FINDINGS

Based on the analysis presented in the Initial Study and Negative Declaration, the CPUC finds that the Williams Communications Five Regeneration Stations Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The preparation of an environmental impact report pursuant to CEQA (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California) is not required.

/s/ NATALIE WALSH August 13, 2001

Natalie Walsh, Program Manager Date

Analysis Branch

Energy Division

California Public Utilities Commission

FINAL CEQA INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project title:

Williams Communications Five Regenerations Stations

2. Lead agency name and address:

California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, California 94102

3. Contact person and phone number:

Nicolas Procos, CPUC Project Manager

4. Project location:

Herald Site - Sacramento County, Alta Mesa Road, 3000 feet north of Simmerhorn Road

Tulare Site - City of Tulare, east side of J St., south of Pleasant Avenue

Claremont Site - City of Claremont, 451 W. Arrow Highway

Ontario Site - City of Ontario, 350 South Milliken Avenue

Palmdale Site - City of Palmdale, 456 feet north of Avenue Q on the west side of 17^th St. East

(See attached maps)

5. Project sponsor=s name and address:

Williams Communications, Inc

110 West 7^th Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119-3000

Attention: Douglas Mitchell

6. General plan designation:

Herald Site - Agricultural

Tulare Site - Commercial

Claremont Site - Office Professional

Ontario Site - Planned Industrial

Palmdale Site - Industrial

7. Zoning:

Herald Site - Agricultural (AG-80)

Tulare Site - Commercial (C4)

Claremont Site - Community Professional

Ontario Site - Office Industrial

Palmdale Site - Light Industrial (M-1)

8. Description of project: Because a signal on a fiber optic strand must be amplified (i.e., boosted) approximately every 40 miles and reconstructed, or "cleaned up," every 140 to 200 miles, Williams plans to install five regenerators at the site locations described in this Initial Study. A regenerator station houses the electrical equipment that reconstructs and boosts the optical signal. Typical stations consist of three to eight, 12 by 30 foot precast concrete buildings lined up side by side on a concrete pad. Each building comes from the manufacturer equipped with one or two heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units to maintain a steady temperature for the electronic equipment. These units operate from the same electrical source as the rest of the station.

The buildings will be located within a fenced area. The unstaffed, locked facility requires commercial electric power and periodic maintenance. Each station will have an overhead security light and a small light over the door. A diesel generator will be installed for emergency back-up power. The Ontario Station facility will be installed inside an existing commercial building in a strip mall. Conduit and cable will be installed by boring from the fiber mainline right-of-way, under the parking lot, into the building.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project=s surroundings.)

Herald Site - scattered single-family residence and agricultural activities

Tulare Site - Commercial

Claremont Site - single-family, commercial and office

Ontario Site - Commercial and office

Palmdale Site - single-family, commercial and light industrial

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)

Where required, each project site individually received a discretionary permit from the appropriate local agencies. When approving a permit, each jurisdiction listed below evaluated their regeneration site project and its applicability to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Herald and Palmdale sites were approved with a CEQA Negative Declaration and two sites were determined to be exempt from CEQA. The Ontario site does not require a discretionary permit from the City of Ontario and has not received any previous CEQA action. Because the CPUC must issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for all five sites, it decided to combine the development of all five stations sites as one project and reissue a CEQA document integrating all actions together. This review incorporates the previous CEQA reviews and the information in the list of supporting information sources at the end of this document. The following permits have been issued for these sites:

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a APotentially Significant Impact@ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

	Aesthetics		Agricultural Resources		Air Quality
	Biological Resources		Cultural Resources		Geology/Soils
	Hazards & Hazardous Materials		Hydrology/Water Quality		Land Use/Planning
	Mineral Resources		Noise		Population/Housing
	Public Services		Recreation		Transportation/Traffic
	Utilities/Service Systems		Mandatory Findings of Significance

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 to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. 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 Apotentially significant impact@ or Apotentially significant unless
mitigated@ impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) 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 all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.

/s/ NATALIE WALSH August 13, 2001

Signature Date

Natalie Walsh

Printed Name For

California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Division

Issues & Supporting Information Sources

Potentially Significant Impact

Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

None of the project sites and their associated facilities will have a substantial 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?

None of the project sites and their associated facilities will substantially damage scenic resources.

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

The visual character of the Herald, Palmdale and Claremont sites will be changed. The applicant will mitigate these changes by modifying the shape of the structures and/or by placingperimeter walls as required by the conditional use permits.

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The project will not result in any new source of light or glare that would adversely affect views in the area.

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. 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?

Only the Herald site is located on agricultural land. The Sacramento County NegativeDeclaration stated that the site is not considered Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance nor does it contain prime soils.

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Williamson Act contracts apply to any of the sites. The Herald site was not consistent with its agricultural zoning and was made consistent with issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.

c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

The Herald site will not involve other changes that could result in conversion of additional agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.

III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The project will not result in any net increase of any criteria pollutant for applicable air quality plans.

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

The project will not violate any air standard or contribute to other air violations.

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 emission which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project regions are in non-attainment.

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in excess of standards.

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

The project is not expected to cause objectionable odors.

IV. 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 or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

The project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

b. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

The project will not have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian or sensitive natural community.

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wet-lands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (incl.,

but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, other means?

No wetland will be adversely affected by development of any of the five project sites.

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?

