provide the necessary mitigation, Policy NO-7 of the Noise Element states: The last use there shall be responsible for noise mitigation. However, if a noise generating use is proposed adjacent to lands zoned for uses which may have sensitivity to noise, then the noise generating use shall be responsible for mitigating its noise to a state of compliance with the Table 2 standards at the property line of the generating use in anticipation of the future neighboring development. For community planning purposes, the maximum allowable exterior noise level standards at residential land uses during daytime hours are 55 dba L 50 and 75 dba L max. During nighttime hours, the maximum allowable interior noise level standards at residential land uses are 35 dba L 50 and 55 dba L max. County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance The County has established exterior noise standards within the County of Sacramento Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance. The Noise Control Ordinance lists 55 dba L 50 daytime and 50 dba L 50 nighttime exterior noise level standards for residential zoning districts and allows for increased noise levels within an hour over shorter periods of time. Table 3-3 summarizes the allowable exterior noise level thresholds for each cumulative period of time. If the ambient noise level exceeds that permitted by any of the first four noise-limit categories listed in Table 3-3, then the allowable noise limit shall be increased in 5-dBA increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level exceeds the allowable L max, then the maximum ambient noise level shall be the noise level limit for that category. Table 3-3 County of Sacramento Exterior Noise Level Standards. Maximum Time of Exposure Noise Metric 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (Daytime) 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. (Nighttime) 30 minutes /hour L dba 50 dba 15 minutes/hour L dba 55 dba 5 minutes/hour L dba 60 dba 1 minute/hour L dba 65 dba Any period of time L max 75 dba 70 dba Source: County of Sacramento Noise Control Code, 2012 The Noise Control Ordinance states that the location for measuring exterior ambient noise levels should be made at least 1 foot inside the property line of the affected residential property. It goes on to state that, where feasible, the microphone shall be at a height of 3 to 5 feet above ground level and shall be at least 4 feet from walls or similar reflecting surfaces. The Noise Control Ordinance also establishes construction noise exempt hours: Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on Saturday; 61

82 Saturdays commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of 8:00 p.m. Based on these guidelines and relevant local, state, and federal standards, project operation is considered to have potentially significant noise impacts if it would cause the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dba or greater, or cause the ambient noise level as measured at the property line of the nearest residential land uses to exceed the County of Sacramento s daytime or nighttime noise standards of 55 or 50 dba L 50, respectively. Discussion a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies Less than Significant Site A Construction equipment would include a crane, backhoe/excavator, grader, compactor, and trucks. Construction activities would occur in three phases: new substation construction, existing substation dismantling, and subtransmission line construction. URS developed estimates on construction related noise based on manufacturer s specifications and standard noise modeling software. A more detailed description of analytical methods is provided in the Noise Technical Report (Appendix C). Noise levels generated by each of these phases are shown in Table 3-4 through Table 3-6 below. Table 3-4 Noise Generated by Substation Construction. Equipment Quantity Usage Factor (%) Individual L max for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Individual L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Total L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Crane Backhoe/ Excavator Cement truck Grader Line truck Pickup truck wheel tractor-trailer Total L eq (at 50 feet) 83.8 Source: Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01, (2006). URS Corporation calculations (2012). 62

83 Table 3-5 Noise Generated by Substation Dismantling. Equipment Quantity Usage Factor (%) Individual L max for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Individual L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Total L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Crane Backhoe/excavator Dump truck wheel tractor trailer Pickup truck Total L eq (at 50 feet) 79.8 Source: Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01, (2006). URS Corporation calculations (2012). Table 3-6 Noise Generated by Subtransmission Line Construction. Equipment Quantity Usage Factor (%) Individual L max for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Individual L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Total L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Pickup truck Line truck Drill rig truck Total L eq (at 50 feet) 78.6 Source: Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01, (2006). URS Corporation calculations (2012). Temporary, short-term construction noise would range from 78.6 dba to 83.8 dba at 50 feet. Construction would occur during exempt hours in the County Noise Control Ordinance. Construction noise is thus exempt from the Municipal Code noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. As part of substation construction, transformer oil may require processing by an oil processor and generator (oil processing unit) depending on the moisture content of the delivered transformer oil. It is unknown at this time if the oil processing would be required or would be conducted offsite or at the proposed project. If onsite oil processing is required for Site A, the oil processing unit would be set up inside the proposed substation masonry walls and operated for up to 24 continuous hours with temporary acoustical barriers surrounding the unit. Acoustical Surfaces, Inc. provides the Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) for their temporary acoustical barriers and barriers similar to this would be used onsite during oil processing activities. Table 3-7 lists the NRC for the temporary acoustical barriers. The dimensions of the temporary acoustical barriers would be 10 feet long by 7.5 feet wide by 10 feet tall. 63

84 Table 3-7 Noise Reduction Coefficient for Temporary Acoustical Barriers. Frequency 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1KHz 2KHz 4KHz Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS Hz = hertz KHz = kilohertz NRC = noise reduction coefficient NRC The anticipated noise levels generated by the operation of the oil processing unit at nearby noise-sensitive receivers are compared to existing ambient noise levels near Site A in addition to the applicable County of Sacramento exterior noise level standards. The oil processing unit and temporary acoustical barriers would be located in the northeast corner of proposed Site A. Four modeled receivers (MR-1 through MR-4) were input into the noise model to quantify the noise generated by oil processing at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. Table 3-8 lists the predicted noise levels generated by the oil processing unit at the modeled receivers, the measured daytime lowest hourly L 50, and the adjusted daytime noise standard. Table 3-9 lists the predicted noise levels generated by the oil processing unit at the modeled receivers and the County of Sacramento s nighttime noise standard. Table 3-8 Modeled Receiver Location Site A Daytime Temporary Oil Processing Noise. Oil Processing Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Adjusted County of Sacramento Daytime Noise Standard (dba L 50 ) Meets County of Sacramento Noise Standard (yes/no?) MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS Table 3-9 Modeled Receiver Location Site A Nighttime Temporary Oil Processing Noise. Oil Processing Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) County of Sacramento Nighttime Noise Standard (dba L 50 ) Meets County of Sacramento Noise Standard (yes/no?) MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS

85 According to the County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance, construction noise is exempt from local standards from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends. The oil processing unit would operate for up to 24 continuous hours. Construction noise generated oil processing is exempt from local exterior noise standards during construction noise exempt hours. The County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance states that if the measured existing daytime L 50 exceeds 55 dba, then the allowable noise limit shall be increased in five dba increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. Since the measured daytime L 50 was 59 dba, the new daytime exterior noise standard becomes 60 dba L 50. Noise generated by oil processing activities would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dba L 50 at any noise-sensitive receiver (see Table3-8). Nighttime oil processing would not exceed the nighttime exterior noise standard of 50 dba L 50 at any noise-sensitive receiver (see Table 3-9). Therefore, construction noise generated by oil processing activities associated with Site A is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Operational noise generated at Site A would primarily consist of two 20MVA transformers and their cooling fans, substation circuit breakers and substation capacitors, are expected to generate very short duration and a negligible amount of noise compared to the transformers and their cooling fans, and therefore are not explicitly analyzed. Operation of the 69kV subtransmission line could generate noise from transformers and supporting overhead equipment (switch gear and capacitor). Tables 3-10 and 3-11 list the modeled operational noise levels and anticipated changes in noise levels during daytime and nighttime hours, respectively, with the operation of Site A. The implementation of Site A would not cause operational noise levels to exceed the County of Sacramento s exterior daytime and nighttime noise thresholds. Therefore, operation would have no impact on noise and no mitigation would be required. Table 3-10 Site A Operational Daytime Noise. Modeled Receiver Location Site A Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Modeled Plus Existing Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Change in Noise Level at Receiver (dba L 50 ) MR MR MR MR Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS

86 Table 3-11 Site A Operational Nighttime Noise. Modeled Receiver Location Site A Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Nighttime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Modeled Plus Existing Nighttime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Change in Noise Level at Receiver (dba L 50 ) MR MR MR MR Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS Potential corona discharge from the proposed 69kV transmission lines may result in noise. Because these transmission lines are less than 230kV, they are not considered high-voltage and the potential corona discharge noise is expected to be inaudible under most conditions. Even under poor conditions (e.g., inclement weather) and at locations directly under the transmission line, corona discharge from the transmission lines is expected to be below daytime and nighttime County noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. Site B The same construction activities, equipment, schedule and durations that apply to Site A also apply to Site B. The noise levels generated by construction of the proposed substation associated with Site A apply to Site B because the same construction activities would be conducted and there would be the same distance to noise-sensitive receptors. Temporary, short-term construction noise would range from 78.6 dba to 83.8 dba at 50 feet. Construction would occur during exempt hours as listed in the County Noise Control Ordinance. Construction noise is thus exempt from the Municipal Code noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. If onsite oil processing is required for Site B, the oil processing unit would be set up inside the proposed substation masonry walls and operated for up to 24 continuous hours with temporary acoustical barriers surrounding the unit. The NRC found for the temporary acoustical barriers listed in Table 3-7 would also be used for oil processing activities for Site B. The oil processing unit and temporary acoustical barriers would be located in the northeast corner of proposed Site B. Four modeled receivers (MR-1 through MR-4) were input into the Cadna/A noise model to quantify the noise generated by oil processing at nearby noisesensitive receivers. The ambient noise data collected for the previously described and analyzed Site A is also suitable for describing the existing noise environment for Site B. Table 3-12 lists the predicted noise levels generated by the oil processing unit at the modeled receivers, the measured daytime lowest hourly L 50, and the adjusted daytime noise standard. Table 3-13 lists the predicted noise levels generated by the oil processing unit at the modeled receivers and the County of Sacramento s nighttime noise standard. 66

87 Table 3-12 Site B Oil Processing Daytime Noise. Modeled Receiver Location Oil Processing Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Adjusted County of Sacramento Daytime Noise Standard (dba L 50 ) Meets County of Sacramento Noise Standard (yes/no?) MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS Table 3-13 Site B Oil Processing Nighttime Noise. Modeled Receiver Location Oil Processing Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) County of Sacramento Nighttime Noise Standard (dba L 50 ) Meets County of Sacramento Noise Standard (yes/no?) MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS According to the County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance, construction noise is exempt from local standards from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends. The oil processing unit would operate for up to 24 continuous hours. Construction noise generated by the oil processing unit is exempt from local exterior noise standards during construction noise exempt hours. The County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance states that if the measured existing daytime L 50 exceeds 55 dba, then the allowable noise limit shall be increased in five dba increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. Since the measured daytime L 50 was 59 dba, the new daytime exterior noise standard becomes 60 dba L 50. Noise generated by oil processing would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dba L 50 at any noise-sensitive receiver (see Table 3-12). Nighttime oil processing would not exceed the nighttime exterior noise standard of 50 dba L 50 at any noise-sensitive receiver (See Table 3-13). Therefore, construction noise generated by oil processing associated with Site B is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. Operational noise generated by the new substation would primarily consist of two 20MVA transformers and their cooling fans. Other pieces of substation equipment, such as circuit breakers and capacitors, are expected to generate a negligible amount of noise compared to the transformers and their cooling fans, and therefore are not explicitly analyzed. Operation of the 69kV subtransmission line may generate noise from transformers and supporting 67

