Index to the web page below:
November 20, 2001 testimony to Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Conditions and timeframe (handed to Board of Sups Nov. 20. 2001)
CPAC proposed additional conditions (handed to Board of Sups Nov. 20. 2001)
Major changes examples, CPAC recommendation to defer (handed to Board of Sups Nov. 20. 2001)

4:10 PM CPAC testimony by Debbie Byrne, CPAC Chair:

Good afternoon.

Thank you to both Leighann Moffitt and Renee Taylor for advising me that the staff report had been completed.

Some pertinent facts:

First, On November 15th, in a letter to the CPAC, the applicant admitted that it has never built or even operated a plant of this type before.

Also important, the project is in suspension at the CEC and I have furnished you with a list of the conditions that must be met and a potential timeframe before the project comes off suspension. Now, as to the consistency.

County planning staff continues to refer to this as a “public utility use.” By the applicant’s own definition, this is definitely not a public OR a municipal utility. We believe the distinction is important to the study of consistency. This takes into account that a public or municipal utility serves the public or the municipality in which it is located. This project is a merchant utility which serves no one but its investors in selling power to the highest bidder, who may not even be in California.

You have been furnished with the CPAC’s Community Council Referral, recommending that you find the project inconsistent with the Community Plan. The CEC will listen to your finding. It is our understanding that only once in the 25 year history of the CEC siting process has an override been done by the CEC.

What you are NOT able to do is hold the applicant to conditions. The CEC gave the Morro Bay - Duke Energy project to the planning staff as an example. Morro Bay and Duke Energy had been in negotiations and produced a Memorandum of Understanding, so Morro Bay could have some confidence that the conditions contained therein would actually be included in the project. You have no such assurances.

Staff proposes to “mitigate” the inconsistencies. Let me furnish you with the definition of “mitigate” which is: “To make or become less severe, less painful.” The community has said loud and clear that this would definitely be painful.

I have also furnished you with a partial list of CPAC proposed conditions for the project as it stands now. This list is not all-inclusive, due to the very fact that the project seems to change on an almost weekly basis.

The CPAC would like to recommend that you defer a decision on even a preliminary consistency determination at least until the supplement has been filed and studied by the County Planning staff and any other relevant agencies, if not until the project comes off of suspension at the CEC.

The CPAC would like to have the Board take action, however, on Item C of the staff report.

The CPAC has previously furnished you with its recommendation regarding a Board-appointed community group to negotiate a Community Benefits Package. As you know, it takes a great deal of time for an appointment process to run its course. To date, while the community has heard a great deal about the potential benefits of this plant, we have nothing in writing. For the Enron plant in Roseville, a $50 million dollar community benefits package was negotiated before an application was filed with the CEC.

We would also like to remind the applicant that “mitigation” measures, such as low-emission school buses, paved roads, or habitat creation, should in no way be considered as part of any community benefits package.

Although the community has said, loud and clear, that it is not willing to trade any amount of “community benefit” for the detriments that this plant will bring, the CPAC believes that it would be prudent to at least begin a formal negotiation process so that should the plant be licensed despite the obvious environmental concerns and strenuous objections of the community, at least there will be some consolation given by a benefits package.

Thank you.

(See below for documents handed to Board of Supervisors prior to this verbal testimony)

Project on suspension at the CEC until the following conditions are met:

1. A supplement detailing numerous changes (location of plant on site, water source, plant access, plume-abatement stacks, etc. is furnished to the CEC.

Attached are some examples of numerous changes that have been made to this project, but not documented in any formal manner. The supplement was to cure this. It was to be filed by the applicant at the CEC October 1, 2001.

Projected timeframe: was October 1, now projected by the applicant to be done possibly in December.

Projected timeframe: Earliest is in December, projected to be at least February, if ever.

Projected timeframe: was also October 1. This may also be furnished sometime in December.

Rio Linda/Elverta Power Plant Project

Urban infrastructure:

Funding for “fair share” of public sewer. This project proposes to use a septic system, and the staff has recommended a condition that the applicant be required to hook up to a sewer, should one ever become available. The CPAC believes that, at the very least, the applicant should be required to fund a fair share of the sewer feeder line, – as any developer of a 70 acre site might be expected to do – not just be required to hook up to it should it ever magically appear. A “hook-up only” requirement virtually guarantees that the line will never be built, due to the size of the site for this facility.
 

Natural resources:

The applicant should be required to CREATE wetlands habitat at a ratio of 2:1 for wetlands habitat loss, if there is currently no offset site available in the community, as called for in the Community Plan. No payment of a fee to a mitigation bank should be allowed.
 

Visual:

No sound walls should be allowed. They interfere with the drainage of the property and as importantly, interfere with the visual impact of open space. When considering the Specific Plan, the Citizens Advisory Committee was adamant about no sound walls. This project should be no different. Perhaps landscaped berms could be used instead.
 

Public Safety:

Fund a baseline health study of community residents so that any health effects on the public once the plant is operational can be measured and monitored.
 

Water supply:

One of the many differences between this project and the SEPCO project is that this project proposes to use groundwater. The SEPCO license absolutely forbad the use of groundwater. The CPAC believes that this should be a condition for this project as well.
 

Plant safety and fire protection:

Fund a full-time, paid staff at the nearest fire station (at the intersection of Elverta Road and Elwyn Avenue, with haz-mat training and the appropriate equipment to respond to emergencies at the plant.

In addition, institute a community notification system for any potentially hazardous situation, especially to allow timely evacuation of the local elementary school. An example would be the system in place at Citizens Utilities which can be implemented in the event of a chlorine gas leak.

Examples of major changes that have been made informally to the project, in public presentations, but have not yet been documented to the CEC

Water supply:
The Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District issued a conditional intent to serve letter quite some time ago. It is not apparent, after these many months, that the applicant will be able to meet these conditions. That is why the applicant alternatively proposed a Natomas source of water. Apparently, that source is not viable. Now the applicant is apparently back to using the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District.

Plant siting:
The location of the buildings on the site has changed in public presentations at least three times.

Landscaping:
The landscape plan that is before you is at least the third that has been presented publicly.

Plant design:
The type of equipment to be used has changed at least once.
 

The CPAC would like to recommend that the Board of Supervisors defer a decision on even a preliminary determination of consistency until there is actual written documentation of the project as it now stands.

The Community Council Referral form has two typos: The second meeting was August 20th , not the 21st, and I apologize for misspelling Leighann’s last name with only one “t.”

Click here to jump to the beginning of this web page.