None of the sites will interfere with wildlife corridors or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

The project sites will not conflict with any local policies or ordances protecting wildlife resources.

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The project sites will not conflict with any adopted HCPs, NCCPs or other approved conservation plans.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5?

The proposed stations would affect no historic resource.

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5?

Upon review by archaeological consultants, no cultural resources were identified within or adjacent to any site from field inspections and a record search. Because of the potential for an unanticipated find uncovered during construction, mitigation is recommended to establish procedures to stop work.

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

No paleontological resource or unique geologic feature would be affected by the proposed stations.

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

The mitigation for (b) will also apply forunanticipated finds of human remains.

VI. 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.

All five sites are located outside of Alquist-Priolo Zones.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

The project would be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building code and individual county standards to mitigate for seismic concerns on-site.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

The project would be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building code and individual county standards to mitigate for seismic concerns on-site.

iv) Landslides?

Landslides will not affect the project because of the lack of slopes.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or lost 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?

The project sites are not located on unstable soils which could potentially become unstable as a result of the project.

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?

All of the sites are located on low to moderate expansive soils. The proposed project would be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code and County of Tulare standards to avoid risks to life.

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?

The project sites do not require septic systems or waste water disposal.

VII. 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?

The project stations do not routinely transport, use or dispose 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?

The project stores diesel fuel for a generator in each station.

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The project stations do not involve the use or handling of hazardous materials.

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

The project stations are not located on a known hazardous materials site.

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?

The project stations are not located within two miles of a public airport.

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?

The project stations are not located within the vicinity of any private airstrips.

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The project will not interfere with any known emergency response or 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?

The project stations are unmanned.

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

The project will not violate any known water standard or 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 (i.e., 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)?

The project will not deplete groundwater or interfere with groundwater recharge.

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?

The project will not result in any substantial change in drainage patterns including alteration of stream courses leading to substantial erosion or siltation.

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?

The project will not result in any substantial change in drainage patterns including alteration of stream courses resulting in flooding.

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?

The project will not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

The project will not 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?

No housing is associated with the project sites.

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Development of the project sites will not 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?

The project sites will not expose people or be exposed to significant actions resulting from flooding or failure of a levee or dam.

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

The project sites will not be susceptible to a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?

The project sites are on relatively small parcels and would not require the relocation of any streets or community service facilities or have any other effects that would disrupt or divide the physical arrangements of the communities.

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?

The project stations have been considered consistent with general plans and zoning except for the Herald site where a conditional use permit was issued to allow the facility in the Ag-80 agricultural zone.

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?

No approved plans conflict with any of the five project sites.

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?

No valuable mineral resources are known to be located any of the project sites.

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 important mineral resources are delineated in the general plans for any of the project sites.

XI. 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?

The stations will be designed accordance with the conditional use permits or building permit requirements addressing required noise standards.

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

The project will not result in exposure to or generation of excessive vibration or noise levels.

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

No permanent increase in ambient noise levels will occur from the project.

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Project construction will result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project during construction.

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?

The project sites would not expose workers to excessiveairport noise levels; people will not reside at the stations.

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?

The project sites are not located in the vicinity of private airstrips.

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The project stations are unmanned facilities. No population would be added to site environs or region by project implementation.

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The project stations are unmanned facilities. No population would be added to site environs or region by project implementation

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The project stations will not displace any people.

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES

a. Would the project 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:

Fire protection?

The project stations are unmanned facilities. No population would be added to site environs or region by project implementation.

Police protection?

The project stations are unmanned facilities. No population would be added to site environs or region by project implementation.

Schools?

The project stations are unmanned facilities. No population would be added to site environs or region by project implementation.

Parks?

The project stations are unmanned facilities. No population would be added to site environs or region by project implementation.

Other public facilities?

The project stations are unmanned facilities. No population would be added to site environs or region by project implementation.

XIV. RECREATION

a. Would the project 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?

The project stations are unmanned and would not increase the use of nearby recreational facilities.

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The project stations does not include any construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:

a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

Construction traffic will increase adjacent access roads temporarily during installation of each station.

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

The projects sites will be unmanned and will not exceed and level of service standard.

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?

The project sites will have not effect on air traffic patterns.

d. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The project sites would not conflict with any design features found on existing thoroughfares, and since the sites are unmanned, no incompatible effects hazardous to existing conditions should occur..

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

Emergency access and access to nearby uses would be maintained during project construction and during project operation at all sites.

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

Sufficient parking and staging area would be provided on-site for all construction activities and project operation. No off site parking would be required.

g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

The project would be an unmanned facility and therefore would not create a need for alternative transportation. The station sites would not conflict with known transportation polices, plans or programs.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

The projects sites have no requirements for wastewater treatment.

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?

The projects sites will be unmanned and have no requirements for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities.

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?

The projects sites have no requirements for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities.

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

The projects sites will be unmanned and have no water supply requirements.

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?

The projects sites will be unmanned and have no wastewater requirements.

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs?

The project sites will be unmanned and have no solid waste disposal needs.

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The project sites will be unmanned and have no solid waste disposal needs.

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

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 self-sustaining 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?

The project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife specie, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Acumulatively 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.)

Development of the proposed project sites would contribute to cumulative impacts in the local communities, but these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with other past, current, and future projects in each community

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or

indirectly?

The project will cause no adverse effects to human beings.

Supporting Information Sources: