santa barbara county reliability project screening report ... h... · 09:002975.cp13.02 santa...

09:002975.CP13.02

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY RELIABILITY PROJECT SCREENING REPORT FOR THE

PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS FOR THE PAST WORK

APPLICATION NO.: A.12‐10‐018

SCH NO.: 2013041070

July 2014 Revised May 2015

California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102 Contact: Jensen Uchida

Prepared by:

ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC. 505 Sansome Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94111

Thispageintentionallyleftblank

09:002975.CP13.02 iii July2014

able of Contents T Section Page

1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 SummaryoftheProposedProject.....................................................................................................1‐1 1.2 PastWorkintheProjectArea..............................................................................................................1‐1 1.3 ScopeoftheEnvironmentalImpactReport...................................................................................1‐3 1.4 AlternativesversusOptions.................................................................................................................1‐3

1.4.1 Alternatives.................................................................................................................................1‐4 1.4.2 Options..........................................................................................................................................1‐4

1.5 PurposeoftheScreeningReport........................................................................................................1‐4 1.6 PurposeandObjectivesoftheProposedProject.........................................................................1‐4

1.6.1 Purpose.........................................................................................................................................1‐4 1.6.2 Objectives(DevelopedbytheCPUC)...............................................................................1‐5 1.6.3 CountyofSantaBarbaraSegment3AObjective.........................................................1‐5 1.6.4 Applicant’sStatedObjectives..............................................................................................1‐5

2 Overview of Evaluation Process ..................................................... 2-1 2.1 ScreenMethodology................................................................................................................................2‐1 2.2 CEQACriteria..............................................................................................................................................2‐1 2.3 Feasibility.....................................................................................................................................................2‐1 2.4 PotentialtoAvoidorLessenSignificantEnvironmentalEffects..........................................2‐2

2.4.1 SignificantEnvironmentalEffectsoftheProposedProject...................................2‐2 2.4.2 SignificantEnvironmentalEffectsofthePastWorkalongSegment3A...........2‐2

2.5 NoProjectAlternative.............................................................................................................................2‐3

3 Alternative Descriptions and Determinations .................................. 3-1 3.1 AlternativeA–ReducetheScopeofWorkalongSegments1,2,and3A..........................3‐1

3.1.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................3‐1 3.1.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3‐1

3.2 AlternativeB–InstallSomeStructuresalongSegment4viaHelicopter.........................3‐2 3.2.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................3‐2 3.2.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3‐2

3.3 AlternativeC–UndergroundSegments3Band4.......................................................................3‐2 3.3.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................3‐2 3.3.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................3‐3

4 Option Descriptions and Determinations ........................................ 4-1

4.1 OptionA–PaintExistingLWSPolesandTSPalongSegment3A........................................4‐1 4.1.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................4‐1 4.1.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4‐2

4.2 OptionB–ReplaceExistingLWSPolesandTSPwithWoodPolesalongSegment3A..................................................................................................................................................4‐2 4.2.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................4‐2 4.2.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4‐2

Table of Contents

09:002975.CP13.02 iv July2014

4.3 OptionC–RelocatethePortionofSegment3AthatTraversesAgriculturalLandintheShepardMesaCommunitytoUndergroundConduit........................................4‐2 4.3.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................4‐4 4.3.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4‐5

4.4 OptionD–RelocateSegment3AtoUndergroundConduit....................................................4‐5 4.4.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................4‐5 4.4.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4‐6

4.5 OptionE–RerouteaPortionofSegment3AalongCasitasPassRoadonLWSPoles................................................................................................................................................................4‐6 4.5.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................4‐6 4.5.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4‐7

4.6 OptionF–RerouteaPortionofSegment3AalongCasitasPassRoadonWoodPoles................................................................................................................................................................4‐7 4.6.1 ConsiderationofCEQACriteria..........................................................................................4‐7 4.6.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................4‐7

5 Summary of Screening Report ........................................................ 5-1

6 References .................................................................................... 6-1

09:002975.CP13.02 v July2014

ist of Figures L

ist of Tables L Table Page Table1:SummaryofPotentiallySignificantEffectsoftheProposedProject.......................................................2‐2

Table2:Long‐TermSignificantEffectsofPastWorkalongSegment3A................................................................2‐3

Table3:SummaryofScreeningReport.................................................................................................................................5‐2

Figure Page Figure1:ProjectLocationandElectricalNeedsArea.......................................Error!Bookmarknotdefined.3

Figure2:OptionC,OptionE,andOptionFLocations......................................................................................................4‐3

List of Tables and Figures

09:002975.CP13.02 vi July2014


09:002975.CP13.02 vii July2014

ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms L

applicant SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCompany

Caltrans CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation

CDP CoastalDevelopmentPermit

CEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct

CPUC CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission

EIR EnvironmentalImpactReport

ENA ElectricalNeedsArea

GIS geographicinformationsystem

GO GeneralOrder

kV kilovolt

LST latticesteeltower

LWS lightweightsteel

NMFS NationalMarineFisheriesService

PEA Proponent’sEnvironmentalAssessment

proposedproject SantaBarbaraCountyReliabilityProject

PTC PermittoConstruct

ROW right‐of‐way

SCE SouthernCaliforniaEdison Company

SR StateRoute

TSP tubularsteelpole

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

09:002975.CP13.02 viii July2014


09:002975.CP13.02 1‐1 July2014

1 Introduction SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCompany(SCEortheapplicant)filedanapplication(A.12‐10‐018)withtheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission(CPUC)foraPermittoConstruct(PTC)theSantaBarbaraCountyReliabilityProject(theproposedproject)onOctober26,2012.TheproposedprojectincludesrebuildingandupgradingaportionofSCE’ssubtransmissioninfrastructureinSantaBarbaraandVenturacountiesbetweenthecitiesofSanBuenaventura(Ventura)andCarpinteria(Figure1).

1.1 Summary of the Proposed Project Thefollowingactivitiesaremajorcomponentsoftheproposedproject: Reconstructionofexisting66‐kilovolt(kV)subtransmissionfacilities,primarilythoselocated

withinthecurrentutilityrights‐of‐way(ROWs)betweenthe“Y”(i.e.,thepointalongthecorridorwhereSegments2,3B,and4converge)inVenturaCountyandtheCarpinteriaSubstationinSantaBarbaraCounty(Segments4and3B);

Installationofmarkerballsonoverheadwire; ModificationofsubtransmissionandsubstationequipmentwithintheCarpinteriaSubstation,

CasitasSubstation,andSantaClaraSubstation; Replacementoflineprotectionrelayswithinexistingsubstationequipmentroomsorcabinetsat

theGettySubstation,GoletaSubstation,OrtegaSubstation,andSantaBarbaraSubstation; InstallationoftelecommunicationsfacilitiesalongSegments1,2,and4andattheCarpinteria

Substation,CasitasSubstation,SantaClaraSubstation,andVenturaSubstation; InstallationofafaultreturnconductoronsubtransmissionstructuresalongSegment3A;and RemovalofsubtransmissioninfrastructurefoundationsinSegments1and2.

