Index to the web page below:
Jul 15 letter from Jeff Culley to CEC
Aug 29 email from Jeff Culley re Sac Bee article. Will Dickinson listen to CPAC?
STOP Mission Statement from Jeff Culley
Sept 6 Rio Linda News on Dickinson's "word"
Sept 27 letter in NEWS from Patti Camati: Tell the CEC
Oct 3 email from Jan O'Brien to Board of Sups on Dickinson's attack on Debbie Byrne
Oct 4 letter to Board of Sups from Allan Friedman; Merchant plant, urban sprawl, energy crisis, Dickinson's reply
Oct 4 letter in NEWS from Preston Robinson asking Dickinson to represent the people
Oct 4 letter in NEWS from Howard Baxter asking Dickinson for a complete reply
Oct 6 letter from Jo Vierria to Dickinson re completion of tasks, Dickinson's reply
Oct 7 email from Jerry Sutton to Dickinson re Dickinson's attitude at Board meeting , Dickinson's reply
Oct 11 letter from John Risse; God's creatures vs. FPL
Oct 17 letter from Frieda Vierria to Dickinson re his attack on Debbie Byrne, Dickinson's reply
Oct 25 letter from Jeff Culley on Noise effects of the power plant
Lacey Carlson's Oct 23 letter to Dickinson, Dickinson's reply, Debbie Courtney's follow-up
Testimony to Board of Supervisors: November 20, 2001, from Jeff Culley
Testimony to Board of Supervisors: November 20, 2001, from Frieda Vierria
Testimony to Board of Supervisors: November 20, 2001, from Jo Vierria
Letter to Dickinson from Preston Robinson, published Nov. 29, 2001 Re: Dickinson's reply to Lacey
Open Letter from Debbie Courtney re 11/20 Board meeting, published Nov. 29, 2001
Jan 9 2002 letter from Jeff Culley to Roger Dickinson on Community Benefits Package
Jan 26 letter in NEWS from Preston Robinson to Dickinson: whose interests?
Feb 13 letter in NEWS from Preston Robinson to CEC (Lance Shaw): Children, air pollution and asthma

Mr. Lance Shaw
Energy Commission Project Manager
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814-5512

Dear Mr. Shaw,

Florida Power and Light would like for the CEC and the general public to believe they are going to build a 560 MW power plant in our community with our blessing.  They would like for you to believe that our community is in favor of the plant as it is proposed. As Co-Chair of S.T.O.P. (formerly Florida Power and Light Liaison Committee but changed to “Stop The Oppressive Power plant”, a committee that began investigating the proposed plant in hopes of being able to mitigate our communities concerns and negotiate a community benefits package) I would like to go on record and say that I believe Florida Power and Light is working very hard to divide and unfairly take advantage of our community.

Florida Power and Light is short-circuiting our negotiation process as much as possible by attempting to convince certain individuals with influence that current zoning for the proposed plant site is appropriate.  Florida Power and Light wants people to believe that because it was “approved” once before, in a previous application, by another company (SEPCO), which was specifically zoned for a “Co-Generation” plant, that they should be able to plop a different type of plant down on that land.  How can this plant be built when zoning hasn’t even been changed to accommodate this proposed plant?  Sacramento County has not even begun a process to investigate this zoning yet.  Rio Linda / Elverta Community Planning and Advisory Counsel (CPAC) to the County Planning Department has not been involved in any process to consider the zoning.

Florida Power and Light would like for the CEC to believe they are meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements to inform the public of what they are doing and solicit feedback, but what is really happening is that Florida Power and Light is “flying under the radar”.  When CPAC invited Florida Power and Light to attend a meeting in which the public would be invited, to give a presentation, they rejected the invitation and stated they would be holding their own “Community Meeting” (which was a poorly attended open house format one weekday afternoon at Elverta Elementary School).  At a meeting initiated by STOP (months after Florida Power and Light’s open house) it was discovered that a large percentage of the neighbors to the project site had not received any information from Florida Power and Light.  If Florida Power and Light were honestly working with our community in good faith and trying to be a “good neighbor”, why would they not send notices to all the neighbors of the proposed site, but instead make an agreement with a community member that lives miles away on El Verano Avenue in Elverta that they would be taken care of in the event their well went dry as a result of this plant being built?

Here’s the kicker; recently Florida Power and Light has been contacting community organizations and telling them to remove themselves from our community committee or risk losing any opportunity to benefit from a community benefits package.  I personally received a phone call from Renee Taylor on or around July 6, 2001.  Renee Taylor (a hired representative of Florida Power and Light) told me Florida Power and Light would no longer discuss a community benefits package with our community group now that we were showing opposition to the project (as currently proposed).  She stated that she would be searching for or attempting to form, another group in the community that would be willing to discuss such a package.  It is evident that this is exactly what she is trying to do is “divide and conquer” through intimidation. Specifically, since that phone call, two of our community organizations have withdrawn representation from our group and I fear there will be more.

In summary and to make some clarifications, our group changed its’ name from FPLLC (which was told by the Roger Dickinson, Sacramento Planning Agency, District 1, that he would not be appointing a community committee for Florida Power and Light to work with because we had appropriate representation) to STOP because we were not in favor of the plant being built “as proposed”.  We also changed our name because so much of the community thought we were an arm of Florida Power and Light.  We are still willing (despite what we call ourselves) to mitigate the concerns of our community and negotiate a benefits package for our community.  If Florida Power and Light were to come to the table and work with us in good faith, we might even consider changing our name to GO.  At this time however, we must make it clear that we are in opposition to the oppressive manor in which such an arrogant company as Florida Power and Light is navigating through our community.  Our community needs for Florida Power and Light to come back to our community committee, allow any and all community organizations to send representation, discontinue trying to divide and conquer, and work with us in good faith to mitigate our concerns and negotiate a legitimate benefits package.  We need your help to accomplish this.

Sincerely,

Jeff Culley, Co-Chair
S.T.O.P.

I read the article this morning.  (click here for the article) I find it very interesting that the author of the article says that Roger Dickinson "represents" Rio Linda and Elverta, and quotes Roger at the same time as saying  he was "undecided and expressed concern about the Air Quality and Ground Water Supply" and in the same day, "I will pay very close attention to what OUR lawyer tells us" (OUR?).

If Roger truly represents us, then he will know that no matter what his lawyer tells him, the people of this community do not want this plant placed here. There are other sites more suitable. It is not NECESSARY for this plant to be built at this particular site. This site is not zoned appropriately for this plant. The only incentive for him to support this plant being built as proposed, is a quick $ 3,000,000 in tax revenue to the (rest of the) County, and perhaps a personal benefits package in the form of campaign contributions?

If Roger truly represents us (Rio Linda and Elverta), then will he will listen to the suggestions of HIS CPAC (Community Planning and ADVISORY Committee) on this issue?

Tonight is a very important time. The papers are writing that we are opposed to the plant. Roger knows we are opposed to the plant, but he needs to have hundreds of eyes looking into his this evening as he does any voting.

If at all possible, we need everyone reading this email that is concerned about what is happening here, to COME to tonight's meeting. Please. If you can, fill your car with others.