88 overhead equipment (switch gear and capacitor). Tables 3-14 and 3-15 list the modeled operational noise levels and anticipated changes in noise levels during daytime and nighttime hours, respectively, with the operation of Site B. The implementation of Site B would not cause operational noise levels to exceed the County of Sacramento s exterior daytime and nighttime noise thresholds. Therefore, operation would have no impact on noise and no mitigation would be required. Table 3-14 Site B Operational Daytime Noise. Modeled Receiver Location Site B Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Modeled Plus Existing Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Change in Noise Level at Receiver (dba L 50 ) MR MR MR MR Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS Table 3-15 Site B Operational Nighttime Noise. Modeled Receiver Location Site B Option Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Nighttime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Modeled Plus Existing Nighttime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Change in Noise Level at Receiver (dba L 50 ) MR MR MR MR Source: Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), URS Potential corona discharge from the proposed 69kV transmission lines may result in noise. Because these transmission lines are less than 230 kv, they are not considered high-voltage and the potential corona discharge noise is expected to be inaudible under most conditions. Even under poor conditions (e.g., inclement weather) and at locations directly under the transmission line, corona discharge from the transmission lines is expected to be below daytime and nighttime County noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels No Impact At both Site A and Site B, operational activities associated with the proposed project would not generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise that would be detectable by humans. Construction could generate temporary groundborne vibration. Construction equipment that would be used includes a crane, backhoe, grader, compactor, and trucks. Any groundborne vibration generated from construction activities utilizing this equipment is 68

89 expected to be below a detectable level. Therefore, the project, at both Site A and Site B, is expected to have no impact to groundborne vibration or noise, and no mitigation would be required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Less than Significant Site A Operational noise would be generated by transformers and cooling fans at the proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation Site A and by the 69kV transformer and supporting equipment (switch gear, capacitor, and wiring). As described in detail in Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), the project would not result in any anticipated change in noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors (Tables 3-10 and 3-11). Substation operation at Site A is expected to have a minor, less-than-significant impact on noise, and no mitigation would be required. The 69kV subtransmission lines may generate noise through corona discharge. Because these subtransmission lines are less than 230kV, they are not considered high-voltage and the potential corona discharge noise is expected to be inaudible under most conditions. Even under poor conditions (e.g., inclement weather) and at locations directly under the transmission line, corona discharge from the transmission lines is expected to be below daytime and nighttime County noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Site B Operational noise would be generated by transformers and cooling fans at proposed Site B and by the 69kV transformer and supporting equipment (switch gear, capacitor, and wiring). As described in detail in Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), the project would not result in any anticipated change in noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors (Tables 3-14 and 3-15). Substation operation at Site B is expected to have a minor, less than significant impact on noise, and no mitigation would be required. The 69kV subtransmission lines may generate noise through corona discharge. Because these subtransmission lines are less than 230kV, they are not considered high-voltage and the potential corona discharge noise is expected to be inaudible under most conditions. Even under poor conditions (e.g., inclement weather) and at locations directly under the transmission line, corona discharge from the transmission lines is expected to be below daytime and nighttime County noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Less than Significant Site A As described in detail in the Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), construction would result in a short-term temporary increase in the ambient noise levels near Site A. Site A construction and removal of the old substation, including construction-related vehicular traffic, would occur during the County s prescribed timeframes for construction activities, 69

90 from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays. Noise generated during construction would occur during these noise exempt hours. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. If onsite oil processing is required at Site A, the oil processing unit would be set up inside the proposed substation masonry walls and operated for up to 24 continuous hours with temporary acoustical barriers. As described in detail in Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), the project would not exceed the County of Sacramento s daytime and nighttime exterior noise thresholds at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors (Tables 3-8 and 3-9). Onsite oil processing activities at Site A are expected to have a minor, less-than-significant impact on noise, and no mitigation would be required. Site B As described in detail in the Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), construction would result in a short-term temporary increase in the ambient noise levels near Site B. Site B construction and removal of the old substation, including construction-related vehicular traffic, would occur during the County s prescribed timeframes for construction activities, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays. Noise generated during construction would occur during these noise exempt hours. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation would be required. If onsite oil processing is required at Site B, the oil processing unit would be set up inside the proposed substation masonry walls and operated for up to 24 continuous hours with temporary acoustical barriers. As described in detail in Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), the project would not exceed the County of Sacramento s daytime and nighttime exterior noise thresholds at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors (Tables 3-12 and 3-13). Onsite oil processing activities at Site B are expected to have a minor, less-than-significant impact on noise, and no mitigation would be required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels No Impact The Sacramento Mather Airport is located approximately 7 miles southwest of proposed Site A and Site B. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments has prepared and adopted comprehensive land use plans for several of the regions airports, including Sacramento Mather Airport. According to the Mather Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan map, proposed Site A and Site B are outside the designated clear zone for departures and approaches to Mather Airport. The nearest airport without an airport land use plan is Cameron Park Airport, more than 2 miles from proposed Site A and Site B. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in proposed Site A and Site B to excessive noise levels associated with nearby airports. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact and no mitigation would be required. 70

91 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels No Impact No private airstrips occur in proposed Site A and Site B project areas or in their vicinity. The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the proposed Site A and Site B project areas to excessive noise levels associated with nearby airstrips. Therefore, proposed Site A and Site B would have no impact and no mitigation would be required. 71

92 72

93 3.13 Population and Housing Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. Discussion a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) No Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere No Impact Site A and Site B both previously contained homes that were purchased and removed by Sacramento County to accommodate the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. (DERA 2006). Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or require the construction of any replacement housing. The proposed relocation and expansion of the electrical substation and subtransmission line would result in short-term construction employment. However, a sufficient labor pool exists within the Sacramento region to meet the proposed project s construction worker requirements and no change in the local population base would be anticipated. The limited maintenance required for the substations during operations would also have no effect on local population growth rates. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth and would have no new impact on population and housing beyond those previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). 73

94 74

95 3.14 Public Services Would the Project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) iii) iv) Police protection? Schools? Parks? v) Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The objective of SMUD s proposed project, which includes Site A and Site B, is to relocate an existing substation and 69kV subtransmission lines to accommodate the County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project, and to allow for an increase in substation capacity increase from a single to double 20-MVA transformers to meet the expected future increased demand for electrical service in the area. The proposed project is in an area characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. Construction and operation would occur within the area of ground disturbance considered part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. Discussion a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection No Impact ii) Police protection No Impact iii) Schools No Impact iv) Parks No Impact v) Other public facilities No Impact 75

96 The proposed project is expected to result in no change to existing levels of demand for public services or facilities. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to have no impact on public services beyond those previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The findings of that existing EIR, which are summarized above in Section of this IS/MND, are hereby incorporated by reference. 76

97 3.15 Recreation Would the Project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. Construction and operation would occur within the area of ground disturbance considered as part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. No recreational facilities exist in the proposed project area. Discussion a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated No Impact b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment No Impact No recreation resources occur in the project area. Potential impacts on recreation resources were previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The findings of that existing EIR, which are summarized above in Section of this IS/MND, are hereby incorporated by reference. The proposed project would result in no new impacts to recreation, and no mitigation would be required. 77

98 78

99 3.16 Transportation/Traffic Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The proposed project area, which includes Site A and Site B, is in an area characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. Construction and operation would occur within the area of ground disturbance considered as part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. The objective of the SMUD s proposed project is to relocate an existing substation and 69kV subtransmission lines to accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project, and to allow for the eventual increase of substation capacity from single to double 20-MVA transformers to meet the expected future increased demand for electrical service in the area. Discussion a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit No Impact 79

100 b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways No Impact c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks No Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) No Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access No Impact f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities No Impact Construction of SMUD s proposed project would result in a minor, temporary increase in traffic due to construction vehicles. Temporary lane closures may be required during relocation of the 69kV subtransmission line. The frequency of inspections and maintenance with the proposed project would be similar to existing levels, and therefore no change to operation-related traffic is expected. The potential for additional construction vehicles or extended construction duration due to the increased size of the relocated substation is considered a minor, less than significant impact on traffic, intersection operations, and emergency vehicle access, and no mitigation would be required. Potential traffic impacts associated with electrical facility relocation were previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The findings of the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006), which are summarized above in Section of this IS/MND, are hereby incorporated by reference. 80

101 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project s Projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Setting The objective of the SMUD s proposed project, which includes Site A and Site B, is to relocate an existing substation and 69kV subtransmission lines to accommodate the County of Sacramento s Hazel Avenue Widening Project, and to allow for substation capacity increase from a single to double 20-MVA transformers to meet the expected future increased demand for electrical service in the area. The proposed project is in an area characterized by residential and commercial development along Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, in Sacramento County, California. Construction and operation would occur within the area of ground disturbance considered as part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project. Discussion a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board No Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects No Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects No Impact 81

102 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed No Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project s Projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments No Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project s solid waste disposal needs No Impact g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste No Impact The proposed project is expected to result in no change to existing levels of demand for utility services or facilities. The proposed project is expected to have no impact on utility and service systems beyond those previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Widening EIR (DERA 2006). The findings of that existing EIR, which are summarized above in Section of this IS/MND, are hereby incorporated by reference. Expansion of substation capacity would occur to meet increased demands for electrical service if needed in the future. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on utility service systems, and no mitigation would be required. 82

103 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Discussion a) Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory No Impact The proposed project includes the construction and operation of an electrical substation on the vacant parcels of either Site A or Site B, in a residential neighborhood. These two sites formerly contained homes that were removed to accommodate the County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project. Because the proposed project sites have previously been developed and are within a developed neighborhood, their development would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate examples of California history or prehistory. The proposed project, which includes Site A and Site B, would have no impact on these resources and no mitigation would be required. 83

104 b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects) No Impact The proposed project, which includes Site A and Site B, with identified mitigation measures incorporated, would not result in any significant environmental impact. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potential cumulative impact, and no mitigation would be required. c) Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly No Impact The proposed project, which includes Site A and Site B, would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly and no mitigation would be required. 84