1.2 Past Work in the Project Area In1999,SCEcommencedconstructionintheprojectareaonSegments1,2,and3Aandseveralsurroundingsubstations(Figure1).Atthetime,SCEbelievedthattheproposedupgradestosubtransmissionlinesinVenturaandSantaBarbaracountieswereexemptfrompermittingpursuanttoCPUCGeneralOrder(GO)131‐DandtheCaliforniaCoastalAct(CaliforniaPublicResourcesCodeSection30610)becausetheywereconsidered“equivalentfacilitiesorstructures.”However,in2004,residentsoftheShepardMesaareanearCarpinteriaraisedconcernsthatthenewstructuresinSegment3Aweredifferentinappearancefromthepreviousstructures.TheCaliforniaCoastalCommissionandCountyofSantaBarbaraCoastalProgramstaffissuedaStopWorkordertoSCEafterstaffdeterminedthatworkwithintheCoastalZonedidnotqualifyforanexemptionfromaCoastalDevelopmentPermit(CDP)andthataCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)reviewwasrequired.Similarly,theCPUCdeterminedthatthepastworkshouldnothavebeenconsideredexemptfromGO131‐D,andsimilarworkconductedbytheapplicantinthefuturewouldrequireaCEQAreviewandaPTC.

1 Introduction

09:002975.CP13.02 1‐2 July2014

InsertFigure1

1 Introduction

09:002975.CP13.02 1‐3 July2014

Between1999and2004,SCEhadalreadyconductedthefollowingunpermittedactivities: SomesubstationmodificationswerecompletedattheCarpinteria,Goleta,IslaVista,Ortega,and

SantaClarasubstations; Newsubtransmissionstructuresanda66‐kVconductorwereinstalledinSegment1fromthe

SantaClaraSubstationtotheCasitasSubstation,andtheexisting66‐kVconductorwasremoved; Newsubtransmissionstructuresanda66‐kVconductorwereinstalledinSegment2from

CasitasSubstationtothe“Y”locatednearCasitasPass,justwestofLakeCasitasinVenturaCounty,andtheexisting66‐kVconductorwasremoved;

Newsubtransmissionstructuresanda66‐kVconductorwereinstalledinSegment3AfromtheCarpinteriaSubstationtotheSantaBarbaraCounty/VenturaCountyline,andexistingwoodsubtransmissionstructureswereremovedortopped;

SubtransmissionstructuresinSegments1and2werepartiallyremoved;and Twofootingsfortubularsteelpoles(TSP),twolightweightsteel(LWS)H‐frames,oneLWSpole,

andtwoswitchesattheGettyTaplocationwereinstalled,andtwowoodH‐framesandonewoodpolewereremoved.

1.3 Scope of the Environmental Impact Report InaccordancewithCEQA,theCPUCisservingastheLeadAgencyfortheenvironmentalreviewprocessandispreparinganEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)toevaluatetheenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedproject.TheEIRwillalsodiscussandanalyzeareasonablerangeofalternativestotheproposedprojectinordertoidentifytheenvironmentallysuperioralternative.TheCPUCwillrelyontheenvironmentalassessmentoftheproposedprojectintheEIRfortheapprovalprocessofSCE’sPTCapplication.CEQAdoesnotrequirereviewofpriorunpermittedactivity,suchasthepastworkintheprojectarea(Fatv.CountyofSacramento[2002]97Cal.App.4th1270;Riverwatchv.CountyofSanDiego[1999]76Cal.App.4th1428).However,theCountyofSantaBarbara,asaResponsibleAgencyunderCEQA,hasrequestedthattheCPUCEIRincludesomelevelofanalysisrelatedtopastworkwithintheCoastalZone(Segment3A).Therefore,theEIRwillidentifylong‐termsignificantimpactsthathaveresultedfromthereconductoringofthesubtransmissionlinealongSegment3Abycomparingcurrentenvironmentalandregulatoryconditionstoconditionsthatexistedatthetimetheworkcommencedin1999.TheanalysisisbasedoninformationthatwascompiledfromtheProponent’sEnvironmentalAssessment(PEA),theapplicant’sresponsestodatarequests,previousfieldinvestigationsconductedbytheapplicant,andestimatesbasedonavailablegeographicinformationsystem(GIS)data.Giventheelapsedtimebetweenpreviousactivitiesandthepresentproposedproject,agoodfaitheffortwasmadetogatherareasonablelevelofdatatocharacterizeimpacts;however,environmentalconditionspriortothepastworkalongSegment3Aareunknownformanyresourceareasorwouldbeunreasonablyoneroustoidentify.TheEIRwillalsodiscussandanalyzeoptionsforreducinganylong‐termsignificantimpactsthatresultedfromthepastworkalongSegment3A.TheCountyofSantaBarbarawillrelyontheenvironmentalassessmentoftheproposedproject,aswellasthelimitedassessmentofimpactsthatresultedfromthepastwork,inordertoapprovearetroactiveCDP.

1.4 Alternatives versus Options Thissectionclarifiesthedifferencebetweentheterms“Alternative”and“Option”forthepurposesofthisScreeningReport.

1 Introduction

09:002975.CP13.02 1‐4 July2014

1.4.1 Alternatives AlternativeswereidentifiedtoaddresssignificantimpactsoftheproposedprojectandarerequiredunderCEQAGuidelines.CEQAGuidelinesSection15126.6(a)states:

AnEIRshalldescribeareasonablerangeofalternativestotheproject,ortothelocationoftheproject,whichwouldfeasiblyattainmostofthebasicobjectivesoftheprojectbutwouldavoidorsubstantiallylessenanyofthesignificanteffectsoftheproject,andevaluatethecomparativemeritsofthealternatives.AnEIRneednotconsidereveryconceivablealternativetoaproject.Ratheritmustconsiderareasonablerangeofpotentiallyfeasiblealternativesthatwillfosterinformeddecisionmakingandpublicparticipation.