Public Meeting Place:
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
700 H Street, Room # 1450
Sacramento, California

Time:
August 29, 2001 (tonight)
6:00 PM

Jeff Culley, Co-Chair
STOP (Stop The Oppressive Power plant)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [STOP] Letter to the Editor
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:15:42 -0700
From: "Jeff Culley" <jeffculley@home.com>
To: "Don Flesch" <rlnews@aol.com>
CC: Stop The Oppressive Powerplant <stop@vrx.net>

STOP is a group of people within our community that has been working very hard to make sure our community has a voice regarding the building of a 560 Mega Watt power plant by Florida Power and Light, LLC.

Our Mission Statement -

"The citizens of Rio Linda and Elverta value the quality of life in our community.  The STOP committee is committed to safeguarding that quality of life and representing the community's opposition to the Florida Power and Light plant as proposed".

As you know,  on August  14 and 21, 2001 our local CPAC held public meetings with County representatives and FPL representatives to discuss zoning for the property FPL is insistent upon building a polluting, unsightly, noisy, ground water consuming, non-ethanol producing power plant to supply power to everyone else but us.  Not just in our back yard, but in some of our residents "front yard" too.  Community attendance was astounding  (over 100 people) and after looking carefully at the zoning requirements for that property, CPAC voted unanimously to recommend to the County Board of Supervisors that the current zoning for the proposed site does not provide for a "stand alone power plant" to be built.

That message was carried forth and on August 29, 2001, The Sacramento Board of Supervisors held an evening Board Meeting to determine whether or not the zoning is appropriate.  Once again, we were pleased with the number of Rio Linda and Elverta residents that showed up and gave support to our  CPAC Chairman, Deborah Byrne as she gave an awesome presentation that (despite what the County  legal counsel has been saying to them) prompted extensive discussion and ultimately a motion to continue the meeting on October 3, 2001 at 2:15 PM.  But not until Sacramento Planning has had a chance to seek the wisdom of the California Energy Commission on the issue.  During the Public Testimony time there were approximately thirty-four (34)  who gave public testimony and only two (2) that I know of  from our community, that were actually in favor of the plant being built at that site.

Mary Ann Costamagna, Information Officer for the California Energy Commission recently placed this notice on our Rio Linda / Elverta e-mail list:

"The staff of the California Energy Commission will hold a status conference on the proposed Rio Linda/Elverta Power Project as follows:"

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2001
Beginning at 10 a.m.
California Energy Commission
Hearing Room A
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California
(Wheelchair Accessible)

"The purpose of the conference will be to discuss whether case development is progressing satisfactorily, and to bring potential schedule delays or other relevant matters to the Committee's attention".

"Members of the public and interested agencies are invited to participate in the conference. Time will be reserved to allow members of the public to comment. Those who wish further information about how to participate should contact Roberta Mendonca, the Commission's Public Adviser, at  (916) 654-4489, toll free in California at (800) 822-6228, or by e-mail at pao@energy.state.ca.us."

If there is anyone out there wanting to work with STOP (that would actually like to STOP the plant) to safeguard our quality of life and oppose the FPL plant as it is proposed, they can call or email us for more information.

The Power Plant is Not a Done Deal !

Jeff Culley, Co-Chair
STOP

STOP Contacts:

Jeff Culley, Co-Chair                      John Sassaman, Co-Chair
STOP                                            STOP
E-mail - jeffculley@home.com        E-mail - yersinia@mac.com
Phone - 991-9074                          Phone - 991-7097

>From the Stop The Oppressive Powerplant mailing list

September 6, 2001 Vol. 19 No. 36

The following transcription was prepared by Jay O'Brien from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting on March 9, 1994, starting at 6PM. The Board unanimously adopted Supervisor Dickinson's resolution at 9:01 PM. A video tape is available to support this transcription.

County Planner Trisha Stevens, at 6:15 PM: "The first condition of approval, and I think this is very important to understand, that the condition limits the use to this facility to a power plant and ethanol facility. If for whatever reasons, this project is not built, there is not another use that would be authorized on this property."

First District Sacramento County Supervisor Dickinson, at 8:38 PM: "What I do think it makes sense to do, as I said, is try to formulate a project that will be as good a project as it can possibly be and in that connection I have attempted to work with members of the community, staff that have worked on this, and the applicant, to formulate a proposal that advances the proposition here of making this the best project it can be. I want to take just a moment, even though Trish talked a little bit at the outset about some of these conditions, to enumerate them again because I think they're very, very, significant and important. First of all, this project will not occur, or the rezone I suppose I should say, will not be effective for any use other than this project. And so, the fear that this rezone might occur and some other use be made of this property will not occur if we approve the resolution that I have offered."

The 1994 Resolution made by Supervisor Dickinson and passed by the Board of Supervisors limits Land Use Zoning and applies directly to the SEPCO co-generation power and ethanol plant only. No other use would qualify according to the resolution presented by Supervisor Dickinson. If another use were to be considered if the SEPCO project failed to be built, the Land Use Zoning would have to be redone from scratch. This certainly would entail new EIR studies and findings which is probably why the CEC (California Energy Commission) has petitioned the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to make the decision whether or not the land use zoning is proper for the now proposed stand-alone FPL (Florida Power and Light) Power Plant Project. According to Roger Dickinson in 1994 the FPL project would not be allowed to be built.

It is surprising that County Planning Staff, and, County Legal Staff have not come to this conclusion based on the evidence submitted in 1994 Perhaps they didn't do their homework. One would surmise that the Resolution that was passed in 1994 and the promise of Supervisor Dickinson in 1994 when he proposed his resolution that was passed that the rezone would not apply to any other use of this property. Did Supervisor Dickinson deliberately mislead the other Supervisors? I don't think so, but, going by his words, "any other use on that property would not occur".

The then first-term Supervisor was very explicit in his choice of words when proposing the resolution. I only wish that he and County council and County Planning could be as explicit with their words today. They seem to be beating around the bush.

Well anyway, once again it's time to get to press, so, it's 30 for me and 73 to you.

Dear Rio Linda/Elverta citizens,

As many of you are already aware, FPL Energy Sacramento Power, LLC.; a division of Florida Power and Light is in the application process to build a 560 Megawatt power plant near the intersection of U Street and West 6th Street In Rio Linda.

In the application, AFC 5.15.1, Elverta Elementary and Kids Country Corner Day Care was not listed or shown on the Sensitive Receptors map, AFC 5.15-2.

According to the application Locations of Maximum Impact Map, AFC 5.15-4, the Maximum Cancer Impact location as bordered by, Elwyn Ave., Elverta Rd. and Eloise Ave.. This places the Children, Educators, Parents, Caretakers and the local homeowners into a high risk area that is presently not known to be there.

The Maximum Chronic Impact Area is bordered by, Rio Linda Blvd., Elverta Rd., and Auburn Ave.. This puts anyone who travels through. that section of public roadway to access Elverta Elementary school, the Post Office, the Fire Station, or Highways 99, 80 and 5, at a potential health risk too.

The Maximum Acute Impact Area is bordered by El Rio Ave., Delano St., U st./ and Elverta.