105 4 REFERENCES AECOM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 4733 Hazel Avenue APN , Fair Oaks, California. Report prepared for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District by AECOM. September Sacramento, CA. Bollard and Brennan, Inc Noise Study Report, Hazel Avenue Highway 50 to Madison Avenue. Prepared for the County of Sacramento, Department of Environmental Review and Assessment, Sacramento. Bollard and Brennan, Inc. Auburn, CA. Burleson Consulting, Inc Hazel-Timm Substation Relocation/Expansion Sound Assessment. Report prepared for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Sacramento, CA. June. California Air Resources Board Climate Change Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change. Sacramento, CA. County of Sacramento Sacramento County Climate Action Plan: Strategy and Framework Document. Available at: County of Sacramento, Community Planning and Development Department General Plan of Amended November 9, County of Sacramento. Sacramento, CA. County of Sacramento, Department of Environmental Review and Assessment Environmental Impact Report, Hazel Avenue Widening Project Madison Avenue to U.S. Highway 50. Control Number 00-PWE-0594, State Clearinghouse Number: County of Sacramento. Sacramento, CA. County of Sacramento, Planning Division Sacramento County Zoning Code. Accessed on November 14, Nichols Consulting Engineers Report of Findings Hazel Avenue SMUD Parcels 4737 and 4743 Hazel Avenue, Sacramento, California. Report prepared for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District by Nichols Consulting Engineers. July 11, Sacramento, CA. PAR Environmental Services Inc. (PAR). 2004a. Archaeological Survey Report for the Hazel Avenue Widening Project from Madison Avenue to United States Highway 50 County of Sacramento. Prepared for the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. Sacramento, CA. PAR Environmental Services Inc. (PAR). 2004b. Historic Properties Survey Report for the Hazel Avenue Widening Project from Madison Avenue to United States Highway 50 County of Sacramento. Prepared for the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. Sacramento, CA. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District CEQA Guide to Air Quality Assessment. Available: Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. March. White, S Personal communication with Kim Crawford (SMUD). November 19,

106 86

107 5 LIST OF PREPARERS This Recirculated Draft IS/MND was prepared by: Tom Trexler, URS Project Director Trevor Burwell, URS Project Manager, Biological Resources, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Geology/Soils, Mineral Resources, Recreation Douglas Brown, Douglas Environmental, Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Planning, Population and Housing, Mandatory Findings of Significance Ben Elliott, URS, Cultural Resources Megan Giglini, URS, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems Ryan McMullan, URS, Noise Michael Snyder, URS, GIS/Graphics Patti Kroen, URS, Independent Technical Review Marcus Christian, URS, Graphics Vivian Gaddie, URS, Photosimulations Lucy Trumbull, URS, Photosimulations David Lawrence, URS, Photosimulations Darcy Kremin, URS, Independent Technical Review Lisa Daugherty, URS, Technical Editor 87

108 88

109 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Mitigation Measures

110

111 Appendix A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Introduction This mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP) summarizes identified mitigation measures, implementation schedule, and responsible parties for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District s (SMUD s) Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities relocation and Expansion Project (proposed project). SMUD will use this MMRP to ensure that identified mitigation measures, adopted as a condition of project approval, are implemented appropriately. This monitoring plan meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines 14074(d), which mandates preparation of monitoring provisions for the implementation of mitigation assigned as part of project approval or adoption. Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring SMUD will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts associated with the proposed project. While SMUD has ultimate responsibility for ensuring implementation, others have been assigned the responsibility of actually implementing the mitigation. SMUD will retain the primary responsibility for ensuring that the proposed project meets the requirements of this mitigation plan and other permit conditions imposed by participating regulatory agencies. SMUD will designate specific personnel who will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation that will occur during project construction. The designated personnel will be responsible for submitting documentation and reports to SMUD on a schedule consistent with the mitigation measure and in a manner necessary for demonstrating compliance with mitigation requirements. SMUD will ensure that the designated personnel have authority to require implementation of mitigation requirements and will be capable of terminating project construction activities found to be inconsistent with mitigation objectives or project approval conditions. SMUD will be responsible for demonstrating compliance with any agency permit conditions to the appropriate regulatory agency. SMUD will also be responsible for ensuring that its construction personnel understand their responsibilities for adhering to the performance requirements of the mitigation plan and other contractual requirements related to the implementation of mitigation as part of project construction. In addition to the prescribed mitigation measures, Table A-1 lists each identified potential impact, the corresponding monitoring and reporting requirement, and the party responsible for ensuring implementation of the mitigation measure and monitoring effort. Mitigation Enforcement SMUD will be responsible for enforcing mitigation measures. If alternative measures are identified that would be equally effective in mitigating the identified impacts, implementation of these alternative measures will not occur until agreed upon by SMUD.

112 Environmental Criteria Mitigation Implementation Duration Monitoring Duration Responsibility Implementation Monitoring Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent discovery of Historical or Archaeological Resources. Before construction activities, workers shall be informed of the potential historical and archeological resources by a qualified environmental scientist. SMUD shall require that, in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, such finds shall be subject to PRC and CEQA Guidelines Procedures for inadvertent discovery include the following: Construction Construction SMUD SMUD Work within 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a professional archaeologist, or paleontologist if the find is of a paleontological nature, can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with National Register of Historic Places and CRHR criteria. If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, or paleontologist as appropriate, then representatives of SMUD shall meet with the archaeologist, or paleontologist, to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, the Applicant shall provide a Treatment Plan, prepared by an archeologist (or paleontologist), outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and

113 Environmental Criteria Mitigation Implementation Duration Monitoring Duration Responsibility Implementation Monitoring reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan shall be submitted to SMUD for review and approval prior to resuming construction. Significant cultural or paleontological materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by the professional archaeologist, or paleontologist, according to current professional standards. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent discovery of Historical or Archaeological Resources. Before construction activities, workers shall be informed of the potential historical and archeological resources by a qualified environmental scientist. SMUD shall require that, in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, such finds shall be subject to PRC and CEQA Guidelines Procedures for inadvertent discovery include the following: Construction Construction SMUD SMUD Work within 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a professional archaeologist, or paleontologist if the find is of a paleontological nature, can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with National Register of Historic Places and CRHR criteria. If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, or paleontologist as

114 Environmental Criteria Mitigation Implementation Duration Monitoring Duration Responsibility Implementation Monitoring appropriate, then representatives of SMUD shall meet with the archaeologist, or paleontologist, to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, the Applicant shall provide a Treatment Plan, prepared by an archeologist (or paleontologist), outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan shall be submitted to SMUD for review and approval prior to resuming construction. Significant cultural or paleontological materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by the professional archaeologist, or paleontologist, according to current professional standards. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent discovery of Historical or Archaeological Resources. Before construction activities, workers shall be informed of the potential historical and archeological resources by a qualified environmental scientist. SMUD shall require that, in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, such finds shall be subject to PRC and CEQA Guidelines Procedures for inadvertent discovery include the following: Construction Construction SMUD SMUD Work within 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a professional archaeologist, or

115 Environmental Criteria Mitigation Implementation Duration Monitoring Duration Responsibility Implementation Monitoring paleontologist if the find is of a paleontological nature, can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with National Register of Historic Places and CRHR criteria. If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, or paleontologist as appropriate, then representatives of SMUD shall meet with the archaeologist, or paleontologist, to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, the Applicant shall provide a Treatment Plan, prepared by an archeologist (or paleontologist), outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan shall be submitted to SMUD for review and approval prior to resuming construction. Significant cultural or paleontological materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by the professional archaeologist, or paleontologist, according to current professional standards. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Immediately Halt Construction if Human Remains are Discovered and Implement California Health and Safety Code. If human remains are discovered during the Project s construction activities, the requirements of HSC must be followed. Potentially damaging excavation must halt in the area of the Construction Construction SMUD SMUD

116 Environmental Criteria Mitigation Implementation Duration Monitoring Duration Responsibility Implementation Monitoring Less than Significant with Mitigation remains, with a minimum radius of 50 feet, and the local County Coroner must be notified. The Coroner is required to examine discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (HSC [b]). If the Coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (HSC 7050[c]). Pursuant to the provisions of PRC , the NAHC shall identify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD designated by the NAHC shall have at least 48 hours to inspect the site and propose treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods. Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment Less than Significant with Mitigation Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement Additional Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions SMUD shall implement the following additional practices for the proposed project: Train equipment operators in proper use of equipment. Maintain construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated. Construction Construction SMUD SMUD

117 Environmental Criteria Mitigation Implementation Duration Monitoring Duration Responsibility Implementation Monitoring Use the proper size of equipment for the job. Implementation of the above listed measures will maintain the Project s construction-related GHG emissions at a less than significant level.

118

119 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations

120

121 Appendix B Air Quality URBEMIS Modeling Results - Criteria Pollutants (Pounds per Day) Page: 1 11/12/ :06:56 PM File Name: Project Name: SMUD Hazel Avenue Substation Project Location: Sacramento County AQMD Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES 2013 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 2013 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) 2014 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 2014 TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Page Appendix B Air-1

122 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust Time Slice 2/4/ /8/2013 Active Days: 5 Fine Grading /04/ /08/2013 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/11/ /22/2013 Active Days: 10 Asphalt 02/11/ /22/2013 Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Time Slice 2/25/ /28/2013 Active Days: 90 Building 02/25/ /28/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 9/2/ /29/2013 Active Days: 65 Demolition 09/02/ /29/2013 Fugitive Dust Demo Off Road Diesel Demo On Road Diesel Demo Worker Trips Page Appendix B Air-2

123 Time Slice 3/3/2014-4/25/2014 Active Days: 40 Building 03/03/ /25/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 9/2/ /29/ Exising Substation Demolition Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 8000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 200 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2.78 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other Material Handling Equipment (191 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 2/4/2013-2/8/ Site Preparation Total Acres Disturbed: 0.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page Appendix B Air-3

124 Phase: Paving 2/11/2013-2/22/ Concrete Pouring and Gravel Bed Acres to be Paved: 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/25/2013-6/28/ Substation Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 3/3/2014-4/25/ Subtransmission Line Extension Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Off Highway Trucks (479 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Other Material Handling Equipment (191 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust Time Slice 2/4/ /8/2013 Active Days: 5 Fine Grading /04/ /08/2013 Fine Grading Dust Page Appendix B Air-4

125 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/11/ /22/2013 Active Days: 10 Asphalt 02/11/ /22/2013 Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Time Slice 2/25/ /28/2013 Active Days: 90 Building 02/25/ /28/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 9/2/ /29/2013 Active Days: 65 Demolition 09/02/ /29/2013 Fugitive Dust Demo Off Road Diesel Demo On Road Diesel Demo Worker Trips Time Slice 3/3/2014-4/25/2014 Active Days: 40 Building 03/03/ /25/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Page Appendix B Air-5

126 Building Worker Trips Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 2/4/2013-2/8/ Site Preparation For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% Page Appendix B Air-6

127 URBEMIS Modeling Results - Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Tons per Year) Page: 1 11/12/ :07:21 PM File Name: Project Name: SMUD Hazel Avenue Substation Project Location: Sacramento County AQMD Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 2013 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) Percent Reduction TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 2014 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) Percent Reduction Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO Page Appendix B Air-7

128 Fine Grading 02/04/ /08/ Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Asphalt 02/11/ /22/ Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/25/ /28/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Demolition 09/02/ /29/ Fugitive Dust Demo Off Road Diesel Demo On Road Diesel Demo Worker Trips Building 03/03/ /25/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Page Appendix B Air-8

129 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 9/2/ /29/ Exising Substation Demolition Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 8000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 200 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 2.78 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other Material Handling Equipment (191 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 2/4/2013-2/8/ Site Preparation Total Acres Disturbed: 0.5 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/11/2013-2/22/ Concrete Pouring and Gravel Bed Acres to be Paved: 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day Page Appendix B Air-9