TheEIRwillevaluateandcomparealternativestoidentifytheenvironmentallysuperioralternative.1.4.2 Options Duetothepastworkintheprojectareaanditsrelationshiptotheproposedproject,modificationstotheproposedprojectthatcouldreducethelong‐termsignificantimpactsofthepastworkalongSegment3Ahavebeenidentified.Projectmodifications,or“options,”aresimilartoalternativesinthattheyareidentifiedandscreenedusingsimilarcriteria;however,theterm“option”hasbeenusedtodifferentiatethemfromaCEQAalternative.AsdiscussedinSection1.3,CEQAdoesnotrequiretheevaluationofunpermittedactivities;however,attherequestoftheCountyofSantaBarbara,theEIRwillevaluatetheenvironmentalimpactsofproposedprojectoptions.TheCPUCwillnotincorporateorimplementanyoftheoptions.Rather,theoptionswouldbeimplementedatthediscretionoftheCountyaspartoftheirCDPissuance.

1.5 Purpose of the Screening Report ThisScreeningReportdocuments: Therangeofalternatives/optionsidentifiedandevaluated; Theapproachandmethodsusedforscreeningeachalternative/option;and Adescriptionofeachalternative/optionandtheresultsofthescreeningevaluation(i.e.,the

alternativeseliminatedfromfurtherconsiderationorcarriedforwardforfullanalysisintheEIR).

ThisScreeningReportwillsupplementtheinformationpresentedinChapter3oftheDraftEIRregardingprojectalternatives.AlternativestotheproposedprojectwereidentifiedbytheCPUC,theCountyofSantaBarbara,theapplicantaspartofthePEA,andthepublicduringpublicscoping.Thescreeningprocessidentifiedandevaluatedthreepotentialalternativestotheproposedproject,asdescribedinChapter3ofthisScreeningReport.ThisScreeningReportwillalsosupplementtheinformationpresentedinChapter7oftheDraftEIRregardingprojectoptions.OptionsformodifyingtheproposedprojectwereidentifiedbytheCPUC,theapplicantaspartofthePEA,theCountyofSantaBarbara,andthepublicduringpublicscoping.Thescreeningprocessidentifiedandevaluatedsevenpotentialprojectoptionsthatcouldmitigatethelong‐termsignificantimpactsofthepastworkalongSegment3A,asdescribedinChapter4ofthisScreeningReport.

1.6 Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed Project 1.6.1 Purpose ThepurposeoftheproposedprojectistoensuretheavailabilityofsafeandreliableelectricalservicetohelpmeetcustomerelectricaldemandwithintheElectricalNeedsArea(ENA)duringemergencyconditions(Figure1).

1 Introduction

09:002975.CP13.02 1‐5 July2014

1.6.2 Objectives (Developed by the CPUC) Aproject’sstatementofobjectivesdescribestheunderlyingpurposeoftheprojectandthereasonsforundertakingtheproject.Tofulfillthisrequirement,threeobjectivesweredevelopedbytheCPUC,withconsiderationoftheobjectivespresentedinthePEA(seeSection1.6.4).Theobjectives,asdefinedbytheCPUC,wereusedasabasisforthedevelopmentofareasonablerangeofalternatives,aswellasoptionsthatwouldmodifytheproposedprojectasdescribedinSection1.4.2.Thebasicobjectivesoftheproposedprojectareto:1. Providelong‐termreliabilityandcontinuityofservicetotheENA;2. Enhanceoperationalflexibilitybyprovidingtheabilitytotransfertheelectricloadbetween

localsubstationsandremoveexisting220‐kVor66‐kVlinesfromservicewhenneededformaintenancepurposes;and

3. Increaseenergyefficiencyofthe66‐kVsubtransmissionline.1.6.3 County of Santa Barbara Segment 3A Objective AsdescribedinSection1.4.2,althoughnotrequiredbyCEQA,theCountyofSantaBarbarahasanadditionalobjectiverelatedtotheirissuanceofaretroactiveCDP.Inordertobecarriedforwardforconsideration,inadditiontomeetingthemajorityoftheCPUC’sprojectobjectivesinSection1.6.2,aprojectoptionmust:1. Reducealong‐termsignificantimpact1thatresultedfromthepast,unpermittedworkalong

Segment3AintheCoastalZonethatoccurredbetween1999and2004.

1.6.4 Applicant’s Stated Objectives TheobjectiveslistedinSection1.6.2and1.6.3havebeenusedtoscreenalternativesandoptions;however,theapplicantalsoidentifiedthefollowingfourobjectivesinthePEA,whicharelistedfordisclosurepurposes:1. Providelong‐termreliabilityandcontinuityofservicetotheENAintheeventofanatural

disasterorotheroccurrencethataffectsthe220kVtransmissionsystemservingthearea;2. Enhanceoperationalflexibilitybyprovidingtheabilitytotransfertheelectricloadbetween

localsubstationsandremoveexisting220‐kVor66‐kVlinesfromservicewhenneededformaintenancepurposes;

3. Totheextentpracticable,useexistingROWsandfacilitiesconstructedtodatetominimize:a. Environmentalimpacts,b. Constructionschedule,andc. Projectcostandimpactonratepayers;

4. DesignandconstructtheprojectinconformancewithSCE’scurrentengineering,design,andconstructionstandardsforsubstation,transmission,subtransmission,anddistributionsystemprojects(SCE2012).

1Long‐termsignificantimpactsbasedonanindependentassessmentusingCEQAcriteria.

1 Introduction

09:002975.CP13.02 1‐6 July2014


09:002975.CP13.02 2‐1 July2014

2 Overview of Evaluation Process

2.1 Screen Methodology Theevaluationprocessforthealternativesandoptionsincludeathree‐stepscreeningprocess: Step1:Clarifythedescriptionofthealternative/optiontoallowforcomparativeevaluation; Step2:Evaluatethealternative/optionbycomparingitwiththeproposedprojectandwiththe

CEQAcriteriaforalternatives(Sections2.2through2.4,below).Inaddition,althoughCEQAGuidelinesdonotrequiretheconsiderationofoptionsforreducingimpactsofunpermittedwork,asdescribedinSection1.3and1.6.3,projectoptionsarealsoevaluatedaccordingtotheCEQAcriteria;and

Step3:Determinethesuitabilityofeachalternative/optionforfullanalysisintheEIRbasedontheresultsofStep2.Ifthealternative/optionisunsuitable,eliminateitfromfurtherconsideration.