The applicant states that an alternative scale was used for this portion of their submittal as the area is generally flat and contains few, sensitive receptors, AFC 5.15.1 paragraph 2.

Sensitive Receptors are defined as groups of individuals that may be more susceptible to the health risks associated with chemical exposure. Schools, Day Care Facilities, Convalescent Homes and Hospitals are of particular concern,  AFC 5.15.1 paragraph 3.

No reference was given as to how information was obtained or how much or how little a few is.

These studies offer vicinities of the health risk areas but are subject to environmental conditions too. This means that as the winds blow, as the heat rises , the air settles and so forth, so will the health risk range alter somewhat.

This puts anyone who is already challenged in health at an even greater risk, particularly those with Asthma, Bronchitis, Allergies, Emphysema and a family history of Cancer. The truth of all health risks from power plants are unknown.

As concerned parents and citizens for the health of ourselves, our loved ones and our neighbors, Please get involved in this application process.

Our California Energy Commission Staff wants to know how many are being effected and how many care that they are being effected.

They would lake to know how many local people already have present health risks and are in a sensitive grouping. This would enable them to best determine if this is the proper location of this power facility or if design modifications should be considered as an alternative to lower significant impacts.

The challenge presented to them is that they must make a finding that is based. on the knowledge that they have.

Therefore it is up to each person to be solely responsible in getting this information to the California Energy Commission Staff.

It only requires a note stating your concern, health risk, or whatever you would like to offer to this process to better assist our CEC Staff in knowing this community and its people on a more personal level.

To submit your information you can write to:

State of California
California Energy Commission
Lance Shaw, Project Manager
1516 9th Street
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
To e-mail: lshaw@energy.state.ca.us

Patti Camatti

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: October 3, 2001 PM session of the Board
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 22:38:22 -0700
From: Jan O'Brien <k6hhd@att.net>
To: Roger Niello <nielloroger@saccounty.net>,
       Roger Dickinson <rogerd@saccounty.net>,
       Illa Collin <illac@saccounty.net>,
       Muriel Johnson <murielj@saccounty.net>,
       Don Nottoli <donn@saccounty.net>
CC: Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>

Criticism Unwarranted

Roger Dickinson's public chastisement of Debbie Byrne at today's afternoon session of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors was not only uncalled for and unjustified, it is a prime example why the people of the community of Rio Linda / Elverta feel that they are not being properly represented. While Roger did not identify Debbie by name, there is no question at whom his criticism was aimed.

Debbie works very hard for this community and her work is all voluntary. Perhaps this lack of support from our elected representative has something to do with the reason we have so many vacancies on our CPAC.

Jan O'Brien
Rio Linda

>From the Stop The Oppressive Powerplant mailing list

Roger, et.al.

I am a better writer than speaker, which is why I did not contribute to the discussion at yesterday's board meeting. But I would like to contribute some thoughts.

First, most of the community, especially those of us who have been actively involved in these discussions, understand that the CEC is the final decision maker.  We know that the board does not have the authority to deny the plant any permits, rights or anything else that would result in the plants being built or not.

But the community does look to you to provide the CEC with a determination about the appropriateness of this use for this parcel of land.  That is the role the CEC has laid out for you and that is what the community expects of you.

We understand that the CEC will make a determination about the land use with or without your input.  However, they have said that they will give great weight to what you say on this matter. That is why it is important to us that you act.  Should you find that this is not an appropriate land use, it will set a very high bar for the applicant (FPL) to hurdle.  According to CEC staff it would still be possible for the project to go through, but it is unlikely that it would.

The weight that your determination will carry with the CEC is the reason this is an important decision that needs to be studied as carefully as any other use permit, if not more so.  The recommendations that staff presented yesterday were not based on a careful study of the issues and are, I believe, insufficient for you to based a determination on.

UTILITY Vs. MERCHANT PLANT
Staff has suggested that when looking at this project to evaluate its consistency with the general and community plans, it should be considered like a utility.  The logic behind that is false and misleading. A merchant power plant, which FPL proposes, is significantly different from a utility and it should not be evaluated along the same lines.

The difference is this; a utility provides a vital service to businesses and consumers.  It conveys electricity, water, sewage, or communications. It has an infrastructure; pipes, wires, towers, to convey that service. It has trucks, service people, and technicians that all interact with the end user (consumers and businesses), all within a specific community.

A merchant power plant manufactures electricity.  It does not have an infrastructure, save for its connection to the grid.  It does not provide services to the end users.  It does not have service people or staff that interface with the end users.  And its product is not necessarily consumed within the community.  Indeed, its product may well be shipped out of state.

FPL's project should not be evaluated as "like" a utility because it is not like a utility at all.  The only thing it has in common with a utility is that it is a part of the electrical industry.  It is a manufacturing facility and should be evaluated as such.

URBAN SPAWL
When a true and honest appraisal of the project begins, the zoning issue must be resolved.  I won't address that now as it would take too much space, but if we assume that the project is a permitted use for this parcel, (a view I do not endorse) is it an appropriate use?  Does it comply with the community and general plans for development?

Building this plant would establish a beachhead for industrialization along the NEMDC corridor.  Most of the land there is zoned for industrial reserve, not industrial development.  It is agricultural and residential in nature.  Indeed, the county has committed to removing nuisance businesses from that area (the wreaking yards) that are not compatible with this rural nature.

Reserve means held for future development.  Is the future now?  Do we need to use this area for industrial purposes at this point in time? Take a good look around this county.  There are several industrial and commercial areas that are in decline, blighted or underdeveloped.  The county should be encouraging development of those areas rather than conceding to the greed of developers and businesses that seek to maximize profits by purchasing cheap, virgin land to develop.

There will come a time when land that is zoned industrial reserve will need to be opened up to manufacturing and industrial uses, but we are a long way from needing that now.  This is recognized in the community and general plans and should be adhered to when looking at the appropriateness of this project for this parcel of land.

THE ENERGY CRISIS
Ms Johnson made reference, yesterday, to the need for more power generating capacity in California and a desire not to impede solutions to a perceived energy crisis.  The "crisis" California experienced earlier this year was more a failure of policy than a shortage of energy.  While there is a chronic need for more generating capacity, our conservation efforts, recently added capacity and changes to public policy have demonstrated that we can weather the current storm and take the time to carefully consider projects such as this.

Several projects have come on line and others are scheduled to come on line long before FPL's plant even breaks ground.  SMUD's Rancho Seco retooling, Enron's Roseville project and others will fill much of the capacity gap, lessening the need for this project.  Additionally, it is important to note that this merchant project can not be legally bound to sell its product in California.  The electricity it produces may very well be sold out of state, contributing nothing to our state's supply.

While Ms Johnson is right to be concerned about the state's needs, The impact this project will have on supplies, is not relevant to your determinations on land use.  That is an issue for the CEC to consider and should not affect your considerations.

Finally, I appreciate the difficulties you face in tackling the zoning issue and making a determination about the appropriateness of this land use.  I understand your concerns about the potential tax revenues at stake, the possible community benefits package, and your desire to contribute to solving the state's energy problems.