130 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/25/2013-6/28/ Substation Construction Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 3/3/2014-4/25/ Subtransmission Line Extension Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Off Highway Trucks (479 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other Equipment (190 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Other Material Handling Equipment (191 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page Appendix B Air-10

131 APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Noise Technical Report

132

133 Noise Technical Report Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Fair Oaks, California Prepared for: Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street Mailstop B203 Sacramento, CA Prepared by: URS Corporation 2020 East First Street, Suite 400 Santa Ana, CA (714) Fax: (714)

134

135 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction Fundamentals of Acoustics Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards... 5 County of Sacramento Significance Criteria Environmental Setting Construction Noise...13 Site A Construction Noise Site B Construction Noise Operational Noise...23 Site A Onsite Operational Noise Site B Onsite Operational Noise Site A and B Offsite Operational Noise Tables Table 1. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments Table 2. Non-Transportation Noise Standards for the County of Sacramento Table 3. County of Sacramento Exterior Noise Level Standards Table hour Sound Level Measurement at LT-1 (dba) Table 5. Noise Levels for Typical Construction Equipment Table 6. Noise Levels Generated by New Substation Construction Activities Table 7. Noise Levels Generated by Existing Substation Dismantling Activities Table 8. Noise Levels Generated by Subtransmission Line Construction Activities Table 9. Noise Reduction Coefficient Temporary Acoustical Barriers Table 10. Site A Option - Daytime Noise Levels at Modeled Receivers with Onsite Temporary Oil Processing Activities Table 11. Site A Option - Nighttime Noise Levels at Modeled Receivers with Onsite Temporary Oil Processing Activities Table 12. Site B Option - Daytime Noise Levels at Modeled Receivers with Onsite Temporary Oil Processing Activities Table 13. Site B Option - Nighttime Noise Levels at Modeled Receivers with Onsite Temporary Oil Processing Activities Table 14. Change in Daytime Noise Levels at Modeled Receivers Due to Implementation of Site A Substation Option Table 15. Change in Nighttime Noise Levels at Modeled Receivers Due to Implementation of Site A Substation Option Table 16. Change in Daytime Noise Levels at Modeled Receivers Due to Implementation of Site B Option i November 2013

136 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Tables Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 17. Change in Nighttime Noise Levels at Modeled Receivers Due to Implementation of Site B Option Figures Figure 1. Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location and Proposed Project Site A Figure 2. Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location and Proposed Project Site B Figure 3. Temporary Acoustical Blanket - Example Figure 4. Site A Option Temporary Noise Levels Generated by Oil Processing Activities Figure 5. Site B Option Temporary Noise Levels Generated by Oil Processing Activities Figure 6. Site A Option - Noise Levels Generated by Proposed Operational Hazel-Sunset Substation Figure 7. Site B Option - Noise Levels Generated by Proposed Operational Hazel-Sunset Substation Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Ambient Noise Level Data Field Measurement Sheet Ambient Noise Level Field Measurement Site Photographs Certification of Calibration for Ambient Noise Survey Equipment Acronyms Cadna/A CEQA CNEL db dba FHWA Hz kv L eq L dn L max L min L xx MVA computer-aided noise abatement California Environmental Quality Act community noise equivalent level decibel a-weighted sound pressure level Federal Highway Administration hertz kilovolts equivalent sound level day-night average sound level maximum sound level minimum sound level percentile-exceeded sound level megavolts ampere ii November 2013

137 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Acronyms SLM sound level meter SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District µpa micropascals Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project iii November 2013

138 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project iv November 2013

139 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project 1.0 Introduction The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is proposing to relocate the existing 3,200-squarefoot Hazel-Timm substation, which consists of a single 20 MVA transformer, located along the western side of Hazel Avenue in the community of Fair Oaks, Sacramento County, California. The existing substation is located at 4665 Hazel Avenue (south of Timm Avenue and directly west of the Kruitof Way/Hazel intersection). The new Hazel-Sunset substation site would be approximately 600 feet north of the existing substation and would be located at the 4700 block of Hazel Avenue in-between Sunset Avenue and Timm Avenue. SMUD is also proposing to slightly alter the proposed alignment for the overhead 69,000 volt (69kV) subtransmission line that would connect to the relocated substation. The new Hazel-Sunset substation would initially contain one 20 MVA transformer and supporting equipment (e.g., switch gear, capacitors, wiring and cooling fans). In the future, when increased electrical load in the area requires additional capacity, the substation would be upgraded with an additional 20 MVA transformer and associated equipment. SMUD is considering two optional locations for the new relocated substation. SMUD will evaluate the following substation optional sites: Site A (southern site): A substation located at 4737 and 4733 Hazel Avenue. This substation option would be square-shaped measuring approximately 160 feet by 140 feet (0.50 acre). This substation location was previously evaluated in the 2011 Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project IS/MND. Site B (northern site): A substation located at 4743, 4737, and a portion of 4733 Hazel Avenue. This substation option would be rectangular-shaped measuring approximately 200 feet by 120 feet (0.50 acre) with the exception of a section excluded for parking for the adjacent storage facility. In addition, this option would include an additional approximately 0.10 acre of property located west of the substation, which would not be incorporated into the substation footprint. For Sites A and B, up to one to three feet of fill would be placed at the site to achieve positive drainage. Consistent with SMUD substation security standards, the new substation would be enclosed by a minimum height 10-foot masonry wall. Access to the site would be provided via a 30-foot wide gate on Hazel Avenue. The Hazel Widening Environmental Impact Report (DERA 2006) assumed that the existing above ground 12kV line along Hazel Avenue would be installed underground and a new 69kV line would be routed along Hazel Avenue in two phases. Phase I would extend north from the American River Bridge to Sunset Avenue and Phase II would extend from Sunset Avenue to Madison Avenue. To accommodate the road widening, the new 69kV line is requires replacing up to 32 existing wooden poles. This analysis evaluates the temporary construction and long-term operational noise expected to be generated at nearby noise-sensitive receptors due to the relocation of the Hazel-Timm substation and 69kV subtransmission line. The construction and operational noise analysis includes the dismantling of the existing Hazel-Timm Substation and the build-out of both 20 MVA transformers at the new Hazel- Sunset Substation. Expected noise levels are compared to the applicable noise standards and potential noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to Sites A and B are identified. 1 November 2013

140 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project 2.0 Fundamentals of Acoustics Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated with human activity and interferes with or disrupts normal activities. Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to typical environmental noise exposure levels is annoyance. The responses of individuals to similar noise events are diverse and influenced by many factors including the type of noise, the perceived importance of the noise, its appropriateness to the setting, the time of day and the type of activity during which the noise occurs, and noise sensitivity of the individual. Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by several variables, including frequency and amplitude. Frequency describes the sound s pitch (tone) and is measured in cycles per second (Hertz [Hz]), while amplitude describes the sound s pressure (loudness). Because the range of sound pressures that occur in the environment is extremely large, it is convenient to express these pressures on a logarithmic scale that compresses the wide range of pressures into a more useful range of numbers. The standard unit of sound pressure measurement is the decibel (db). Outdoor sound levels decrease logarithmically as the distance from the source increases. This is due to wave divergence, atmospheric absorption, and ground attenuation. Sound radiating from a source in a homogeneous and undisturbed manner travels in spherical waves. As the sound waves travel away from the source, the sound energy is dispersed over a greater area decreasing the sound pressure of the wave. Spherical spreading of the sound wave reduces the noise level at a rate of 6 db per doubling of distance. Atmospheric absorption also influences the sound levels received by an observer. The greater the distance traveled, the greater the influence of the atmosphere and the resultant fluctuations. Atmospheric absorption becomes important at distances greater than 1,000 feet. The degree of absorption varies depending on the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity and temperature of the air. For example, atmospheric absorption is lowest (i.e., sound carries further) at high humidity and high temperatures and lower frequencies are less readily absorbed (i.e., sound carries further) than higher frequencies. Over long distances, lower frequencies become dominant as the higher frequencies are more rapidly attenuated. Turbulence, gradients of wind and other atmospheric phenomena also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation. Certain conditions, such as temperature inversions can channel or focus the sound waves resulting in higher noise levels than would result from simple spherical spreading. Hertz is a measure of how many times each second the crest of a sound pressure wave passes a fixed point. For example, when a drummer beats a drum, the skin of the drum vibrates a number of times per second. When the drum skin vibrates 100 times per second it generates a sound pressure wave that is oscillating at 100 Hz, and this pressure oscillation is perceived by the ear/brain as a tonal pitch of 100 Hz. Sound frequencies between 20 and 20,000 Hz are within the range of sensitivity of the healthy human ear. Sound from a tuning fork contains a single frequency (a pure tone), but most sounds one hears in the environment do not consist of a single frequency but rather a broad band of many frequencies differing in sound level. Because of the broad range of audible frequencies, methods have been developed to quantify these values into a single number. The most common method used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that is reflective of human hearing. Human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at 2 November 2013

141 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project the mid-range frequencies. This process of discriminating frequencies based upon human sensitivity is termed A weighting, and the resulting db level is termed the A weighted decibel (dba). A weighting" is widely used in local noise ordinances and state and federal guidelines. In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dba curve. Unless specifically noted, the use of A weighting is always assumed with respect to environmental sound and community noise even if the notation does not show the A. A-weighted sound pressure levels of typical sources of noise are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments. Noise Source (at a given distance) Commercial Jet Take-Off (200 feet) Scale of dba Sound Levels Noise Environment 120 Threshold of pain *32 times as loud Pile Driver (50 feet) 110 Rock Music Concert *16 times as loud Ambulance Siren (100 feet) Newspaper Press (5 feet) Power Lawn Mower (3 feet) Motorcycle (25 feet) Propeller Plane Flyover (1,000 feet) Diesel Truck, 40 mph (50 feet) 100 Very loud *8 times as loud 90 Boiler Room Printing Press Plant Garbage Disposal (3 feet) 80 High Urban Ambient Sound Passenger Car, 65 mph (25 feet) Vacuum Cleaner (10 ft.) Normal Conversation (5 feet) Air Conditioning Unit (100 feet) Human Judgment of Noise Loudness (Relative to a Reference Loudness of 70 dbs*) *4 times as loud *2 times as loud 70 Moderately loud *70 decibels (Reference loudness) 60 Data Processing Center Department Store *1/2 as loud Light Traffic (100 feet) 50 Private Business Office *1/4 as loud Bird Calls (distant) 40 Lower Limit of Urban Ambient Sound Soft. Whisper (5 feet) 30 Quiet Bedroom Quiet *1/8 as loud 20 Recording Studio Very quiet 10 0 Threshold of hearing Source: Compiled by URS Corporation (2007). Because of the logarithmic nature of the db unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted linearly and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically; however, there are common rules useful in dealing with sound levels. First, if a sound s intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 db, regardless of the initial sound level. Thus, for example: 60 db + 60 db = 63 db, and 80 db + 80 db = 83 db. Second, noise levels from point sources, such as a substation, decrease by approximately 6 db per doubling of distance. 3 November 2013