2.2 CEQA Criteria CEQAGuidelines(Sections15126.6(a)and(d))requireanEIRtodescribeareasonablerangeofpotentiallyfeasiblealternativesandtoincludesufficientinformationabouteachalternativetoallowmeaningfulevaluation,analysis,andcomparisonwiththeproposedproject.TocomplywithCEQArequirementsfortheevaluationofalternatives,eachalternativeoroptionidentifiedwasevaluatedaccordingtothefollowingcriteria: Wouldthealternative/optionaccomplishallormostoftheprojectobjectives? Wouldthealternative/optionbepotentiallyfeasible(fromaneconomic,legal,andtechnological

perspective)? Wouldthealternativeavoidorsubstantiallylessenanysignificanteffectsoftheproposed

project(includingconsiderationofwhetherthealternative,itself,couldcreatesignificanteffectspotentiallygreaterthanthoseoftheproposedproject)?Inaddition,forprojectoptions,wouldtheoptionreduceanysignificantlong‐termeffectsofpastworkalongSegment3A?

CEQAGuidelinesrequiretheconsiderationofalternativescapableofeliminatingorreducingsignificantenvironmentaleffectseventhoughtheymay“impedetosomedegreetheattainmentofprojectobjectivesorwouldbemorecostly”(Section15126.6(b)).Inthecaseofprojectoptions,theoptionswouldnotreduceasignificantenvironmentaleffectoftheproposedprojectandmayinsomecasesresultinatemporaryincreaseinshort‐termconstruction‐relatedimpacts.However,inordertomeettheCountyofSantaBarbaraobjective,atemporary,lessthansignificantconstruction‐relatedimpactisconsideredacceptableiftheoptionwouldresultinareductionofalong‐termsignificantimpact.

2.3 Feasibility AccordingtoCEQAGuidelines(Section15126.6(f)(1)),amongthefactorsthatmaybetakenintoaccountwhenaddressingthefeasibilityofalternativesincludesitesuitability,economicviability,

2 OverviewofEvaluationProcess

09:002975.CP13.02 2‐2 July2014

availabilityofinfrastructure,generalplanconsistency,otherplansorotherregulatorylimitations,jurisdictionalboundaries,andproponentcontroloveralternativesites.Forthescreeninganalysis,thepotentialfeasibilityofalternativeswasassessedusingthefollowingconsiderations: TechnicalFeasibility.Isthealternativefeasiblefromatechnologicalperspective,considering

availabletechnology?Arethereanyconstruction,operation,ormaintenanceconstraintsthatcannotbeovercome?

LegalFeasibility.Dolegalprotectionsonlandsprecludeorsubstantiallylimitthefeasibilityofpermittinghigh‐voltagetransmissionlinesandsubstations?Doregulatoryrestrictionssubstantiallylimitthefeasibilityorsuccessfulpermittingofhigh‐voltagetransmissionlinesandsubstations?Isthealternativeconsistentwithregulatorystandardsfortransmissionsystemdesign,operation,andmaintenance?

EconomicFeasibility.Isthealternativesocostlythatitsimplementationwouldbeprohibitive?

2.4 Potential to Avoid or Lessen Significant Environmental Effects CEQArequiresanEIRtodescribealternativesthatwould“avoidorsubstantiallylessenanyofthesignificanteffectsoftheproject”(CEQAGuidelinesSection15126.6(a)).2.4.1 Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project Atthescreeningstage,itisnotpossibletoevaluatealloftheeffectsofalternativesincomparisontotheproposedprojectwithabsolutecertainty,anditmaynotbepossibletoquantifytheeffects.However,itispossibletoidentifyelementsofanalternativethatarelikelytocreateanimpactandrelatethem,totheextentpossible,togeneralconditionsintheproposedprojectarea.Table1presentsasummaryofthepotentiallysignificanteffectsoftheproposedproject.ThistablewaspreparedpriortocompletionoftheEIRanddoesnotincludethedetailedanalysisthatisincludedinChapter4,“EnvironmentalAnalysis.”Table 1: Summary of Potentially Significant Effects of the Proposed Project

Resource Potentially Significant Effect

Aesthetics Operation of the project components could result in impacts on visual quality within viewsheds of Segments 3B and 4.

Air Quality Construction could result in an exceedance of criteria air pollutants above established thresholds.

Biological Resources Construction of the project could result in impacts on steelhead trout designated critical habitat, arroyo chub, and avian species.

Cultural Resources Construction of some project elements could result in impacts on cultural resources.

Traffic Temporary lane closures along Highway 33 and other streets in the project area could result in impacts related to traffic and transportation.

2.4.2 Significant Environmental Effects of the Past Work along Segment 3A TheCPUChasidentifiedsignificantlong‐termimpactsassociatedwithaestheticsandlandusethatresultedfromSCEconstructionactivitiesalongonSegment3Abetween1999and2004.Basedonthelimitedavailabledata,thepastworkresultedinnootherlong‐termsignificantimpacts.Table2showsthelong‐termsignificantimpactsthatresultedfromSCE’sconstructionactivities.


09:002975.CP13.02 2‐3 July2014

Table 2: Long‐Term Significant Effects of Past Work along Segment 3A

Resource Long‐Term Significant Effect

Aesthetics The replacement of five wood poles within the viewshed of State Route (SR) 150 with four LWS poles and one TSP resulted in a significant long‐term impact on the scenic resources within an eligible state scenic highway from the color and size of the new poles.

The replacement of 49 wood poles with 49 LWS poles and one TSP resulted in a significant long‐term impact on the visual character of the site and its surroundings and from the color and size of the new poles.

Land Use Construction and operation of the existing subtransmission line along Segment 3A conflicts with County of Santa Barbara Article II, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, because applicable approvals and permits were not obtained at the time of construction prior to 2004.

2.5 No Project Alternative CEQArequiresthataNoProjectAlternativebeconsideredinEIRs(CEQAGuidelinesSection15126.6(e)).ThepurposeofdescribingandanalyzingaNoProjectAlternativeistoallowdecision‐makerstocomparetheeffectsofapprovingtheproposedprojectwiththeeffectsofnotapprovingtheproposedproject.BecausefullconsiderationofaNoProjectAlternativeisrequiredbyCEQA,theNoProjectAlternativewillbeevaluatedintheEIR;however,theNoProjectAlternativeisnotevaluatedinthisScreeningReport.