It is important that you, as leaders of the county and guardians of our community, participate fully in the CEC siting process.  I hope that we can have a full, honest and careful study of the land use issues and that you will give the CEC the guidance they seek from the county.  Further I urge you to give the community's concerns the full measure and weight they deserve in your considerations and remember that if it is built, the power plant will be a permanent fixture in the community long after any "energy crisis" is resolved.

Allan M. Friedman
Rio Linda/Everta CPAC

Information Technology Manager
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, Inc.
660 J Street, Suite 270
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-325-1690 (v) 916-325-1695 (tty)
allanm@cfilc.org
www.cfilc.org/www.atnet.org

From: "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
To: "'Allan M. Friedman'" <allanm@cfilc.org>,
        "\"Members of the Board of Supervisors\""
Cc: riolinda@vrx.net, stop@vrx.net
Subject: RE: FPL Project Consideration
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:11:09 -0700

Dear Allan:

Thank you for your email raising a number of considerations which you believe are relevant to the review of the proposed FPL power plant in Elverta.  I will certainly keep them in mind as the Board continues to address this proposal.  However, allow me to comment on just a couple of points which you make.

You point out that the community looks to the Board to "provide the CEC with a determination about the appropriateness of this use for this parcel of land."  I agree that this is a role the Board should actively play. However, that "determination" is a different one from whether the proposal is consistent with the zoning for the property (which is the first question to be addressed) and can only be answered after a thorough analysis of the totality of the relevant issues  regarding the proposal.  The answer to the zoning question is only a legal interpretation of the County's zoning code and does not conclude the matter as to "appropriateness."

You also argue that the information presented by the staff to date is insuffienct for the purpose of reaching a "determination."  Again, I agree with you; the staff has not represented that it has even attempted to present sufficient information upon which to make a "determination of appropriateness."  In fact, the planning staff has recommended an approach similar to that used in Morro Bay (a model suggested by the CEC staff) to ensure the very "careful" analysis you advocate.  I look forward to that analysis.

You note the Board's presumed concern about the potential tax revenues, the community benefits package, and meeting the state's energy crisis.  First, whether we gain tax revenue or not is simply not a factor in the decision; the Board turns down proposals regularly that would bring tax revenue to the County.  Second, the community benefits package only becomes relevant if the power plant is sited; it is not a trade-off for an otherwise inappropriate siting.  Third, meeting the state's energy needs for the future must be a concern for all of us; we are all interdependent.  But assisting in the solution to our energy shortage does not compensate for placing an unreasonable or unfair burden on a community.

The issue before the Board currently is a very narrow one, and a conclusion concerning that issue does not necessarily foretell the ultimate disposition of other issues.  In that regard, I appreciate your points on broader questions that I look forward to having the Board consider.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County

To our Board of Supervisors and especially to our District One Supervisor Roger Dickinson.

My wife Lois and I have lived in the Elverta community for thirty-eight years. We are asking you to turn down this permit for Florida Power and Light to build a power plant on this site. This site is not suitable for all the reasons we have pointed out to the Board of Supervisors, the California Energy' Commission, and Florida Power and Light.

This site is too close to our neighborhood and too close to our elementary schools. There is an elementary school within 1/2 mile northeast of the site and another school some distance to the south of the plant. Whichever way the wind blows, school children will be affected with pollution from this power plant.

This power plant would add to our air pollution and deplete our already declining water supply, lowering our wells. It will probably contaminate the water underneath our community by moving the toxic plume from McClellan closer to our community. It is visually ugly, with plumes adding fog and increasing safety hazards. It will add noise pollution to our quiet neighborhood.

We can't think of one good thing this power plant would bring to our community or to the County. Any property tax money the County would gain from this plant would be offset by a drop in property values in the surrounding area. A power plant would be a downgrade to our community and would cause our property values to, drop 35-40%

We are not a beautiful tree-lined community like some areas, but we are a very quiet and friendly neighborhood. We don't deserve a power plant in our front yard and back yard. We already have a few things in our back yard that we are not proud of. We are trying to get rid of them. We don't want to add another.

We are a growing community. We need all our resources for that growth, not for a power plant. We are fighting for our livelihood and the health of our loved ones and the community in general.

Mr. Dickinson, if you would propose something nice and pretty to upgrade our community, we would fight for you and your proposal, just as hard as we fight against a big business power plant that degrades our community. If we allow a power plant to be built on this proposed site, it will ruin our chances of ever becoming a nicer, prettier, quiet community.

We ask you as citizens of Elverta to represent the people on this issue and not a big business power plant who is only interested in money.

Sincerely,
Preston Robinson
 

Editor Rio Linda/Elverta News,

I never wrote to The NEWS before but I want to push Roger Dickinson to reply to Jay O'Brien's very pointed and informative letter in The NEWS.

I read with great interest and was impressed with Jay O'Brien's letter in: the Rio Linda/Elverta News dated Thursday, September 27, 2001 regarding the FPL Power Plant Project that I oppose along with other community residents.

I await a complete reply from Roger Dickinson, as I was involved in his election. Example: Tri Community Lunch Bunch, Vet service groups in Roger Dickinson's campaign to be elected.

Thank you,
Howard Baxter

(Editor's note: This letter was received by The NEWS prior to receiving Roger Dickinson's response to Jay O'Brien's letter).

Mr. Dickinson,

It is wrong that you find it necessary to blame other people for Leighann Moffitt's inability to follow through with what she says she will provide. When a person tries to publicly notify people that someone, such as Leighann Moffitt, did not fulfill her part of the bargain, this is relayed as attacking her.  Frankly, Leighann Moffitt needs to stop making excuses for not following through and "just do it!"  Debbie Byrne did not attack her, she merely pointed out her frustration at Leighann "dropping the Ball."  The whole situation of people being offended because they are challenged because of work not being up to par really frustrates me.  I handle workers' compensation claims and have seen this happen many times.  A supervisor can discipline a person because they are incompetent and the employee then files a stress claim because the supervisor was picking on them.  This is ridiculous.  I fervently deny these claims simply because how on earth can we ever do business in this world if we cannot correct someone when they are not doing a good job.

Debbie Byrne has done a wonderful job in the CPAC.  She is very thorough, consistent, and always follows through with her obligation.  May I add, all without being paid!!!  I would hope that you would not try to retaliate and remove her from the CPAC.  This would be wrong.

Sincerely.

Jo Vierria

----- Original Message -----
From: Dickinson, Roger
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 6:40 PM
To: 'jovita vierria'
Subject: RE: Justification for People Not Completing their Tasks
 Dear Ms. Vierra:

I am in receipt of your email defending the actions of Ms. Byrne and supporting her criticism of Leighann Moffitt.  While I regret the necessity of responding in public, I stand by my comments.

Ms. Byrne, in her "Notice of Intent to File Grand Jury Complaint" accused the Planning Department in general and Ms. Moffitt in particular of deliberately denying information to the CPAC, of bias with regard to the FPL project, and "an actual, overt attempt to exclude the CPAC from the process."  I am personally aware of the extraordinary effort to which both the Planning staff and Ms. Moffitt have gone to attempt to satisfy Ms. Byrne's requests and demands.  It is well beyond the staffing typically provided for other CPAC's.  Therefore, I found the accusations unjustified, unwarranted, and inappropriate.