142 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Although dba may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most ambient environmental noise includes a mixture of noise from nearby and distant sources that creates an ebb and flow of sound including some identifiable sources plus a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. A single descriptor called the equivalent sound level (L eq ) is used to describe sound that is constant or changing in level. L eq is the energy-mean dba during a measured time interval. It is the equivalent constant sound level that would have to be produced by a given constant source to equal the acoustic energy contained in the fluctuating sound level measured during the interval. The L eq is the base metric used to establish other measures of environmental noise, such as the Day-Night Level (L dn ) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). In addition to L eq, it is often desirable to know the acoustic range of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished through the maximum L eq (L max ) and minimum L eq (L min ). These values represent the root-mean-square maximum and minimum noise levels measured during the monitoring interval. The L min value obtained for a particular monitoring location is often called the acoustic floor for that location. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical or percentile noise descriptors L 10, L 50, and L 90 may be used. These are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of the measured time interval. Sound levels associated with L 10 typically describe transient or short-term events, such as car and truck pass-bys. Sound levels are higher than this value only 10 percent of the measurement time. L 50 represents the median sound level during the measurement interval. Levels would be above and below this value exactly one-half of the measurement time. L 90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often used to describe background noise conditions. Ninety percent of the time, measured levels are higher than this value, and therefore the L 90 represents the environment at its quietest periods. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (L dn or DNL) is a cumulative noise metric and represents the average sound level for a 24-hour day. DNL is calculated from the L eq by adding a 10 db penalty to sounds that occur during the night period (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The DNL is the descriptor of choice used by nearly all federal, state, and local agencies throughout the United States to define acceptable land use compatibility with respect to noise. Within the State of California, the CNEL is sometimes used instead of DNL. CNEL is very similar to DNL, except that an additional 5 db penalty is applied to sounds that occur during the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). Because of the time-of-day penalties associated with the DNL and CNEL descriptors, the DNL or CNEL dba value for a continuously operating sound source during a 24-hour period would be numerically greater than the dba value of the 24-hour L eq. Thus, for a continuously operating noise source producing a constant noise level operating for periods of 24 hours or more, the DNL would be 6 db higher than the L eq value. Humans are better able to perceive changes in noise level than absolute noise levels. Potential responses of persons to changes in the noise environment are usually assessed by evaluating differences between the existing and total predicted future noise environments. The following relationships of perception and response to quantifiable noise changes are used as a basis for assessing potential effects of these changes in environmental noise level: 4 November 2013

143 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Except in a carefully controlled laboratory condition, a change of 1 dba is very difficult to perceive. In the outside environment, a 3 dba change is considered just perceptible. An increase of 5 dba is considered readily perceptible and would generally result in a change in community response. A 10 dba increase is perceived as a doubling in loudness and would likely result in a widespread community response. 3.0 Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards The applicable laws, ordinances, regulations or standards and noise guidelines used at the local level for planning purposes are presented in the following paragraphs. Local noise guidelines are often based on the broader guidelines of state and federal agencies and many are implemented as enforceable noise ordinances. County of Sacramento The Noise Element of the County of Sacramento General Plan uses noise levels expressed in L 50 and L max for community noise planning purposes for noise generated by non-transportation noise sources at noisesensitive areas. Table 2 is reproduced from Table 2 of the County of Sacramento Noise Element. Policy NO-5 of the Noise Element states the following in regards to new noise-sensitive areas: The interior and exterior noise level standards for noise-sensitive areas of new uses affected by existing non-transportation noise sources in Sacramento County are shown in Table 2. Where the noise level standards of Table 2 are predicted to be exceeded at a proposed noise-sensitive area due to nontransportation noise sources, appropriate noise mitigation measures shall be included in the project design to reduce projected noise levels to a state of compliance with the Table 2 standards within sensitive areas. The Noise Element applies the same noise level standards found in Table 2 of the Noise Element to planned projects that have the potential to affect existing noise-sensitive land uses. Policy NO-6 of the Noise Element states the following: Where a project would consist of or include non-transportation noise sources, the noise generation of those sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the interior and exterior noise level standards of Table 2 at existing noise-sensitive areas in the project vicinity. In regards to which land use should provide the necessary mitigation, Policy NO-7 of the Noise Element states the following: The last use there shall be responsible for noise mitigation. However, if a noise generating use is proposed adjacent to lands zoned for uses which may have sensitivity to noise, then the noise generating use shall be responsible for mitigating its noise to a state of compliance with the Table 2 standards at the property line of the generating use in anticipation of the future neighboring development. As seen in Table 2, for community planning purposes, the maximum allowable exterior noise level standards at residential land uses during daytime hours are 55 dba L 50 and 75 dba L max. During 5 November 2013

144 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project nighttime hours, the maximum allowable interior noise level standards at residential land uses are 35 dba L 50 and 55 dba L max. Table 2. Non-Transportation Noise Standards for the County of Sacramento. Source: County of Sacramento General Plan Noise Element, November 2013

145 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project The County of Sacramento has established exterior noise standards within the County of Sacramento Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance. The Noise Control Ordinance lists 55 dba L 50 daytime and 50 dba L 50 nighttime exterior noise level standards for residential zoning districts and allows for increased noise levels within an hour over shorter periods of time. Table 3 summarizes the allowable exterior noise level thresholds for each cumulative period of time. If the ambient noise level exceeds that permitted by any of the first four noise-limit categories listed in Table 3, then the allowable noise limit shall be increased in five dba increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level exceeds the allowable L max, then the maximum ambient noise level shall be the noise level limit for that category. Table 3. County of Sacramento Exterior Noise Level Standards. Maximum Time of Exposure Noise Metric 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Daytime) 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Nighttime) 30 Minutes/Hour L dba 50 dba 15 Minutes/Hour L dba 55 dba 5 Minutes/Hour L dba 60 dba 1 Minute/Hour L dba 65 dba Any Period of Time L max 75 dba 70 dba Source: County of Sacramento Noise Control Code, 2012 The County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance states that the location for measuring exterior ambient noise levels should be made at least one-foot inside the property line of the affected residential property. It goes on to state that, where feasible, the microphone shall be at a height of three to five feet above ground level and shall be at least four feet from walls or similar reflecting surfaces. Temporary construction noise is also addressed in the Noise Ordinance. The County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance also establishes construction noise exempt hours by stating the following exemption: Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on Saturday; Saturdays commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of 8:00 p.m. 7 November 2013

146 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project 4.0 Significance Criteria Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines is provided to assist in evaluation of the significance of new noise sources or noise-sensitive development. Appendix G indicates that a noise impact is normally considered significant if it would result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Based on these guidelines and relevant local, state, and federal standards, the following thresholds of significance for CEQA have developed impacts for the purposes of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. A noise impact is considered significant if project operations would cause the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dba or greater, or cause the measured ambient noise level measured at the property line of the nearest residential land uses to exceed the County of Sacramento s daytime or nighttime noise standards of 55 or 50 dba L 50, respectively. 5.0 Environmental Setting An ambient noise survey was conducted October 30, 2012 and October 31, The existing noise environment was measured adjacent to the nearest noise-sensitive receiver located on the parcel immediately west of both Site A and Site B of the proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation. This single-family home is located at the east end of Barrister Lane. Residential and commercial land uses compose a majority of the uses along Hazel Avenue. The land uses surrounding the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Sites A and B are primarily residential except for a self-storage facility less than 100 feet north of the project sites. A 24-hour long-term measurement was conducted in order to quantify noise exposure in the site environs in the vicinity of noise-sensitive receivers that may be impacted by noise generated by operation of the proposed Hazel- Sunset substation. A map depicting the noise measurement location, Site A, and the surrounding environs is shown in Figure 1 and a map depicting the noise measurement location, Site B, and the surrounding environs is shown in Figure 2. The noise measurement data collected during the ambient noise survey is suitable for describing the existing noise environments for both Sites A and B. During the noise measurement, the temperature was near 67º Fahrenheit with a relative humidity of 75 percent. Winds ranged from calm to light and were rarely at speeds over 5 mph. The sky ranged from clear to partly cloudy throughout the entire noise measurement period. The sound level meter (SLM) was set to measure dba noise levels at the slow meter response setting in accordance with standard practice for environmental noise measurements. The SLM was located in a location that was considered to 8 November 2013

147 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project represent the typical ambient noise level at the noise-sensitive receptor located immediately west of the proposed project site and at many of the other noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the proposed project site. The SLM was mounted to a tree located approximately 10 to 12 feet east and on the Hazel Avenue side of the fence surrounding the noise-sensitive receiver s property. The SLM was calibrated before and after the measurement period. Existing noise levels for the noise measurement site are presented below. The field measurement data sheet can be found in Appendix A. Pictures of the mounted SLM at long-term site LT-1 can be found in Appendix B. Certificates of calibration for the equipment used during the ambient noise level survey can be found in Appendix C. LT-1: The noise-sensitive receiver located at LT-1 is a single-family, private property residence located at the east end of Barrister Lane and immediately west of, and adjacent to, both proposed Hazel-Sunset substation sites. The address of the residence is 8837 Barrister Lane. The easternmost extent of the property is located approximately 225 feet west of the centerline of Hazel Avenue. Table 4 lists the results of the long-term measurement conducted at measurement site LT-1. The daytime L eq was 62.7 dba and the lowest hourly daytime L eq was 61.2 dba. The lowest hourly daytime L 50 was 59.2 dba. This level exceeds the 55 dba L 50 daytime noise standard and becomes the new standard for daytime hours. The nighttime L eq was 58.9 dba and the lowest hourly nighttime L eq was 52.1 dba. The lowest hourly nighttime L 50 was 42.3 dba. 9 November 2013

148 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Figure 1. Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location and Proposed Project Site A. 10 November 2013

149 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Figure 2. Ambient Noise Level Measurement Location and Proposed Project Site B. 11 November 2013

150 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project The nighttime noise standard remains 50 dba L 50. This is the most restrictive noise level applicable to the project. Vehicular traffic along Hazel Avenue was the predominant noise source throughout the entire measurement period. The Peak Traffic Noise Hour was 5:00 p.m. (1700) 6:00 p.m. (1800). The L eq for this period was 64.3 dba. Table hour Sound Level Measurement at LT-1 (dba). Date and Time (Hour- Starting) L eq L max L 10 L 50 L 90 L min 10/30/12 12: /30/12 13: /30/12 14: /30/12 15: /30/12 16: /30/12 17: /30/12 18: /30/12 19: /30/12 20: /30/12 21: /30/12 22: /30/12 23: /31/12 0: /31/12 1: /31/12 2: /31/12 3: /31/12 4: /31/12 5: /31/12 6: /31/12 7: /31/12 8: /31/12 9: /31/12 10: /31/12 11: Source: URS Corporation, Notes: Measurements conducted on October 30 and 31, Measurement Location: N , W hour L eq = 61.6 dba Daytime L eq = 62.7 dba Nighttime L eq = 58.9 dba L dn = 66.1 CNEL = November 2013

151 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project 6.0 Construction Noise Project construction would result in a short-term temporary increase in the ambient noise levels near construction activities. Noise would result from the operation of construction equipment and constructionrelated vehicular traffic. The increased noise level would be primarily experienced close to the noise source (in the vicinity of the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation). The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, the noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the duration of the construction phase, and the distance between the noise source and receptor. As part of substation construction, transformer oil may require processing by an oil processor and generator (oil processing unit) depending on the moisture content of the delivered transformer oil. It is unknown at this time if the oil processing would be required or would be conducted offsite or at the new Hazel-Sunset substation. Site A Construction Noise There are four primary construction activities related to the proposed project Site A option. These activities include new substation construction, existing substation dismantling, subtransmission line construction, and potential onsite oil processing activities. Construction of the new substation is anticipated to start in early summer 2014 and would continue for approximately 5 months. Once the new substation is operational, the dismantling of the old substation would require approximately 3 months starting in winter 2014/2015. Dismantling of the old substation would not start until the new substation is energized and in service. The proposed change in the subtransmission line extension over Hazel Avenue would occur in spring Replacing the poles and subtransmission line, would require approximately 1 month. The exact locations for the poles for both phases of the proposed 69kV subtransmission line route have not been finalized. Construction activities will be conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. These hours are within the City and County s prescribed timeframes for construction activities to avoid or minimize noise impacts. If onsite oil processing is required for Site A, the oil processing unit would be set up inside the new substation masonry walls and operated for up to 24 continuous hours with temporary acoustical barriers surrounding the unit. Table 5 lists typical construction noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet. The sound levels would be attenuated with distance from the source by a variety of mechanisms, but the most significant of these mechanisms is the diversion of sound waves with distance from the source (attenuation by divergence). In general, this mechanism results in a 6 dba decrease in the sound level with every doubling of distance from the source (Diehl, 1973). Therefore, at a distance of 100 feet, the noise levels would be about 6 dba lower than at the 50-foot reference distance. Similarly, at a distance of 200 feet, the noise levels would be approximately 12 dba lower than at the 50-foot reference distance. The typical usage factors for each type of construction equipment are also listed in Table 5. The usage factor is the percentage of time within an hour that the piece of equipment is typically in operation. For the purpose of noise modeling, the usage factors from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model have been applied to each piece of equipment that would be utilized during each construction activity. The distance to the County of Sacramento s 50 dba L 50 nighttime noise criterion for each piece of equipment can also be found in Table November 2013

152 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 list the major construction equipment that would be utilized during construction of the new substation, dismantling of the existing substation, and construction of the 69kV subtransmission line, respectively. The total L eq value at a distance of 50 feet from each construction activity is listed at the bottom of each table. Table 5. Noise Levels for Typical Construction Equipment. Equipment Description Usage Factor (%) Impact Device? Reference L 50ft (dba, slow) Distance At Which Noise Level = 50 dba* (ft.) All Other Equipment > 5 HP 50 No 85 2,812 Auger Drill Rig 20 No 84 2,506 Backhoe 40 No 78 1,256 Bar Bender 20 No 80 1,581 Boring Jack Power Unit 50 No 83 2,233 Chain Saw 20 No 84 2,506 Clam Shovel (dropping) 20 Yes 87 6,295 Compactor (ground) 20 No 78 1,256 Compressor (air) 40 No 85 2,812 Concrete Batch Plant 15 No 83 2,233 Concrete Mixer Truck 40 No 79 1,409 Concrete Pump Truck 40 No 81 1,774 Concrete Saw 20 No 90 5,000 Crane 16 No 81 1,774 Dozer 40 No 82 1,991 Drill Rig Truck 20 No 79 1,409 Drum Mixer 50 No 80 1,581 Dump Truck 40 No Excavator 40 No 81 1,774 Flat Bed Truck 40 No 84 2,506 Front End Loader 40 No 79 1,409 Generator 50 No 81 1,774 Generator (<25KVA, VMS Signs) 50 No 85 2,812 Gradall 40 No 83 2,233 Grader 40 No 85 2,812 Grapple (on backhoe) 40 No 82 1,991 Horizontal Boring Hydraulic Jack 25 No 85 2,812 Hydra Break Ram 10 Yes 90 8, November 2013

153 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 5. Noise Levels for Typical Construction Equipment. Equipment Description Usage Factor (%) Impact Device? Reference L 50ft (dba, slow) Distance At Which Noise Level = 50 dba* (ft.) Jackhammer 20 Yes 89 7,924 Man Lift 20 No Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 20 Yes 90 8,891 Pavement Scarifier 20 No 90 5,000 Paver 50 No 77 1,119 Pickup Truck 40 No Pile Driver /Vib 20 No 95 8,891 Pile Driver/Impact 20 Yes 95 15,811 Pneumatic Tools 50 No 85 2,812 Pumps 50 No 81 1,774 Refrigerator Unit 100 No Rivet Buster/Chipping Gun 20 Yes 79 2,506 Rock Drill 20 No 81 1,774 Roller 20 No 80 1,581 Sand Blasting (single nozzle) 20 No 96 9,418 Scraper 40 No 84 2,506 Sheers (on backhoe) 40 No 96 9,976 Slurry Plant 100 No 78 1,256 Slurry Trenching Machine 50 No 80 1,581 Soil Mix Drill Rig 50 No 80 1,581 Tractor 40 No 84 2,506 Vacuum Excavator (Vac-Truck) 40 No 85 2,812 Vacuum Street Sweeper 10 No 82 1,991 Ventilation Fan 100 No 79 1,409 Vibrating Hopper 50 No 87 3,540 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 20 No 80 1,581 Warning Horn 5 No 83 2,233 Welder/Torch 40 No *Impact devices are penalized by an additional 5 dba Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division, Cambridge, MA. Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01, (2006). URS Corporation calculations (2012). 15 November 2013

154 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 6. Noise Levels Generated by Substation Construction. Equipment Quantity Usage Factor (%) Individual L max for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Individual L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Total L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Crane Backhoe Cement Truck Grader Line Truck Pickup Truck Wheel Tractor-Trailer TOTAL L eq (at 50 feet) 83.8 Source: Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01, (2006). URS Corporation calculations (2012). Table 7. Noise Levels Generated by Substation Dismantling. Equipment Quantity Usage Factor (%) Individual L max for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Individual L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Total L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Crane Backhoe Dump Truck Wheel Tractor Trailer Pickup Truck TOTAL L eq (at 50 feet) 79.8 Source: Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01, (2006). URS Corporation calculations (2012). Table 8. Noise Levels Generated by Subtransmission Line Construction Equipment Quantity Usage Factor (%) Individual L max for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Individual L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Total L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Pickup Truck Line Truck Drill Rig Truck November 2013

155 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 8. Noise Levels Generated by Subtransmission Line Construction Equipment Quantity Usage Factor (%) Individual L max for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Individual L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) Total L eq for Equipment at 50 feet (dba) TOTAL L eq (at 50 feet) 78.6 Source: Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01, (2006). URS Corporation calculations (2012). New substation construction, existing substation dismantling, and subtransmission line construction activities associated with Site A are planned to be conducted during construction noise exempt hours with the exception of transformer oil processing activities described below. Construction traffic would occur during construction noise exempt hours. Therefore, construction noise generated by these activities for proposed project Site A is considered less than significant. The anticipated noise levels generated by the operation of the oil processing unit at nearby noise-sensitive receivers are compared to existing ambient noise levels near Site A in addition to the applicable County of Sacramento exterior noise level standards. Cadna/A was used to create a virtual model of the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Site A and the surrounding community. Cadna/A is a three dimensional software program that is utilized for prediction and assessment of noise levels in the vicinity of industrial noise sources. The program uses internationally recognized algorithms (ISO ) for the propagation of sound outdoors to calculate noise levels, and presents the resultant noise levels in an easy to understand, graphically-oriented or tabular format. The program allows for input of pertinent features (such as terrain, structures and other barriers) that affect noise. Digital Terrain Modeling was used to account for elevation and terrain features. Cadna/A accounts for topography, barrier effects, intervening structures, atmospheric attenuation, and attenuation due to sound wave divergence. The result is a highly accurate estimate of predicted noise levels. SMUD would construct the Hazel-Sunset substation with 10-foot minimum height masonry walls surrounding the substation with a 30-foot woven mesh entry gate on the east side with access to Hazel Avenue. The masonry walls and temporary acoustical barriers that would be utilized to enclose the oil processing unit on all four sides were input into the Cadna/A noise model. Acoustical Surfaces, Inc. provides the Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) for their temporary acoustical barriers and barriers similar to this would be used onsite during oil processing activities. Table 9 lists the NRC for the temporary acoustical barriers and the values listed were input into the Cadna/A noise model for the barriers. The dimensions of the temporary acoustical barriers would be 10 feet (long) x 7.5 feet (wide) x 10 feet (tall). Figure 3 illustrates an example of a temporary acoustical barrier. 17 November 2013

156 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 9. Noise Reduction Coefficient Temporary Acoustical Barriers Frequency NRC 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1KHz 2KHz 4KHz Figure 3. Temporary Acoustical Blanket - Example Based on noise measurements conducted at SMUD s Hurley Substation, the oil processing unit generates noise levels of 69.5 dba at a distance of 50 feet. Using this information, noise sources for the oil processing unit were input into the Cadna/A noise model in order to generate noise contours that reflect oil processing activities at the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Site A option. The oil processing unit and temporary acoustical barriers would be located in the northeast corner of the proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation site. Four modeled receivers (MR-1 through MR-4) were input into the Cadna/A noise model in order to quantify the noise generated by oil processing at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. The location of the long-term measurement site, modeled receivers, temporary acoustical barriers, and 10-foot masonry wall, in addition to the noise contours generated by the oil processing activities for the Site A option, are depicted in Figure 4. Table 10 lists the predicted noise levels generated by the oil processing unit at the modeled receivers, the measured daytime lowest hourly L 50, and the adjusted daytime noise standard. Table 11 lists the predicted noise levels generated by the oil processing unit at the modeled receivers and the County of Sacramento s nighttime noise standard. 18 November 2013

157 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Figure 4. Temporary Oil Processing Noise Levels at Site A. 19 November 2013

158 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 10. Daytime Noise from Oil Processing at Site A Modeled Receiver Location Oil Processing Unit Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Adjusted County of Sacramento Daytime Noise Standard (dba L 50 ) Meets County of Sacramento Noise Standard (yes/no?) MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes Source: URS Corporation calculations (2013). Table 11. Nighttime Noise from Oil Processing at Site A Modeled Receiver Location Oil Processing Unit Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) County of Sacramento Nighttime Noise Standard (dba L 50 ) Meets County of Sacramento Noise Standard (yes/no?) MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes Source: URS Corporation calculations (2013). According to the County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance, construction noise is exempt from local standards from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends. The oil processing unit would operate for up to 24 continuous hours. Construction noise generated by the oil processing unit is exempt from local exterior noise standards during construction noise exempt hours. The County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance states that if the measured existing daytime L 50 exceeds 55 dba, then the allowable noise limit shall be increased in five dba increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. Since the measured daytime L 50 was 59 dba, the new daytime exterior noise standard becomes 60 dba L 50. From 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., noise generated by oil processing activities would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dba L 50 at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. As shown in Table 10, daytime oil processing would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dba L 50 at any noise-sensitive receiver. As shown in Table 11, nighttime oil processing would not exceed the nighttime exterior noise standard of 50 dba L 50 at any noise-sensitive receiver. Construction noise generated by oil processing activities associated with the Site A option is therefore considered less than significant. Site B Construction Noise The same construction activities, equipment, schedule and durations that apply to the Hazel-Sunset substation Site A option are also applicable to the Site B option. The noise levels generated by the 20 November 2013

159 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project construction of the proposed substation associated with Site A are applicable to Site B due to the same construction activities being conducted and the same distance to noise-sensitive receptors for both sites. New substation construction, existing substation dismantling, subtransmission line construction activities associated with Site B are planned to be conducted during construction noise exempt hours. Construction traffic going to and from Site B would occur during construction noise exempt hours. Therefore, construction noise generated by these activities for proposed project Site B is considered less than significant. If onsite oil processing is required for the Site B option, the oil processing unit would be set up inside the new substation masonry walls and operated for up to 24 continuous hours with temporary acoustical barriers surrounding the unit. The anticipated noise levels generated by oil processing at nearby noisesensitive receivers are compared to existing ambient noise levels near the Project site in addition to the applicable County of Sacramento exterior noise level standards. Cadna/A was used to create a virtual model of the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Site B option and the surrounding community. SMUD would construct the Hazel-Sunset substation with minimum 10-foot high masonry walls surrounding the substation with a 30-foot woven mesh entry gate on the east side with access to Hazel Avenue. The masonry walls and temporary acoustical barriers that would be utilized to enclose the oil processing unit on all four sides were input into the Cadna/A noise model. The same temporary acoustical barriers and oil processing unit that would be used onsite during oil processing activities for the Site A option would be used for the Site B option. Table 9 lists the NRC for the temporary acoustical barriers and the values listed were input into the Cadna/A noise model for the barriers. The dimensions of the temporary acoustical barriers would be 10 feet (long) x 7.5 feet (wide) x 10 feet (tall). The oil processing unit and temporary acoustical barriers would be located in the northeast corner of the proposed Hazel-Sunset Substation Site B option. The same four modeled receivers (MR-1 through MR-4) were input into the Cadna/A noise model in order to quantify the noise generated by oil processing at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. The location of the long-term measurement site, modeled receivers, temporary acoustical barriers, and 10-foot masonry wall, in addition to the noise contours generated by the oil processing activities for the Site B option, are depicted in Figure 5. Table 12 lists the predicted noise levels generated by the oil processing unit at the modeled receivers, the measured daytime lowest hourly L 50, and the adjusted daytime noise standard. Table 13 lists the predicted noise levels generated by the oil processing unit at the modeled receivers and the County of Sacramento s nighttime noise standard. 21 November 2013

160 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Figure 5. Temporary Oil Processing Noise Levels at Site B. 22 November 2013

161 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 12. Daytime Noise from Oil Processing at Site B Modeled Receiver Location Hazel-Sunset Substation Oil Processing Unit Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Adjusted County of Sacramento Daytime Noise Standard (dba L 50 ) Meets County of Sacramento Noise Standard (yes/no?) MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes Source: URS Corporation calculations (2013). Table 13. Nighttime Noise from Oil Processing at Site B Modeled Receiver Location Oil Processing Unit Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) County of Sacramento Nighttime Noise Standard (dba L 50 ) Meets County of Sacramento Noise Standard (yes/no?) MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes MR Yes Source: URS Corporation calculations (2013). According to the County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance, construction noise is exempt from local standards from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends. The oil processing unit would operate for up to 24 continuous hours. Construction noise generated by the oil processing unit is exempt from local exterior noise standards during construction noise exempt hours. The County of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance states that if the measured existing daytime L 50 exceeds 55 dba, then the allowable noise limit shall be increased in five dba increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. Since the measured daytime L 50 was 59 dba, the new daytime exterior noise standard becomes 60 dba L 50. From 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., noise generated by oil processing activities would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dba L 50 at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. As shown in Table 10, daytime oil processing would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dba L 50 at any noise-sensitive receiver. As shown in Table 11, nighttime oil processing would not exceed the nighttime exterior noise standard of 50 dba L 50 at any noise-sensitive receiver. Construction noise generated by oil processing activities associated with the Site B option is therefore considered less than significant Operational Noise After construction of the proposed project is completed, on-site operational noise would be generated by the new substation and 69kV subtransmission line. The proposed new Hazel-Sunset substation site 23 November 2013

162 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project options would initially contain one large transformer and supporting equipment (e.g., switch gear, capacitors, and wiring). An additional transformer and supporting equipment may be added to the proposed substation site at a later date in order to meet future electrical demands in the area. The predominant onsite operational noise sources at both proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Site A and B options would be composed of transformers and cooling fans. Additional equipment such as disconnect switches and circuit breakers generate infrequent noise levels that do not significantly contribute to the overall noise level generated by equipment at the substation. SMUD engineering noise specifications listed for the cooling fans and transformers that are proposed to be utilized at both Sites A and B are as follows: Noise level for one bank with no cooling fans on is 55 dba; Noise level for one bank with cooling fans on is 58 dba; and Maximum noise level for all banks with cooling fans on is 60 dba The centerline for one set of fans is 7.5 feet above ground level and the centerline for the other set of fans is 5 feet about ground level. The maximum height for the cooling fans would be approximately 10 feet above ground level. For the purpose of noise modeling, and as a worst-case scenario for noise generated at both proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Site A and B options, fans were modeled at a height of 10 feet above ground level. In addition, both transformers are assumed to be in operation in the model and the transformers were modeled at a height of 10 feet above ground level. SMUD is proposing to build a 10- foot high masonry wall surrounding the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Site A and B options. Site A Onsite Operational Noise Cadna/A was used to create a virtual model of the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Site A option and the surrounding communities. Noise sources for both transformers and their cooling fans were input into the noise model in order to generate operational noise contours. The 10-foot high masonry wall above the proposed finished grade was also input as a barrier surrounding the Hazel-Sunset substation Site A option. Figure 2 depicts the operational noise levels from the substation with the Site A option. The noise contours shown in Figure 6 are in terms of dba L 50. The County of Sacramento s daytime and nighttime noise standards are based on L-percentile noise metrics and the baseline noise metric is in terms of dba L 50. The operational noise generated by the two transformers and fans at the proposed Hazel- Sunset substation Site A option is compared with the lowest measured daytime and nighttime hourly L 50 noise levels to determine if there would be noise impacts generated by the proposed project Site A option. The measured noise levels at LT-1 are representative of the ambient noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of Site A. The same four modeled noise-sensitive receptors that were input into the oil processing activities noise models were input into the noise models that evaluated noise generated by operational noise. The ambient noise measurement level data collected at LT-1 is representative of the ambient noise levels at the modeled noise-sensitive receptors. Noise impacts are determined by comparing the lowest measured daytime and nighttime hourly L 50 s at LT-1 with the modeled noise levels (in terms of L 50 ) at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors within the noise model. Tables 14 and 15 list the change in day and night modeled operational noise generated by the transformers and fans at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to Site A. The tables show the measured 24 November 2013

163 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project lowest hourly L 50, modeled operational noise plus existing L 50, and the change in noise level at the nearest single-family residence. Table 14 lists the results of the noise model during daytime hours and Table 15 lists the results of the noise model during nighttime hours. Table 14. Change in Operational Daytime Noise with Site A Modeled Receiver Location Site A Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Modeled Plus Existing Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Change in Noise Level at Receiver (dba L 50 ) MR MR MR MR Source: URS Corporation calculations (2013). Table 15. Change in Operational Nighttime Noise with Site A Modeled Receiver Location Site A Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Nighttime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Modeled Plus Existing Nighttime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Change in Noise Level at Receiver (dba L 50 ) MR MR MR MR Source: URS Corporation calculations (2013). There is no anticipated change in noise level at noise-sensitive receptors due to the implementation of the Hazel-Sunset Substation Site A option. Therefore, operational noise generated by the Site A option is considered less than significant. 25 November 2013

164 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Figure 6. Operational Noise Generated at Site A. 26 November 2013

165 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Site B Onsite Operational Noise Cadna/A was also used to create a virtual model of the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation Site B option and the surrounding communities. Noise sources for both transformers and their cooling fans were input into the noise model in order to generate operational noise contours. The 12-foot high masonry wall above the proposed finished grade was also input as a barrier surrounding the Hazel-Sunset substation Site B option. Figure 2 depicts the operational noise levels from the Site B option. The noise contours shown in Figure 7 are in terms of dba L 50. The County of Sacramento s daytime and nighttime noise standards are based on L-percentile noise metrics and the baseline noise metric is in terms of dba L 50. The operational noise generated by the two transformers and fans at the proposed Hazel- Sunset substation Site B option is compared with the lowest measured daytime and nighttime hourly L 50 noise levels in order to determine if there would be noise impacts generated by the proposed project Site B option. The measured noise levels at LT-1 are representative of the ambient noise levels at noisesensitive receptors in the vicinity of Site B. The same four modeled noise-sensitive receptors that were input into the oil processing activities noise models were input into the noise models that evaluated noise generated by operational noise. The ambient noise measurement level data collected at LT-1 is representative of the ambient noise levels at the modeled noise-sensitive receptors. Noise impacts are determined by comparing the lowest measured daytime and nighttime hourly L 50 s at LT-1 with the modeled noise levels (in terms of L 50 ) at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors within the noise model. Tables 16 and 17 list the modeled operational noise generated by the transformers and fans at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors near the Site B option in addition to the measured lowest hourly L 50, modeled operational noise plus L 50, and the change in noise level at the nearest single-family residence. Table 16 lists the results of the noise model during daytime hours and Table 17 lists the results of the noise model during nighttime hours. Table 16. Change in Operational Daytime Noise with Site B Modeled Receiver Location Site B Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Modeled Plus Existing Daytime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Change in Noise Level at Receiver (dba L 50 ) MR MR MR MR Source: URS Corporation calculations (2013). 27 November 2013

166 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Table 17. Change in Operational Nighttime Noise with Site B Modeled Receiver Location Site B Modeled Noise (dba L 50 ) Existing Measured Lowest Hourly Nighttime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Modeled Plus Existing Nighttime Noise Level (dba L 50 ) Change in Noise Level at Receiver (dba L 50 ) MR MR MR MR Source: URS Corporation calculations (2013). There is no anticipated change in noise level at any of the surrounding noise-sensitive receptors due to the implementation of the Hazel-Sunset Substation Site B option. Therefore, operational noise generated by the Site B option is considered less than significant. 28 November 2013

167 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Figure 7. Operational Noise Generated at Site B. 29 November 2013