09:002975.CP13.02 2‐4 July2014


09:002975.CP13.02 3‐1 July2014

3 Alternative Descriptions and Determinations

Thealternativesscreeningprocessidentifiedandevaluatedthreepotentialalternativestotheproposedproject.ThissectiondescribeseachofthealternativesidentifiedandexplainswhytheywereretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIRorwereeliminated.EachalternativethatwasdeterminedtomeetCEQAorothercriteriaforalternatives(Sections2.2through2.4)wasretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIR.ThisScreeningReportevaluatesthefollowingalternativestotheproposedproject:AlternativeA. ReducetheScopeofWorkalongSegments1,2,and3AAlternativeB. InstallSomeStructuresalongSegment4viaHelicopterAlternativeC. UndergroundSegments3Band4

3.1 Alternative A – Reduce the Scope of Work along Segments 1, 2, and 3A AlternativeAwasidentifiedbytheCPUC.Underthisalternative,theexisting30foundationsand15toppedsubtransmissionwoodpolesalongSegments1,2,and3Awouldnotberemoved.Allremainingsegments,substationsupgrades,andothermajorworkwouldbeconstructedasdescribedintheproposedproject.3.1.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives AlternativeAwouldmeetallprojectobjectives(Section1.6.2).Feasibility AlternativeAwouldbefeasiblefromatechnical,legal,andeconomicperspective.Environmental Effect AlternativeAwouldavoidorreducepotentiallysignificanteffectsoftheproposedproject(Table1).AllowingthetoppedpolesandabandonedstructuresfromthepastworktoremaininplacewouldreducetheamountofgrounddisturbancethatwouldoccurduringconstructionandwouldreducetheamountofNOXandPM10emissionsproducedduringconstruction.Leavingthetoppedpolesandabandonedstructuresinplacewouldnotcreateanyimpacttothevisualquality,asthesestructuresarepartofthe2012environmentalbaselineconditions.3.1.2 Conclusion RETAINED.AlternativeAwouldbefeasible,meetallprojectobjectives,andwouldavoidorsubstantiallylessenpotentialsignificantimpactsoftheproposedprojectonairquality.Therefore,thisalternativewasretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIR.


09:002975.CP13.02 3‐2 July2014

3.2 Alternative B – Install Some Structures along Segment 4 via Helicopter AlternativeBwasidentifiedbytheCPUC.Underthisalternative,equipment,materials,andworkerswouldbedeliveredtoConstructionSites116through125viahelicopter.Subtransmissionstructuresandconductorswouldbeinstalledwithhelicopterassistance.ThisalternativewouldavoidtheneedtoperformroadimprovementswithinNationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS)‐designatedcriticalhabitatforsteelheadtroutorwithinstreamsthatdrainintoNMFS‐designatedcriticalhabitat.Allremainingsegments,substationsupgrades,andothermajorworkwouldbeconstructedasdescribedintheproposedproject.3.2.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives AlternativeBwouldmeetallprojectobjectives(Section1.6.2).Feasibility AlternativeBwouldbefeasiblefromatechnical,legal,andeconomicperspective.Environmental Effect AlternativeBwouldavoidorreducepotentiallysignificanteffectsoftheproposedproject(Table1).Accessingconstructionsites116through125withahelicopterwouldavoidpotentiallysignificantimpactstoNMFS‐designatedcriticalhabitatforsteelheadtroutfromtheestablishmentofaccessroads.Thereducedamountofconstructionwouldalsolessenpotentialsignificanteffectstoculturalresources.AlthoughthisalternativemayreducePM10emissionsduringconstruction,itwouldlikelyresultingreaterNOXemissionsfromincreasedhelicopteroperations. 3.2.2 Conclusion RETAINED.AlternativeBwouldbefeasible,meetallprojectobjectives,andwouldavoidorsubstantiallylessenpotentialsignificantimpactsoftheproposedprojectonbiologicalandculturalresources.Therefore,thisalternativewasretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIR.

3.3 Alternative C – Underground Segments 3B and 4 AlternativeCwasidentifiedbythePEA.Underthisalternative,the66‐kVsubtransmissionlinealongSegments3Band4wouldbeinstalledinnewundergroundconduitwithintheexistingROW.Theexistinglatticesteeltowers(LSTs)andwoodguystubsalongSegment3Band4wouldberemoved.Theapplicantmayneedtoobtainnewencroachmentpermits,asmanyoftheexistingROWsonlyprovidesoverheadaccess.Allremainingsegments,substationsupgrades,andothermajorworkwouldbeconstructedasdescribedintheproposedproject.3.3.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives AlternativeCwouldmeetmostoftheprojectobjectives(Section1.6.2).ProjectObjective3(increaseenergyefficiencyofthe66‐kVsubtransmissionline)wouldnotbemetunderthisalternative.Feasibility AlternativeCwouldnotbefeasiblefromatechnicalandeconomicperspective.Thesteep,mountainous,androckyterrainintheprojectareamakesthisalternativetechnicallyinfeasible.Insomeareas,thecurrentlinespansgulliesandhilltopswherethereiscurrentlylimitedspaceforlaydownareasandequipment.Itwouldbeinfeasibletopositiontrenchingandblastingequipmentintheseareas.Inaddition,thecosttoundergroundasubtransmissionlineis4to14timesthecostofbuildingatransmissionlineaboveground(notincludingthecostofobtainingROWs)(PSCW2011).ThecostofundergroundinginsuchterrainwouldbeprohibitivelyexpensivetoSCE.


09:002975.CP13.02 3‐3 July2014

Environmental Effect AlternativeCwouldavoidpotentiallysignificantlong‐termimpactsonthevisualqualityfromviewsofSegment4alongStateRoute(SR)192,whichisbeingconsideredbytheCityofCarpinteriaforfuturedesignationasascenichighway.Additionally,thisalternativewouldavoidcreatingvisualcontrastinthearea.Duringconstruction,thisalternativewouldtemporarilyincreaseenvironmentaleffectsassociatedwithairemissions,noise,agriculture,andbiologicalandculturalresources.Additionally,thehillsaboveCarpinteriacontaindocumentedculturalresources.Theblasting,trenching,andlargeamountofvegetationremovalthatwouldberequiredforimplementingthisalternativewouldresultinagreaterriskofimpactstobothdocumentedandundocumentedculturalresourcesthantheproposedproject.Inaddition,blastingandtrenchingalongsteepslopescouldleadtogreaterslopeinstabilityissuesandgeologichazardsinboththeshort‐andlong‐term.Impactsduetogeologichazardscouldbeconsideredsignificant.3.3.2 Conclusion ELIMINATED.AlternativeCwouldmeetmostoftheprojectobjectives,andwouldlessenasignificantimpactoftheproposedprojectonaesthetics;however,thisalternativeiseconomicallyandtechnicallyinfeasibleandcouldleadtoasignificantimpactrelatedtogeologichazards.Therefore,thisalternativewaseliminatedfromfurtherconsideration.


09:002975.CP13.02 3‐4 July2014


09:002975.CP13.02 4‐1 July2014

4 Option Descriptions and Determinations

Thescreeningprocessidentifiedandevaluatedsevenprojectoptionsthatwouldreducethesignificantlong‐termimpactsofthepastworkalongSegment3Aviamodificationstotheproposedproject.ThissectiondescribeseachoftheoptionsidentifiedandexplainswhytheywereretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIRorwereeliminated.EachoptiondeterminedtomeettheCEQAcriteria(Sections2.2through2.4)wasretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIR.TheEnvironmentalEffectdiscussionforeachoptionbelowdescribestheenvironmentaleffectsfromtheremovaloftheexistingsubtransmissionline,asappropriate,andtheconstructionoftheprojectoption.TheEnvironmentalEffectdiscussiondoesnotincludeimpactsfromconstructionoftheexistingsubtransmissionlinebecausetheenvironmentaleffectsarethesameforeveryoptionandaredescribedinChapter7oftheEIR.ThisScreeningReportevaluatesthefollowingoptionsforSegment3Aoftheproposedproject:OptionA. PaintExistingLWSPolesandTSPalongSegment3AOptionB. ReplaceExistingLWSPoleswithWoodPolesalongSegment3AOptionC. RelocatethePortionofSegment3AthatTraversesAgriculturalLandintheShepard

MesaCommunitytoUndergroundConduitOptionD. RelocateSegment3AtoUndergroundConduitOptionE. SubmitPoleSpecificationsandPlansforPoles182and183totheCountyofSanta

BarbaraOptionF. RerouteaPortionofSegment3AalongCasitasPassRoadonLWSPolesOptionG. RerouteaPortionofSegment3AalongCasitasPassRoadonWoodPoles

4.1 Option A – Paint Existing LWS Poles and TSP along Segment 3A OptionAwasidentifiedbytheCPUC.Underthisoption,theexistingLWSpolesandTSPalongSegment3Awouldbepaintedtoreducecontrastwiththesurroundingenvironmentalsetting.4.1.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives OptionAwouldmeetallprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives(Sections1.6.2and1.6.3).Feasibility OptionAwouldbefeasiblefromatechnical,legal,andeconomicperspective.Environmental Effect OptionAwouldreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactthatresultedfromthereplacementofwoodpoleswithtallerLWSpolesandaTSPalongSegment3A(Table2).Noneofthestructuresinstalledbetween1999and2004alongSegment3Awouldneedtoberemoved.Onlypaintingactivitieswouldneedtobeconductedtocompletethisoption.Paintingactivitieswouldhavenegligibleenvironmenteffectsonairquality,traffic,andbiologicalresources.


09:002975.CP13.02 4‐2 July2014

4.1.2 Conclusion RETAINED.OptionAwouldbefeasible,meetallprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives,andreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactthatresultedfromthepastworkalongSegment3A.Therefore,thisoptionwasretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIR.

4.2 Option B – Replace Existing LWS Poles and TSP with Wood Poles along Segment 3A

OptionBwasidentifiedbytheCPUC.Underthisoption,theexistingLWSpolesalongSegment3Awouldbereplacedone‐for‐onewithcomparablysized,newwoodpoles,similartothepolesthatexistedpriortothepastworkcompletedbetween1999and2004.TheTSPconstructedbetween1999and2004wouldnotbereplacedbecauseawoodpolecouldnotaccommodatetheweightofthecurrentconductor.4.2.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives OptionBwouldmeetallprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives(Sections1.6.2and1.6.3).Feasibility OptionBwouldbefeasiblefromatechnical,legal,andeconomicperspective.Environmental Effect OptionBwouldreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactsthatresultedfromthereplacementofwoodpoleswithtallerLWSpolesalongSegment3A(Table2).Beforeinstallationofthenewwoodpoles,thisoptionwouldrequiretheremovalofTSPandLWSpolesthatwereinstalledbetween1999and2004alongSegment3A.Constructionofthisoptionwouldtemporarilyincreaseenvironmentaleffectsassociatedwithairemissions,noise,agriculture,traffic,andbiologicalandculturalresources.4.2.2 Conclusion RETAINED.OptionBwouldbefeasible,meetallprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives,andreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactsthatresultedfromthepastworkalongSegment3A.Therefore,thisoptionwasretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIR.

4.3 Option C – Relocate the Portion of Segment 3A that Traverses Agricultural Land in the Shepard Mesa Community to Underground Conduit

OptionCwasidentifiedbytheCPUC,CountyofSantaBarbara,andpublic.Underthisoption,newundergroundconduitwouldreplace0.88mileofexistingLWSpolestraversingagriculturallandintheShepardMesacommunitywithintheexistingROW(Figure2).Thisoptionwouldrequiretheconstructionofapproximately13new55‐foot‐tallwoodpolesneartheundergroundsubtransmissionlinetodistributepowertothesurroundingShepardMesacommunity.Thesepoleswouldalsocontainthird‐partylinesforcontinuedcableandtelecommunicationsservices.ThisoptionwouldrequiretwonewTSPriserpoles—oneateachendoftheundergroundedlinetotransitionthelineaboveandbelowground.TheapplicantmayneedtoobtainnewencroachmentpermitsasmanyexistingROWsonlyprovideoverheadaccess,andthecurrentROWmayincludeexistingundergroundinfrastructurethatwouldneedtobeavoidedsuchaswater,sewer,andgaslines.Inaddition,thedistributionpoleswouldneedtobeoffsetfromthealignmentoftheundergroundsubtransmissionline,whichcouldalsorequiretheacquisitionofnewROWs.Nofaultreturnconductorwouldberequiredwiththisoption.


09:002975.CP13.02 4‐3 July2014

Insert Figure 2:


09:002975.CP13.02 4‐4 July2014

This page intentionally left blank


09:002975.CP13.02 4‐5 July2014

4.3.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives OptionCwouldmeetallprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives(Sections1.6.2and1.6.3).Feasibility Undergroundingthetransmissionlineinaflatanddevelopedareaisafeasibleoption.OptionCwouldbefeasiblefromatechnical,legal,andeconomicperspective.Environmental Effect OptionCwouldreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactsthatresultedfromthereplacementofwoodpoleswithtallerLWSpolesalongSegment3A(Table2).Constructionofthisoptionwouldincluderemovalofthe12LWSpolesandwoodguystubsthatwereinstalledbetween1999and2004alongSegment3A.Duringconstruction,thisoptionwouldtemporarilyincreaseenvironmentaleffectsassociatedwithairemissions,noise,agriculture,traffic,andbiologicalandculturalresources.4.3.2 Conclusion RETAINED.OptionCwouldbefeasible,meetallprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives,andreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactsthatresultedfromthepastworkalongSegment3A.Therefore,thisoptionwasretainedforfurtherconsiderationintheEIR.

4.4 Option D – Relocate Segment 3A to Underground Conduit TheCPUCandSantaBarbaraCountyidentifiedOptionD.Underthisoption,Segment3AwouldincludetheinstallationofnewundergroundconduittosupportthesubtransmissionlinemainlyentirelywithinCaltransROWalongFoothillRoadandCasitasPassRoad.NoundergroundconduitwouldbeinstalledthroughthecenterofwithintheShepardMesacommunity;however,duetotheexistenceofoverheadelectricalfacilitiesaswellaspossibleundergroundinfrastructure,OptionDmayrequiredeviatingoutsideofCaltransROWandacquiringadditionaleasementsonprivateland,asneeded.TheapplicantwouldneedtoobtainnewencroachmentpermitsfornewROWastheirexistingeasementsonlyprovideoverheadaccessandwouldlikelynotcontainsufficientspacetoaccommodatebothadistributionlineandanundergroundsubtransmissionline.ThisoptionswouldalsorequiretwonewTSPriserpoles—oneateachendoftheundergroundedlinetotransitionthelineaboveandbelowground.Nofaultreturnconductorwouldberequired.TheexistingdistributionandthirdpartylineslocatedwithinSegment3AwouldremainwithintheexistingoverheadROW.Theexisting49LWSpoleslocatedalongSegment3Awouldberemovedandreplacedwith55‐foottallwooddistributionpoles.Theexisting35woodpoleslocatedalongSegment3Awouldbetoppedorremovedandreplacedwithwooddistributionpolesasneeded.IntheShepardMesacommunity,13wooddistributionpoleswouldbeconstructedintheexistingROW.4.4.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives OptionDwouldmeetmostoftheprojectobjectives(Section1.6.2).ProjectObjective3(increaseenergyefficiencyofthe66‐kVsubtransmissionline)wouldnotbemetunderthisalternative..ThisoptionwouldmeettheCountyofSantaBarbaraobjective(Section1.6.3).Feasibility Undergroundingthetransmissionlineinaflatanddevelopedareaisafeasibleoption.OptionDwouldbefeasiblefromatechnical,legal,andeconomicperspective.


09:002975.CP13.02 4‐6 July2014

Environmental Effect OptionDwouldreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactsthatresultedfromthereplacementofwoodpoleswithtallerLWSpolesandaTSPalongSegment3A(Table2).Constructionofthisoptionwouldincluderemovalofthe50LWSpoles,oneTSP,andwoodguystubsinstalledduringpastworkalongSegment3A,aswellastheremovalof35existingwoodpolesthatareconsideredtobeinsufficientlygoodconditionandwereleftinplaceduringtheconstructionactivitiesthatoccurredbetween1999and2004.Duringconstruction,thisoptionwouldtemporarilyincreaseenvironmentaleffectsassociatedwithairemissions,noise,agriculture,traffic,andbiologicalandculturalresources.4.4.2 Conclusion RETAINED.OptionDwouldbefeasible,meetmostoftheprojectobjectivesandmeettheCountyofSantaBarbaraobjective,andreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactsthatresultedfromthepastworkalongSegment3A.Therefore,thisoptionwasretainedforfurtherconsideration.

4.5 Option E – Reroute a Portion of Segment 3A along Casitas Pass Road on LWS Poles

OptionEwasidentifiedbythePEA.Underthisoption,the66‐kVconductorontheexistingLWSpoleslocatedintheShepardMesacommunity,southofShepardMesaDriveandwestofRinconRoad/SR150,wouldberelocatedwithintheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans)roadside2alongSR192/CasitasPassRoad(Figure2).ThenewroutewoulddivergefromtheexistingroutebyfollowingSR192fromitsjunctionwithSR150attheeasternterminusofSegment3AtotheSR192andShepardMesaRoadintersection.ThisnewroutewouldinstallLWSpolesoneitherthenorthorsouthsideofSR‐192.TheexistingdistributionfacilitiesthatarepresentlylocatedalongSR192wouldbetransferredtothenewsubtransmissionpolesifthenewLWSpoleswereinstalledonthesouthsideofSR192.IfthenewLWSpoleswereinstalledonthenorthsideofSR192,theexistingdistributionfacilitieswouldremaininplace,thusresultinginpolelinesalongbothsidesoftheroadway.TheapplicantwouldneedtoobtainnewROWsforthisoption.TheexistingtoppedwoodpolesintheShepardMesacommunitywouldremaininplacefordistributionandthird‐partylines.4.5.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives OptionEwouldmeetallprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives(Sections1.6.2and1.6.3).Feasibility OptionEwouldnotbefeasiblefromalegalperspective.ThewidthoftheCaltransROWintheareavaries,butgenerallyis40feetwide,whichiscenteredoveranapproximate24‐foot‐wideroad(Senet2013);therefore,thereisanapproximate7‐footroadsideoneachsideoftheroad.However,structureswouldhavetobeplacedatleast20feetfromtheouteredgeoftheroadbedinaccordancewithSection309.1(c)oftheHighwayDesignManual(Caltrans2013).Therefore,itwouldnotbefeasibletobuildthestructureswithintheCaltransROW.Environmental Effect Thelong‐termsignificantaestheticimpactoftheexistingsubtransmissionlinewouldnotbereduced,asthisoptionwouldtransfertheimpacttoviewshedsalongSR192/CasitasPassRoad.

2Ageneraltermdenotingtheareaadjoiningtheouteredgeoftheroadbedtotherightofwayline.


09:002975.CP13.02 4‐7 July2014

4.5.2 Conclusion ELIMINATED.OptionEwouldmeetalloftheprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives,butthisoptionwouldnotbefeasibleandwouldnotreduceasignificantimpact.Therefore,thisoptionwaseliminatedfromfurtherconsideration.

4.6 Option F – Reroute a Portion of Segment 3A along Casitas Pass Road on Wood Poles

OptionFwasidentifiedbytheCPUC.SimilartoOptionE,underthisoption,the66‐kVconductorontheexistingLWSpoleslocatedintheShepardMesacommunity,southofShepardMesaDriveandwestofRinconRoad/SR150,wouldberelocatedwithintheCaltransroadsidealongSR192/CasitasPassRoad(seeFigure2).ThenewroutewoulddivergefromtheexistingroutebyfollowingSR192fromitsjunctionwithSR192fromitsjunctionwithSR150attheeasternterminusofSegment3AtotheSR192andShepardMesaRoadintersection.ThisnewroutewouldinstallwoodpolesoneitherthenorthorsouthsideofSR192.TheexistingdistributionfacilitiesthatarepresentlylocatedalongSR192wouldbetransferredtothenewsubtransmissionpolesifthenewwoodpoleswereinstalledonthesouthsideofSR192.IfthenewwoodpoleswereinstalledonthenorthsideofSR192,theexistingdistributionfacilitieswouldremaininplace,thusresultinginpolelinesalongbothsidesoftheroadway.TheapplicantwouldneedtoobtainnewROWsforthisoption.TheexistingtoppedwoodpolesintheShepardMesacommunitywouldremaininplacefordistributionandthird‐partylines.4.6.1 Consideration of CEQA Criteria Project Objectives OptionFwouldmeetallprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectives(Sections1.6.2and1.6.3).Feasibility OptionFwouldnotbefeasiblefromalegalperspective.ThewidthoftheCaltransROWintheareavaries,butgenerallyis40feetwide,whichiscenteredoveranapproximate24‐footwideroad(Senet2013);therefore,thereisanapproximate7‐footroadsideoneachsideoftheroad.However,structureswouldhavetobeplacedatleast20feetfromtheouteredgeoftheroadbedinaccordancewithSection309.1(c)oftheHighwayDesignManual(Caltrans2013).Therefore,itwouldnotbefeasibletobuildthestructureswithintheCaltransROW.Environmental Effect OptionFwouldreducethesignificantlong‐termaestheticimpactsthatresultedfromthepastworkalongSegment3A.TheuseofwoodpoleswithintheShepardMesaareawouldreducetheimpacttovisualqualitythatresultedfromthepastworkalongSegment3A.4.6.2 Conclusion ELIMINATED.OptionFwouldmeetalloftheprojectandCountyofSantaBarbaraobjectivesandreducelong‐termsignificantaestheticimpacts,butthisoptionwouldnotbefeasible.Therefore,thisoptionwaseliminatedfromfurtherconsideration.


09:002975.CP13.02 4‐8 July2014


09:002975.CP13.02 5‐1 July2014

Chapter 5

5 Summary of Screening Report

ThissectionpresentsasummaryoftheconclusionsfromSections3and4.Eachalternativeandoptionidentifiedbytheapplicant,CPUC,theCountyofSantaBarbara,andpublicarelistedinTable3alongwithasummaryofthescreeningresults.BasedontheanalysispresentedinthisScreeningReport,thefollowingalternativeswillbecarriedforwardforfullanalysisinChapter5oftheEIR:AlternativeA ReducetheScopeofWorkalongSegments1,2,and3AAlternativeB InstallSomeStructuresalongSegment4viaHelicopterThefollowingoptionswillbecarriedforwardforanalysisinChapter7oftheEIR:OptionA: PaintExistingLWSpolesandTSPalongSegment3AOptionB: ReplaceExistingLWSPoleswithWoodPolesalongSegment3AOptionC: RelocatethePortionofSegment3AthatTraversesAgriculturalLandintheShepard

MesaCommunitytoUndergroundConduitOptionD: RelocateSegment3AtoUndergroundConduit

5 Summary of Screening Report

09:002975.CP13.02 5‐2 July2014

Table 3: Summary of the Screening Report

Alternatives Carried Forward In PEA

Project Objectives

CountyObj. Feasible Environmental Effect of the Proposed Project

Obj. #1

Obj. #2

Obj. #3

Proposed Project Alternatives

A Reduce the Scope of Work along Segments 1, 2, and 3A

Yes No N/A Yes Would avoid potentially significant impacts on air quality from NOX and PM10 emissions.

B Install Some Structures along Segment 4 via Helicopter

Yes No N/A Yes Would avoid potentially significant impacts on biological and cultural resources.

C Underground Segments 3B and 4 No Yes N/A No Would avoid potentially significant aesthetic impacts.

Options for the Past Work along Segment 3A

A Paint Existing LWS Poles and TSP along Segment 3A

Yes No Yes Would reduce the significant long‐term aesthetic impacts that resulted from the past work along Segment 3A.

B Replace Existing LWS Poles with Wood Poles along Segment 3A


C Relocate the Portion of Segment 3A that Traverses Agricultural Land in the Shepard Mesa Community to Underground Conduit

Yes No Yes Would reduce the significant long‐term aesthetics impacts that resulted from the past work along Segment 3A.

D Relocate Segment 3A to Underground Conduit


E Reroute a Portion of Segment 3A along Casitas Pass Road on LWS Poles

No Yes No Would not reduce a significant long‐term that resulted from the past work along Segment 3A.

F Reroute a Portion of Segment 3A along Casitas Pass Road on Wood Poles

No No No Would reduce the significant long‐term aesthetic impacts that resulted from the past work along Segment 3A.

09:002975.CP13.02 6‐1 July2014

Chapter 6

6 References Caltrans(CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation).2013.HighwayDesignManual.Website:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm.AccessedSeptember3,2013.PSCW(PublicServiceCommissionofWisconsin).2011.UndergroundElectricTransmissionLine.

MaySCE(SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCompany).2012.Proponent’sEnvironmentalAssessment:Santa

BarbaraCountyReliabilityProject(October26),asamendedbyresponsesfromSCEtoCPUCrequestsforadditionalinformation.

Senet,Steve.2013.CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationDistrict5EncroachmentPermit

Engineer.PersonalConversationwithBonnyO’ConnorofEcologyandEnvironment,Inc.,onSeptember3,2013.

6 References

09:002975.CP13.02 6‐2 July2014


santa barbara county reliability project screening report ... h... · 09:002975.cp13.02 santa...

Documents