I take no issue with those who wish to express their strongly held feelings about the merits of any proposal.  But I also do not find it acceptable to unfairly attack those who are in no position to respond.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County

Sir, I have been a home owner in Rio Linda since 1995.  This is the first time that I have felt compelled to write any elected representative that I have voted for.  I watched the Sacramento Board of Supervisors meeting on Oct 3, 2001 with shame; shame for you and the board for the attitude you presented to the sincere people from Rio Linda and Elverta who expressed their disapproval of the power plant to be built here in Rio Linda.

Shame on you Sir. Instead of representing the people who elected you and whom you are supposed to represent, you sat silently and admonished those who were most critical of the plan to locate the power plant.

Please remember that you were elected to represent the people of Rio Linda/Elverta, not the entire county, state, country or power company.

Thank you,

Jerry W. Sutton
Rio Linda, Ca

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
To: "Jerry Sutton" <jerrywsutton@home.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 5:17 PM
Subject: RE: Board Meeting

Dear Mr. Sutton:

I am in receipt of your email regarding the hearing on the Florida Power and Light power plant proposal on October 3, 2001.  You indicated your dissatisfaction with the fact that I "sat silently and admonished those" who criticized the proposal, and you urged me to remember that I was "elected to represent the people of Rio Linda/Elverta, not the entire county, state, country, or power company."

First, I appreciate hearing from you--whether you are satisfied or dissatisfied with my or the Board's actions.  The views and opinions of those who live in the County are important.  Second, the other Board members and I have listened very carefully to those who oppose the FPL proposal. Third, my admonishment was directed only at those who do not confine their comments to the issues but, instead, criticize and attack others who are simply doing their job.

Finally, while I am certainly not elected to represent any power company, I am elected to represent all 250,000 people of the First Supervisorial District, which is part of our county, state, and nation, consistent with the public interest.  In that regard, I am very mindful of my responsibility.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views with me.  I hope the above is helpful.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County

Please don't sell our neighborhood

Rio Linda and Elverta have been a good place to live. It doesn't matter what you have or don't have. It is you who counts.

Now an out-of-state power company is trying to buy into our neighborhood. If you sell (some already have) and the plant goes in, many of our qualities of life will be forever lowered.

As for those of us who are right next to the proposed power plant, our lives will be changed forever. Our place will not be fit for man nor beast.

Where will I and my wife, Jane (who has been in this house all of her 75 years) go?

Who will see that the Egrets and the Black Crown Night Herons and God's other creatures will have a place to stay?

John E. Risse

[Click here to see pictures from John Risse]
 

[Editor's note: Mr. Risse sent in some wonderful pictures in full color of why the power plant should not be built as proposed. Unfortunately, the pictures are in color and if run in only black and white, they would not portray what they do in color. Two of the pictures he sent show the proposed location of the power plant to be completely flooded. The other pictures if viewed by environmentalists, would certainly cause them frustration. The pictures are available at the NEWS Office for viewing.]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [STOP] CPAC and Planning Staff
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:30:20 -0700
From: Freda Vierria <l.-f.vierria@att.net>
To: Stop The Oppressive Powerplant <stop@vrx.net>,
      Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

October 17, 2001

Roger Dickinson, Supervisor
Board of Supervisors
County of Sacramento
700 H Street
Sacramento, CA 95813

Dear Supervisor Dickinson,

Re:  CPAC and Planning Staff

I worked for 25 years in one of the largest departments in the state.  During that time we never had all of our positions filled.  So it was only by extreme effort on the part of all staff that what had to be done was accomplished on a daily basis.  My department was not unusual; most departments worked under the same conditions.  I have the utmost respect for the hard working civil servant.   By definition civil servants exist to serve the public.   I too abhor unwarranted attacks on this group of hard working people.  That said, I also know that when it is perceived by members of the public that someone is not doing what is required of them as part of their job a bad name is given to all civil servants.

I attended the August Board of Supervisors meeting when CPAC requested, through its Chair, that it receive copies of all correspondence and the staff report from Planning to CEC regarding the FPL project.  Chairman Niello seemed surprised that CPAC was not already included in this distribution as a matter of course.  Planning Staff was then directed by Chairman Niello to include CPAC on the distribution list.  In disregarding Chairman Niello's direction, Planning Staff has shown contempt for him, his position and the legitimate processes for which they are responsible.  Planning also chose to show contempt for CPAC and our community.

I was unable to attend the October 3, 2001 Board of Supervisors' meeting, however, I was able to watch it on television.  I was shocked and appalled at your outrageous attack on Debbie Byrne, the chairperson of CPAC.  If your intent was to embarrass Debbie not only in front of everyone in chambers but everyone watching on television then you probably succeeded.  If your intent was to enrage the community, you succeeded at that as well.  After twice viewing this event it was unclear to me just where Debbie attacked anyone.  Under the circumstances, I thought her remarks rather mild.  You on the other hand, launched a ballistic missile and gave her no opportunity to respond.

Our community is fortunate to have a person like Debbie Byrne on our CPAC.  She is knowledgeable and always well prepared.   I, like most people in Rio Linda and Elverta, think that CPAC provides an important, even vital service to our community.   The members are drawn from the true backbone of any community, they are the volunteers who serve with no compensation for their time, gas, stamps, copying, or any other expenses related to the performance of their duty.   It is also now evident that they receive no respect or thanks for all their effort by you or county staff.

In your tirade on October 3, 2001 addressed to Debbie Byrne you stated, "…That this planning staff, and Leighann in particular, have tried exceedingly hard, to work as closely as possible with those in the community to get information out…."  Since no information is getting to the community on this subject from Planning Staff this was merely bombast.  When CPAC is given the requested material five minutes before the start of the meeting, CPAC has no time to read it let alone respond to it thereby denying the community its voice.   You must know how these kinds of shenanigans look to us.

You went on to state, "…  to attend meetings that go to all hours, and to do that whenever the CPAC wants to meet."  First, isn't it part of Leighann's job to attend meetings and advise the CPAC?  Second, CPAC meets on the second Tuesday of the month.  However, the night that the issue of FPL was to be heard the first agenda item was very lengthy.  The FPL item didn't come up until after 8:30.  There were at least 75 members of the community present, many of whom wished to speak, so the meeting ran very late and had to be continued.  You very briefly attended the CPAC meeting on October 9 did you see any member of planning staff there?  Planning Staff did not attend the meeting that ended before 9:00p.m.

You further said, "It seems to me that the criticism that's being leveled is a function of what the staff has tried to go beyond what the normal procedure is.  Because that hasn't met every inclination of some, they're criticized for it."  Just what is normal procedure?  Is it really not usual and normal procedure for planning to provide information to CPAC?  Does Planning expect each citizen of this community to come into their office and make public records requests?

As a former public employee I have nothing but respect for the hard working civil servant who provides services under trying conditions.  However, when there seems to be repeated failure in providing this service then the taxpayer (the employer) has a right  not only to point out that there is a problem but has an obligation to demand better service.  It is this exact lack of service that gives civil service a bad name, which I resent.

Roger, you failed to address the problem.  Instead, you attempted to kill the messenger and that messenger is of the people, by the people, and for the people, whose messenger are you?

Sincerely,

Freda Vierria

cc:  Illa Collin, Supervisor
     Muriel Johnson, Supervisor
     Don Nottoli, Supervisor
     Roger Niello, Supervisor
     Debbie Byrne
     Jay O'Brien (post to list)

>From the Stop The Oppressive Powerplant mailing list

----------------------  Forwarded Message:  ---------------------
From:    "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
To:      "l.-f.vierria@att.net" <l.-f.vierria@att.net>
Cc:      "Ryan, Robert A., Jr." <rryan@saccounty.net>
         "Hutchings, Tom" <HutchingsT@saccounty.net>
Subject: RE: Attached Letter
Date:    Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:32:02 -0800

Dear Ms. Vierra:

I am in reciept of your email regarding my comments about those who have attacked the County Planning staff in connection with the Florida Power and Light matter.  The facts are that the Rio Linda-Elverta CPAC has held several "special meetings" in addition to its regular monthly meetings and the County Planning staff has covered all those meetings except when illness or conflicts prevented it.  By the count I received, staff was present for 9 of 12 meetings through October 9 this year.  I believe it is desirable that staff is present for all meetings, however, and I am discussing that matter with the Planning staff.

As to withholding information, I have seen no evidence that would justify an allegation that the Planning staff or any other County staff have attempted to subvert the CPAC by intentionally so doing.  Consequently, I stand by my remarks made at the Board meeting.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [STOP] CPAC and Planning Staff
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:12 AM
From: "Jeff Culley" <jeffculley@home.com>
To: Stop The Oppressive Powerplant <stop@vrx.net>,
       Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>

I am doing some research on effects increased noise from the proposed power plant might have on our community.  According to this very extensive 68 page study, it is not a pretty picture in most cases.  Especially for those that have high blood pressure and for children and pregnant mothers. To give you a point of reference in your travels within this study, understand that at approximately 25 source points  at the property line of the proposed 90 acre Power Plant site (in our back and front yards)  the estimated decibel levels from the plant's generation of electricity will be over 95 decibels and in some cases, over 110 decibels.

Do you live near the property line or within 2 miles of that property line?

FPL (Florida Power and Light) is proposing a sound wall at these points that will deflect the noise over the walls and back down on the majority of Rio Linda and Elverta.  Many of our residents can expect to be exposed to twice the noise pollution that they are already being exposed to.  Sort of like having your neighbor hummmmmmmmmm obnoxiously all day and all night.  We won't be able to politely ask that neighbor to stop hummmmmmming!

According to this study, the impact the increased noise will have on our community will be, but is not limited to the following:

• Our Children will find it more difficult to learn and communicate. Specifically, reading and language/ communication skills will be significantly lower than they are today.
• Our community is expected to become "highly annoyed" and of all adverse aspects of the community environment, noise is likely to be the most important adverse aspect.
• Research implicates noise as a factor producing stress-related health effects such as heart disease, high blood pressure and stroke, ulcers and other digestive disorders.

The effects appear to be stronger for children in the later elementary grades which may be simply a function of longer exposure duration. There is also some evidence that children exposed both at school and at home to loud ambient noise sources are more likely to suffer reading deficits in comparison to those only exposed at school. Children with preexisting speech or language difficulties may be the most vulnerable to these harmful effects. Furthermore, a negative relation is suggested between noise levels in the home and cognitive development among infants and preschool children (Evans, 1990; Wachs & Gruen, 1982).

Sincerely,
Jeff Culley

>From the Stop The Oppressive Powerplant mailing list

The following three letters were published in the Rio Linda Elverta News on November 15, 2001.
They are presented here in the order they were dated.

(LACEY'S LETTER)
October 23, 2001
Dear. Mr. Dickinson,

My name is Lacey. I am 5 years old.

Please don't let the power plant ruin the air where (we) live and play.

Thank You,
Lacey

SUPERVISOR DICKINSON'S' RESPONSE TO LACEY
October 29, 2001
Miss Lacey Carlson

Dear Lacey,

Thank you very, very much for taking the time to write a letter to me. You did a great job for someone who is 5 years old. I liked your picture of the flowers; too, and the colors you used for your letter were very good choices.

l have not decided whether I think there should be a power plant in your neighborhood. I am worried about clean air and having plenty of water for children like you, too. There is a group of people that work for the Governor of our State who will make the final decision on this power plant. They are called the Energy Commission. They are the only people who can decide if the plant will be built.

Lacey, I am very proud of you for your interest in your neighborhood. When you get to second grade and study your community, you will already be ahead of your classmates. I think you may be the youngest person ever to write me a letter.

If this letter reaches you after Halloween, I hope you had a lot of fun!

Thank you again.

Sincerely,
Roger Dickinson
Supervisor, First District
 

Re: Your response to 5 year old Lacey Carlson

Dear Supervisor Dickinson:

Thank you for your response to Lacey's letter. She was delighted! (And yes, she's 5 going on 35).

We understand that the Energy Commission has the ultimate decision in deciding if this plant will be built. However, it is my understanding that the recommendation given to them by the Board of Supervisors with regard to zoning issues and consistency with the community's general plan plays a large part in their final decision.

I am relieved that you have previously stated that in making your decision, you will take into consideration the "larger public interest." After  all, what greater resource do we have than our children?

Respectfully,
Deborah Courtney

CC: Illa Collin
       Roger Niello
       Don Nottoli
       Muriel P. Johnson

Editor's note - (in Rio Linda Elverta News)-
I seem to recall very vividly, the attorney from the California Energy Commission (CEC) imploring the Board of Supervisors to lend their guidance in ascertaining the building of the power plant in our community. The CEC is not the only entity that will make the decision on the project. You are of course correct in saying that they will make the final decision, but, you also know that you as a Supervisor and representative of the people carry far more weight than the many who live here who are opposed to the plant. It's almost  like being at a crime scene and saying, "I didn't do it". But also didn't do anything to prevent it.

Decisions are made every day by 'Input'. In telling the truth, wouldn't it be fair Input to say, "a lot of people in that community really don't want the power plant at that location." Even the Mayor of Sacramento reiterated that a lot of people don't want a certain project built in Natomas. Though she was out voted, she had the gumption to stand up and be counted by representing the people.

5:02 PM Wearing “NO FPL” T Shirt (STOP):

Hello, my name’s Jeff Culley. I’m the Co-Chair for the STOP Committee, and, despite what some people would like for you to believe, we have well over a hundred members of our committee. Anyway, I’m a resident of Elverta.  I’m here today to support our CPAC, and you, with your decision to tell Florida Power and Light that the land that they would be building this plant on is not currently zoned for a standalone power plant. If they wish to proceed, they will only be able to do so after an EIR has been completed.

FPL has had some real challenges with -  yes - Union Labor at their Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. Between 1988 and 1997, employees filed over 35 grievances regarding safety; an employee went to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission saying FPL asked him to falsify pressure gauge calibration readings; these two employees and others were required to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, one agreed, two refused, all three were terminated and filed law suits against them.  FPL violated the ERA for terminating an employee after he refused to submit to a psychiatric evaluation. One employee filed a suit attributing his development of cancer to exposure from the plant.

When asked why FPL had failed to plot our elementary schools in the Maximum Cancer Impact Zone, submitted to CEC, the answer was  “we didn’t know the schools were there”.  How will this be mitigated?  Will students be provided masks to wear at recess?

When FPL purchased Wyman Station, they told the Natural Resources Council of Maine they would run the plant smarter and cleaner.  Instead, they ran the plant harder increasing emissions by 45% or 1,302 tons more the first year. Eventually, they were forced to reduce emissions by investing in better technology instead of “air credits”,

Chairman Niello: Jeff, are you almost finished?

Culley: Yes.

Culley (continuing):  but not without a fight.

I am all for a company turning a profit, but not at the expense of human rights.  According to last quarter financial statements, FPL profited over $380 million dollars.

Most likely this was after writing off charitable contributions to God only knows who else besides the recent $25,000 (to Governor Gray Davis).

A power plant does not belong on this site!  Especially if a power hungry company (FPL) that puts people at risk and uses unethical means to do so owns it.

5:11 PM Wearing “NO FPL” T Shirt (STOP):

Good Afternoon, My name is Frieda Vierria.

Rio Linda and Elverta have been my community for 35 years. I raised five children there.  Four of those children and six of my grandchildren live there.  We are not unique, as many descendants of the original 1912 settlers still live there.  We are truly a community in the old-fashioned sense.  As you can understand I have a great interest in what happens there.

Roger, I have heard that you think this project will bring many benefits to our community.  After all this time I don’t know what you believe the benefits are, but I see significant detriments in the area of: economics, water, air and noise pollution, land use, general health and competition with SMUD.  Specifics relative to these detriments have been provided to the board on several occasions, so I see no purpose in covering them again, except for the personal economic side.

I told you the last time I stood here, that by FPL’s own estimate, our property values would decrease by up to 40%; which seems not to have made an impression on you, so let me put it another way: 40% means $80,000 for us.  Why should we be forced to give $80,000 of our life savings for the enrichment of FPL when you could easily prevent it by simply opposing the project?

I urge you not to inflict this non-profitable, water-guzzling, pollutant-spewing, noisy eyesore on my children, my grandchildren, my neighbors and me.  You are, however, welcome to inflict it on yourself and your neighbors – I invite you to do so since obviously you do not see harm in inflicting it on us.

Many basically decent people have committed or allowed some real atrocities under the two cloaks of: their vision of progress and the sacrifices of the few for the supposed good of the many.  These basically decent people always claim the terrible results could not have been foreseen, which cannot be a legitimate claim in this case, as you have been informed.

Thank You.

5:25 PM Wearing “NO FPL” T Shirt (STOP):

Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name, again, is Jo Vierria. I live on Elmont Avenue in Elverta. I do have something to say that's rather quick. But for the record, I'm here on my own time; FPL didn't buy my T Shirt, FPL is not my hero, and I have done research on this oppressive power plant, and the facts that I have found are not just off the top of my head. And, for the record, I'm a CSEA union member, but who in the heck cares.

FPL is now in direct competition with SMUD for the available air credits.  We, the entire county, will benefit from the SMUD project.  None of us will benefit from the FPL project.  Why are we endangering the SMUD project?  For the profit of FPL!

This County has the sixth worst air in the entire United States.  In the summer, we have many days that our children and old people are advised to stay inside.  Now, along comes FPL, they want to spew more pollutants into our already dirty air.  This site is a mere 3000 feet from a school.  We don’t know what breathing these pollutants will do to these children’s health in addition to the obvious respiratory difficulties.  Why are we endangering our children?  For the profit of FPL!

Studies show that low-level noise pollution from this project could make it more difficult for these children to learn.  It can cause the whole community to become irritable and stressed.   Why are we going to be crabby and stressed out?  For the profit of FPL!

This project will waste more water a day than the community uses.  FPL will evaporate this water into our polluted air, leaving behind a ton of sludge a day.  Water is this state’s most endangered resource.  Why are we exchanging our precious clean water for water polluted by sixty years of contaminates?  For the profit of FPL!

The neighbors of this site will have to endure the glare of the lights that will invade their property and disrupt their sleep.  Why are we going to spend sleepless nights? For the profit of FPL!

By FPL estimate our property values are expected to decrease by up to 40%.  For some people, if they needed to sell their property, they wouldn’t be able to sell for enough to pay off their existing mortgage.  Why are we forced to lose many thousands of dollars out of our pockets?  For the profit of FPL!

Why does FPL want to go ahead with a project that negatively impacts so many?  More profits for FPL!

Thank you.

The following letter was published in the Rio Linda Elverta News on November 29, 2001:

Supervisor Roger Dickinson
Mr. Dickinson
I find the answer that you gave to a little five year old child in our community unacceptable. She wrote a letter to you asking for your help in preserving the air she has to breathe, where she lives and plays. Your answer was "I have not decided."

Mr. Dickinson, you are our District Supervisor. You need to decide whether Lacey and many other school children in their community breathe the fresh air they breathe now, or the polluted fallout from a power plant. You cannot pass the buck to the Governor or the CEC. We are eager to give you credit for your decisions.

I am appalled and angry at a few people in our community who sold out to FPL for whatever. That goes for our school board and other officials who are supposed to protect our students.

Mr. Dickinson, I believe that this site has been wrong from the beginning. It is an ill-conceived application on an old, out-dated SEPCO permit. FPL thought they would have to answer only one question. That was the use of groundwater. You can't come in 7 years after SEPCO and revive an old permit and assume everything would be the same on a totally different project. Mr. Dickinson, I along with others in my community viewed the videotape of the SEPCO project at the Board of Supervisors meeting in 1994. Your resolution stated if for whatever reasons this project is not built, there is not another use that would be authorized on this property. The rezone was not effective for any use other than the SEPCO project. Mr. Dickinson, if you had kept your word, FPL would not be on your agenda today.

Mr. Dickinson, I would ask you and the other board members again to give us your input and turn down this site for a power plant, and not put Lacey and all the other children of this community at risk for the next 40 years.

Sincerely,
Preston Robinson

cc: Supervisors
Roger Niello
Illa Collin
Muriel Johnson
Don Notolli

The following letter was published in the Rio Linda Elverta News on November 29, 2001:

Open letter to Rio Linda / Elverta Community
Re: 11/20/01 Board of Supervisors Meeting: RLEPP Power Project

As I am already perceived as an extremist by many, I'll go out on yet another limb and venture to say that I feel Tuesday, 11/20, will stand as the coming of age of the Renaissance of our community.

In all seriousness, I have never felt anything like I felt during the Board of Supervisors meeting. I was overwhelmed by pride as, one by one, many of my neighbors took the podium and addressed this issue with wisdom, integrity, and compassion.

To those who spoke in favor of the project, I applaud you for taking the time to express your opinion. Without diversity, we cease to be a democracy.

Hence, I'd like to extend a heartfelt "thank you" to all who took precious time out of their daily lives to attend, and to the Board of Supervisors and the CEC for all the time and energy they have invested in our concerns. Lastly, my eternal gratitude to those who have so graciously helped me prepare and have listened to me for the past few weeks. You know who you are!

Sincerely,
Deborah Courtney
P.O. Box 742
Elverta, CA 95626

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] RE: Community Benefits Package
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:45:02 -0800
From: "Jeff Culley" <jeffculley@attbi.com>
Reply-To: riolinda@vrx.net
To: "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
CC: "Rio Linda Elverta-List" <riolinda@vrx.net>,
        <donn@saccounty.net>,
        <rogerniello@saccounty.net>,
        <murielj@saccounty.net>,
        <illac@saccounty.net>

Hi Roger and Happy New Year,

In your last email to me you stated you would be "taking advantage" of a discussion that took place  "after the start of the year" (at the November 20, 2001 Board of Supervisor's Meeting).  Below I have inserted some transcript of that meeting and would like to respond to your last email, followed by some questions/thoughts I have regarding the potential Community Benefits Package for Rio Linda and Elverta:

- - - Transcribed from November 20, 2001 Board of Supervisors Meeting - - -

3:32 PM Leighann Moffitt: The only other item that we addressed has to do with the negotiation of the Community Benefit Package. It's our understanding that Florida Power and Light is out negotiating individually with the various groups out in the community and we just offer up any direction that you would like to give us with regard to whether there should be County involvement or not, in the negotiation of the Community Benefit Package.

6:25 PM Supervisor Dickinson: I think finally, that with respect to the recommendation regarding community benefits, that we designate that as something that this member and county staff can continue to work with community members regarding. We did that in the SEPCO instance, and I think that's a process that can work here, as well. Up to this point in my estimation it's made sense for the applicant to talk to members of the community about what they might find of benefit to develop ideas along those lines but I don't think that it's necessary to try to appoint some formal committee in that regard. We can continue to work, I think, with a number of people who've expressed interest in that subject.

6:53 PM Chairman Niello: I do want to emphasize, depending on what does happen, the Community Benefit Package is a pretty important component, but there certainly aren't any conclusions on that yet because we don't know if this project's going to be approved.

6:58 PM Planning Director Hutchings summarized the motion to be voted upon:

Supervisor Collin: Community Benefit Package?

Supervisor Dickinson: I'll work on it…

Supervisor Niello: Perhaps that's part of the response team.

Supervisor Dickinson: It could be part of the response team and it will be done in ..

Supervisor Johnson: It should continue to go forward, don't you believe?

Supervisor Dickinson:  Oh sure. I mean there've been discussions about it and there will continue to be discussions. Including community members, heavily.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dickinson, Roger [mailto:rogerd@saccounty.net]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 6:15 PM
To: 'Jeff Culley'
Subject: RE: Community Benefits Package

Jeff:

Thanks for your email.

The Board directed at the last hearing that the community benefits package would be negotiated through the office of the Supervisor who represents the affected district.  Consistent with that direction, I will be working with representatives of FPL to define an appropriate community benefits package.  In so doing, I also expect to work with members of the community to identify their interests.  As you know,considerable discussion on this topic has already occurred, and I anticipate taking advantage of that discussion and pursuing the matter after the start of the year.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County
 

My take on the meeting:

First of all, after reading the transcript, I do not see where the "Board" "Directed" the package to be negotiated through the office of the "Supervisor" (you) "who represents the affected district".  Here is what you did say - ""I" think finally, that with respect to the recommendation regarding community benefits, that we designate that as something that this member and county staff can "continue to work with community members" regarding."

I take that to mean that you would like to work with the community on a package.

If you are planning to get involved, I would like to request that you include appropriate membership from within our community and make that list of community members public so that the entire community has a voice (including those that feel they will be effected negatively by the plant being built in Rio Linda / Elverta).  This piece has been missing, since FPL used community benefits as a tool to persuade individual members of our community to distance themselves from any efforts to find issues that would be mitigated with FPL through the CEC.

Thank you Roger, and I look forward to hearing specifics regarding your plans to structure this process.

Sincerely,

Jeff Culley
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Culley [mailto:jeffculley@attbi.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:10 PM
To: rogerd@saccounty.net
Subject: Community Benefits Package
 

Hi Roger,

Rumor:  FPL is telling people that you are negotiating the Rio Linda and Elverta Benefits Package with FPL.

Is this true?

Thanks,

Jeff Culley

The following letter was published in the Rio Linda Elverta News on January 31, 2002:

January 26, 2002

Supervisor Roger Dickinson
Board of Supervisors
700 H Street #2450
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

Mr. Dickinson, here we are starting a New Year - 2002. I was feeling good starting off the New Year with FPL on suspension and everything is quiet in our community. No news is good news to me. As it turned out, it was too good to be true. On Thursday, January 17th, I picked up the Rio Linda News, and then 2002 began looking like a rerun of last year. There you were, Mr. Dickinson, throwing FPL another lifeline, volunteering you and county staff to help FPL formulate a benefit package.

Mr. Dickinson, I am a member of this community and a county taxpayer, and I don't approve of you or your county staff helping FPL bring a power plant into my quiet neighborhood. Mr. Dickinson, if you had been listening to the majority and real group of citizens in this community, rather than the imaginary group you chose to listen to, we have told you loud and clear that our environment-clean air and water--is NOT FOR SALE. Mr. Dickinson, who pays for a benefit package? We do. FPL adds it to our utility bill. Who pays for the drop in our property values? We do the taxpayers of this community.

Mr. Dickinson, a County Supervisor and their staff are on county taxpayer's payroll. Whose interests should they be looking out for?

Sincerely,
Preston Robinson
Elverta

The following letter was published in the Rio Linda Elverta News on February 21, 2002:

February 13, 2002
Cal. Energy Commission
Attn: Lance Shaw
1516 9th St.
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Lance:

Recently there have been reports in the news regarding the link between air pollution and asthma, especially in children. More and more evidence shows that air pollution not only worsens asthma in children that are already susceptible, but can cause asthma in healthy children. Enclosed are articles from the Sacramento Bee reporting these findings.

Sacramento doctors report seeing the number of respiratory illnesses rising with the smog levels. The latest study shows our most athletic children are 3 times more likely than inactive children to get asthma. In areas with cleaner air, no such link exists. Other publicized reports show that inactive children face increased risks of obesity and diabetes.

Lance, this concerns me due to the, proximity of FPL's plant to the Elverta School and surrounding neighborhood. The . 250 students at the school and all the other children in the neighborhood will breathe FPL's air pollution daily. Those who may be aspiring athletes will face increased risks for respiratory problems while trying to. stay healthy and fit. Why should our children be put in danger? Asthma can be fatal to children.

FPL has already tried to down play the risks by leaving Elverta School off the map showing schools and day care facilities near the plant. Their map identifying the hazard areas for cancer and chronic health risks show that the school is in and/or near both of these areas.

Local school officials seem to be more concerned with the property tax revenues and whatever benefits they, will receive from FPL than the health of the children we have entrusted to them.

If FPL is allowed to build a plant, I request that these  recent studies be taken into consideration, and FPL be asked to consider alternative sites that will not bring harm to our children.

Sincerely, Preston Robinson