168 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Site A and B Off-site Operational Noise Potential off-site operational noise would consist of corona discharge noise from the 69kV transmission line. Phase I of the 69kV transmission line would run from just north of the American River north along Hazel Avenue to Sunset Avenue. Phase II would run north along Hazel Avenue from Sunset Avenue to Madison Avenue. The same type of off-site operational noise can be expected from both Site A and B options. Corona discharge is a phenomenon associated with energized transmission lines. Under certain conditions, the localized electric field near an energized conductor can be sufficiently concentrated to produce an electric discharge that can ionize air close to the conductors. This partial discharge of electrical energy is called corona discharge, or corona, and the resulting ionization of air at the surface of the conductor is a source of audible noise. When corona is produced, it is heard as snaps, crackles, and pops. Several factors, including conductor voltage, shape, and diameter, and surface irregularities such as scratches, nicks, dust, or water drops can affect a conductor s electrical surface gradient and its corona performance. Corona discharge is most prominent during periods of inclement weather. Ambient noise measurements during inclement weather conditions were not conducted; however, ambient noise levels increase during periods of inclement weather and corona noise is not significant in view of the higher than normal ambient noise levels that typically accompany rainy conditions. Under most conditions corona discharge noise would not be audible; however, regardless of weather conditions, potential corona discharge noise, even at locations directly under the transmission line, would be below the daytime and nighttime noise standards established by the County of Sacramento. Corona noise levels are more perceptible in high-voltage conditions (e.g. above 230 kv).the proposed Hazel-Sunset substation is 69kV, and the potential corona discharge impact is considered less than significant for both Site A and B options. 30 November 2013

169 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project CEQA Checklist: Noise Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 31 November 2013

170 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project 32 November 2013

171 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Appendix A Ambient Noise Level Field Data Measurement Sheet A-1 November 2013

172 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project A-2 November 2013

173 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project A-3 November 2013

174 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project A-4 November 2013

175 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Appendix B Ambient Noise Level Field Measurement Site Photographs B-1 November 2013

176 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project B-2 November 2013

177 Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Sacramento Municipal Utility District B-3 November 2013

178 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project B-4 November 2013

179 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project Appendix C Certification of Calibration for Ambient Noise Survey Equipment C-1 November 2013

180 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project C-2 November 2013

181 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project C-3 November 2013

182 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project C-4 November 2013

183 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project C-5 November 2013

184 Sacramento Municipal Utility District Hazel Avenue Electrical Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project C-6 November 2013

185 APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Public Comments and Responses to Prior IS/MND

186

187 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Five letters were received during the public review period in response to the distribution of the Draft IS/MND. Table 1 lists the source of the comment letter and the number of comments contained in the letter. Table 1. List of Commenters. Scott Morgan, Director, Governor s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse Commenter Letter Number Comment Number Trevor Cleak, Environmental Scientist, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Marilyn E. Ratkay & Cynthia Stefani, Fair Oaks Residents through through 3-10 Final William Hvidsten, President, Kensington Manor Homeowners Association Kristopher Borders, Administrative Services Coordinator Fair Oaks Recreation & Park District through TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-1 Issue Date:

188 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.1 Letter 1: Scott Morgan, Director, Governor s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Final Comment 1-1 Letter 1, Page 1. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-2 Issue Date:

189 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final Letter 1, Page 2. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-3 Issue Date:

190 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment 1-1 This letter confirmed receipt of the IS/MND and confirmed the close of the public comment period on January 31, The letter enclosed a comment letter from a responding agency (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board), which is included below as Letter 2. Final TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-4 Issue Date:

191 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.2 Letter 2: Trevor Cleak, Environmental Scientist, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Final Comment 2-1 Letter 2, Page 1. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-5 Issue Date:

192 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment 2-2 Final Comment 2-3 Comment 2-4 Comment 2-5 Letter 2, Page 2. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-6 Issue Date:

193 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment 2-6 Final Letter 2, Page Response to Comment 2-1 It is SMUD s policy to ensure that projects are constructed in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, including the Construction Storm Water General Permit regulations. Prior to construction, SMUD will evaluate the project scope and soil area disturbed to determine if coverage under the Construction General Permit Order No DWQ (Permit) is required and will secure coverage under the Permit if necessary. The current proposed project is less than an acre and is not expected to have an impact on hydrology or water quality beyond those previously described and analyzed in the Hazel Avenue Widening Environmental Impact Report (EIR), from which SMUD s environmental analysis was tiered. Therefore, the project is not currently anticipated to require any new SWPPP coverage. However, to ensure compliance, appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction activities to reduce or eliminate polluted storm water runoff from the project sites. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-7 Issue Date:

194 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to Comment 2-2 SMUD shall comply with the requirements of local laws, including the Sacramento County municipal stormwater NPDES permit. The Hazel Avenue Widening Plan EIR analyzed surface runoff generated as a result of direct and indirect project impacts, including SMUD s Hazel Avenue Facilities Relocation and Expansion Project. The proposed project is not expected to generate any new impacts on hydrology or water quality beyond those previously described and analyzed in the original Hazel Avenue Widening EIR. Surface runoff from the proposed new substation will be collected and drained to the existing Sacramento County drainage system to the north. Standard post construction BMPs including the placement of a gravel bed inside the substation will be implemented to avoid or minimize soil erosion. Surface runoff is expected to be minimal and storm water quantities would not increase above existing or future projected levels Response to Comment 2-3 Final SMUD is not required to obtain coverage under industrial storm water general permits per the Standard Industrial Classification code system Response to Comment 2-4 The proposed project would not involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, and would not be subject to obtaining a permit under Clean Water Act Response to Comment 2-5 The proposed project would not require disturbance of waters of the United States, and would not be subject to obtaining a permit under Clean Water Act Response to Comment 2-6 The proposed project would not require disturbance of waters of the State, and would not be subject to obtaining a Waste Discharge Requirement permit. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-8 Issue Date:

195 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.3 Letter 3: Marilyn Ratkay and Cynthia Stefani Final Comment 3-1 Comment 3-2 Comment 3-3 Comment 3-4 Comment 3-5 Letter 3, Page 1. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-9 Issue Date:

196 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment 3-5, continued Comment 3-6 Comment 3-7 Comment 3-8 Comment 3-9 Comment 3-10 Final Letter 3, Page Response to Comment 3-1 The proposed substation would not increase the amount of storm water on Barrister Lane. The proposed substation would require placement of 1 to 3 feet of fill material to achieve a 2% slope gradient to allow any storm water to drain away from the site to the Sacramento County drainage system to the north. Due to the placement of a gravel bed inside the substation, surface runoff is expected to be minimal, and would not increase storm water quantities above existing levels Response to Comment 3-2 Visual impacts on residents adjacent to the proposed substation were discussed in Section 3.1 Aesthetics under question (c) of the Draft IS/MND. For adjacent residences to the west, the minimum 10-foot masonry wall would screen views of the proposed substation equipment from adjacent backyards. The tallest structure within the proposed substation, the 69kV drop pole, would be located in the eastern portion of the substation, closest to Hazel Avenue. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-10 Issue Date:

197 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES To provide a visual representation of the proposed project s effects on residential properties on Barrister Lane, three photosimulations were prepared that graphically represent the visual conditions of the project after construction from three key observation points. These photosimulations are provided below in Appendix E. As shown in these photosimulations, the proposed substation would be minimally visible from these viewing locations and is therefore considered to have a minor effect on the area s visual character as viewed from Barrister Lane Response to Comment 3-3 The masonry walls of the proposed substation would be similar in material, color, design, and acoustic properties to the sound barriers to be constructed as noise mitigation for the County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project EIR. Final SMUD does not intend to landscape around the proposed substation. With implementation of Sacramento County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project, the County committed to provide a landscaping corridor along Hazel Avenue, including the eastern boundary of the proposed substation. The parcels north and south of the proposed substation are owned by Sacramento County and would be developed and landscaped in accordance with County plans for Hazel Avenue. In accordance with SMUD s current guidelines, any landscape vegetation would maintain a three foot clearance from the masonry wall and would not exceed 12 inches in height. Limiting the type of vegetation in proximity to the substation reduces unauthorized access, enables clear visibility of the substation perimeter and minimizes the potential use of vegetation itself to scale the substation walls and compromise substation security Response to Comment 3-5 As indicated in the Noise Technical Report (Appendix C), there would be no anticipated change in ambient noise level from substation operation. Although unlikely, substation operational noise may be audible at exterior locations if substation operational noise exceeds the ambient noise level, which is dominated by Hazel Avenue traffic noise. Based on the 24-hour ambient noise survey completed as part of the Noise Technical Report, noise levels at 8837 Barrister Lane vary from 42.3 dba to 62.7 dba. Noise generated from the substation (30 dba) would be well below the existing ambient noise level and established thresholds of significance. Therefore, there is the potential for substation operational noise to be audible to the surrounding residents; although, it is highly unlikely due to the existing elevated noise levels. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-11 Issue Date:

198 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Noise level increases as a result of residential structures at the proposed substation site being removed is a temporary condition. The removal of residential structures was undertaken by the County as part of the Hazel Avenue Widening Project and is not evaluated as part of this project. As part of SMUD s proposed project, a minimum 10-foot masonry wall would be constructed around the substation. The masonry wall would be a more effective barrier than the residential structures that were previously located on the property as there would be no breaks in the masonry wall and it would form a continuous sound barrier Response to Comment 3-6 The proposed western masonry wall would extend to a height of approximately 12 feet above the existing grade, which exceeds the six foot sound barrier along the western portion of the property required by the County s Hazel Avenue Widening EIR. The remaining masonry walls would extend to a minimum height of approximately 10-feet above the existing grade, and would range from approximately 10-to-12-feet based on the surface topography. Final Response to Comment 3-7 The masonry walls of the proposed substation would be similar in material, color, design, and acoustic properties to the sound barriers to be constructed as noise mitigation for the County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project EIR Response to Comment 3-8 The proposed masonry wall would extend along the entire length of the western property line. The masonry walls of the proposed substation would be similar in material, color, design, and acoustic properties to the sound barriers to be constructed as noise mitigation for the County s Hazel Avenue Widening Project EIR Response to Comment 3-9 SMUD would place sound generating equipment such as transformer cooling fans toward Hazel Avenue and away from neighboring residential properties Response to Comment 3-10 SMUD does not intend to landscape around the proposed substation. Any landscape vegetation around the proposed substation would be required to maintain a three foot clearance from the masonry wall and would not exceed 12 inches in height. In accordance with SMUD s current guidelines, landscaping such as trees and shrubs would not be planted adjacent to the proposed substation. Even if landscape vegetation such as trees and shrubs are allowed, they are very poor noise barriers as they provide little noise attenuation. Attenuation due to landscape vegetation is minimal; the proposed masonry sound wall would provide much more effective noise attenuation than landscape vegetation. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-12 Issue Date:

199 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.4 Letter 4: William Hvidsten, President, Kensington Manor Homeowners Association Final Comment 4-1 Comment 4-2 Letter 4, Page 1. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-13 Issue Date:

200 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment 4-3 Final Comment 4-4 Comment 4-5 Comment 4-6 Comment 4-7 Comment 4-8 Letter 4, Page 2. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-14 Issue Date:

201 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Comment 4-9 Comment 4-10 Comment 4-11 Final Letter 4, Page 3. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-15 Issue Date:

202 SECTION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final Letter 4, Page 4. TO-08-HazelAveFinalMND docx 2-16 Issue Date: