FROM our CPAC

This is the recommendation of the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) as forwarded to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors with regard to the issue of consistency of the proposed FPL project with the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Plan.

Community Council Referral



Applicant: Florida Power & Light

Request: Natural gas-fired power plant

Primary Community Council: Rio Linda/Elverta

Planning Department Project Manager: Leighann Moffit

Meeting dates at which proposal discussed: August 14 and August 21, 2001

Number of council members present:  8*  Quorum: Yes

Applicant notified of meeting(s): Yes Applicant Present: Yes

Neighbors Contacted: Yes

Is the proposal compatible with the area or neighborhood in which proposed: NO

Summarize the neighborhood response or reaction:

There were almost 100 neighbors and other community members present. None spoke in favor of the proposed project. The concerns were captured in the form of nine pages of questions to the applicant, which is included as an attachment. The answers furnished by the applicant at these meetings were taken into account by the CPAC when issuing its findings.

Council motion on proposal: On consistency with the Community Plan, the CPAC recommends a finding of NOT CONSISTENT to the Board of Supervisors.

Council vote on the motion  for: 7 against: none abstained: * absent: 1

*Note: although there were 8 CPAC members present, one member of the CPAC recused himself from any participation in the consideration of this project due being the Co-chair of a community group opposing the proposed project.

Comments on recommendation: See attached policy-by-policy discussion of the CPAC findings.
 
 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT

SECTION VIII

ENERGY FACILITIES

GOAL: Appropriately sited energy facilities that efficiently and safely produce and distribute energy to Sacramento County residents without compromising environmental quality or human health.
 

CPAC finding: NOT CONSISTENT

While this project may be seen as similar environmentally to municipal and public utilities, (and the environmental evaluation is not complete) this project does not distribute energy to Sacramento County residents. In fact, FPL is not required to sell this power in the State of California. Furthermore, just in the process of this application, FPL has cost each and every Sacramento County resident money because of the direct competition between FPL and SMUD for air quality credits that SMUD is acquiring for its own MUNICIPAL facility. In addition, since SMUD will be using natural gas for its proposed new facility, and there is projected to be a shortage of natural gas within 3 years, SMUD and FPL will be in direct competition for the same natural gas supplies, thus also driving up the cost of natural gas to SMUD. These additional costs will have to be passed directly to SMUD’s customers, who are almost all Sacramento County residents.
 
 

RIO LINDA AND ELVERTA COMMUNITY PLAN

Note: There was quite a lot of discussion as to whether this is an “urban area” as it is referred to in the Community Plan. At our CPAC meetings, County Planning staff initially indicated that they did not think that any reference to an urban area would apply to this site. However, the site is in the Urban Policy area and the definition of Industrial Intensive as defined in the County General Plan Land Use Designation specifically states that the Industrial Intensive designation “require urban services.” It goes on to state that “Industrial Intensive areas are located within the urban portion of the county.”

Therefore, this area is considered by the CPAC to be an urban area, and thus these are considered by the CPAC to be the Community Plan Principles, Guidelines and Policies that apply and with which this project is not consistent:
 

Guiding Principles

When considering the Guiding Principles of the Community Plan, the CPAC had already issued a recommended finding that the zoning agreement for this site that changed the zoning from IR to M-2 was not consistent with this project, as it was quite specific to the SEPCO project as referenced by CEC decisions of May of 1994 and January of 1995.

The CPAC further took into account that, this being the case, if it is rescinded, the zoning would appear to revert back to IR. The CPAC recognizes that IR is a zoning that would not preclude this project’s siting, but would create significant inconsistencies with the Guiding Principles of the Community Plan.

Therefore, the CPAC finds that the FPL project is NOT CONSISTENT with the following Guiding Principles:

A. Retain the rural character of the communities.

The site of the proposed project is in a predominately agricultural or agricultural-residential area. Building of such a large project would significantly affect the rural character of the community.

B. Maintain agricultural and agricultural-residential uses.

Industrial Reserve is consistent with an agricultural designation, and indicates possible industrial growth when indicated by availability of urban infrastructure. The CPAC determined that while it may be appropriate to reconsider this in 20 years or so, or at the time of the next Community Plan update, this is not an appropriate site for any industrial growth at this time, and certainly not for a project of this magnitude (i.e., M-2 instead of M-1) but should retain its primarily agricultural function.

F. Discourage any net increase in industrial areas within the Community Plan Area.

As the CPAC considered the site as IR without the zoning agreement being in place, and at any rate the SEPCO project was not built, the FPL project would result in a net increase in industrial areas within the Community Plan Area.

G. Require provision of adequate public infrastructure and services, including financing, prior to approval of new urban development.

The CPAC considered this to be new urban development. The CPAC recognizes that the Community Plan, when updated, was focused on the Elverta Specific Plan area, and therefore references to new urban development were written mostly with the Specific Plan Area in mind. However, it is the position of the CPAC that new urban development is not exclusive to the Specific Plan area unless specifically stated as such.

Regardless of whether the zoning is IR or M-2, this project does not include provision of adequate public infrastructure such as roadway improvements, sewer service, sidewalks, etc., and certainly does not provide financing of such infrastructure.
 
 

LAND USE POLICIES

The CPAC finds that the FPL project is NOT CONSISTENT with the following Land Use Policies:

LAND USE STRATEGIES FOR GROWTH ACCOMMODATION
 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING URBAN AREA

LU-2 The reuse of industrial or commercial properties for residential uses is encouraged within the existing urban area especially where in close proximity to transit stops.
The CPAC thought that since the SEPCO project was previously licensed for this site, a new use such as this project would be considered “reuse” of the land. In addition, this policy appears to encourage residential development and to discourage industrial development.
 

COMMUNITY DESIGN POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

Objective: A development pattern that emphasizes traditional small-town mixed-use retail and residential land use patterns in the urban areas, encourages buildout of agricultural-residential areas and maintains agricultural and open space lands.

The CPAC feels that the objective of emphasizing mixed use retail and residential land use patterns in the urban areas (and this proposed project is located in an urban area), and buildout of agricultural-residential areas, to which this proposed project is adjacent, the Community Plan indicates a project of such magnitude as the proposed project would not be appropriate for an urban area that is adjacent to an agricultural-residential area.

LU-15  The location, design and density of uses in the urban portions of the community should support improved transit service to the Plan area.
The CPAC notes that despite the fact that West 6th Street is designated as a post-2010 artery, this project does not even indicate West 6th Street on its site maps, much less contemplate improving traffic flow with consideration of this route to improve transit service to the Plan area. The previous project for this site showed an access on this street. The FPL project does not contemplate such access, nor development of this street to provide access to downtown Rio Linda.
 

AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL USES

Objective: Protection of agricultural-residential areas from urban encroachment.

The CPAC found that this proposed project, by virtue of the very large nature of the project, would encroach on the adjacent agricultural-residential areas.

LU-28 Agricultural-Residential uses located next to urban areas should be buffered by open space or lower density residential uses.
The CPAC does not consider sound walls to be a sufficient buffer to the adjacent agricultural-residential areas. Furthermore, sound walls would actually appear to decrease the open space adjacent to the agricultural-residential area.
 

INDUSTRIAL USES

Objective: A sufficient amount of properly located industrial areas within the community addressing compatibility with residents and natural resources.

The CPAC found that this project is not properly located to be compatible with residents with respect to visual encroachment, potential noise and air quality concerns, and with natural resources with respect to potential loss of foraging habitat for threatened species, and especially with respect to water use. The proposed use of such huge quantities of water (equal to the current total water usage of the community) would indicate incompatibility with both residents and natural resources.

LU-43 Locate heavy industrial uses, including warehousing and manufacturing, along major transportation routes such as Elkhorn Boulevard and the Union Pacific Railroad south of Elkhorn Boulevard.
The CPAC considers this project to be heavy industrial, and while it is along the Union Pacific Railroad, it is not south of Elkhorn Boulevard.
 
LU-44 Prohibit the development of industrial uses that would generate liquid or solid waste that may cause surface or groundwater contamination.
The CPAC found that this project has a great potential to cause surface water contamination. This proposed project is located in an area subject to heavy localized flooding on an annual basis. This site is adjacent to the environmentally sensitive NEMDC, or as it is now know, Steelhead Creek. Potential drainage from the site of the proposed project is a significant risk to this creek.
 

OPEN SPACE USES

LU-52 Encourage design concepts, including landscape corridors, that help retain a rural character along major transportation routes.
When the Citizen’s Advisory Committee for the Elverta Specific Plan was asked to identify the “gateways” to the Rio Linda/Elverta community, the western gateway was identified as the intersection where the Elverta Post Office is located. This intersection is the first intersection after the railroad tracks on Elverta Road, where this project is proposed. By locating this very large project so near the community’s “gateway,” the CPAC feels that it would definitely detract from the rural character along Elverta Road, a major transportation route.
 

LAND USE CONSTRAINTS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

LU-54 Implement the following EIR mitigation measures:
HM-2 Future development shall identify existing septic tanks and/or water wells and abandon according to State and County requirements.
The CPAC found that in encouraging abandonment of existing septic tanks and wells, the Community Plan certainly could be seen as not encouraging the installation of new septic tanks and wells, especially when considered in conjunction with the previously noted policy to provide urban infrastructure, including financing, before allowing urban development.
 
 

CIRCULATION POLICIES

The CPAC finds that the FPL project is NOT CONSISTENT with the following Circulation Policy:
 

ROADWAY FACILITIES

CI-2 Improved roadway connections into and out of the Plan area are essential, particularly enhanced north/south connections.
The CPAC notes that West 6th Street is shown to be a post-2010 artery. The previous project for this site included access and possible improvement to West 6th Street. The CPAC believes that if workers from the plant are to utilize downtown Rio Linda for shopping and dining as FPL proposes (as an economic benefit) that some provision should be made for a way to get there.
 
 

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES POLICIES

The CPAC finds that the FPL project is NOT CONSISTENT with the following Public Infrastructure and Services Policies:
 

WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

Objective: A well-planned sewer system with adequate carrying capacity to service the urban areas and AR-1 and AR-2 areas of Rio Linda and Elverta.

The CPAC notes that the EIR for the Community Plan shows that the public sewer system is projected to go right to the site of this project. If FPL wants to use this site, they should be required to provide the infrastructure for the sewer system. The system as proposed is not consistent.

PF-4 All new development in urban zones must have public sewer.
The CPAC found that the proposed project is new development in an urban zone, and as it does not propose to have public sewer, it is not consistent.
 

WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY

Objectives: The groundwater aquifer(s) protected from long-term damage from draw-down by public and private wells.

No negative impact to groundwater quality, pursuant to State and local standards, by contamination from septic tank systems.

PF-7 In the event a conjunctive use water supply is not obtained, the County shall not take actions that will result in long-term damage from draw-down to the groundwater aquifer(s).

PF-8 The County of Sacramento and the Cities of Citrus Heights, Folsom and Sacramento, through a Joint Powers Agreement, have established the Sacramento North Area Groundwater Management Authority (“SNAGMA”) to implement a groundwater management program to protect the long-term sustainable yield of the groundwater basin underlying the North Area Basin. In the new growth area in eastern Elverta, and other comprehensively planned development areas, entitlements for urban development shall not be granted until the Board of Supervisors makes one of the following findings: (i) that an agreement between the developer and either the domestic water purveyor serving the area (the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District and/or Citizens Utilities Company) or the SNAGMA has been executed which (a) assures that arrangements are in place to deliver supplemental water supplies (i.e. surface water, reclaimed water, etc.) within the boundaries of the SNAGMA in quantities sufficient to prevent a long-term net increase in groundwater pumping resulting from the proposed development and (b) assures that funding is made available to either the domestic water purveyor or the SNAGMA for all costs for delivery of such supplemental water supplies; or (ii) that an appropriate groundwater management program has been adopted by the Sacramento North Area Groundwater Management Authority (“SNAGMA”) to protect the long-term sustainable yield of the groundwater basin underlying the area for which an entitlement is sought, and that water use resulting from such entitlement is subject to and consistent with such groundwater management program. The land use planning process may proceed, and specific plans and rezoning may be approved, prior to this finding being made by the Board of Supervisors.

There was significant discussion regarding groundwater usage. The CPAC noted that the water use of the proposed project would almost equal the current usage of all the customers of the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District. The CPAC further noted that in the Community Plan, when this issue was discussed with respect to the Elverta Specific Plan area, it was noted that, as a result of the development in the Specific Plan area, that 25% of the local wells would be dewatered. This was deemed as not significant. Since the same aquifer is proposed to be used to provide double the water it now produces, even before the Specific Plan area is developed, the CPAC felt that the use of groundwater would “result in long-term damage from draw-down to the groundwater aquifer(s).” That would be inconsistent with PF-7.

It was also noted that when the previous project, SEPCO, was licensed for this site, it was specifically barred from using groundwater.

However, it was noted that PF-8 could also apply. While it is true that PF-8 was written to apply to the Specific Plan area, as was a good deal of the Community Plan, the CPAC believes that it would apply to this area as well, especially since it refers to “entitlements for urban development.” The County Planning staff said that this, as well as other policies in the Community Plan which referred to “urban development” really applied to residential urban development, but the Community Plan seems to be quite clear when it does reference residential development and the CPAC feels that PF-8 and other policies that reference urban development should be read as written, and includes all urban development, whether commercial, industrial or residential..

Therefore, in applying PF-8 to this project, the CPAC finds that the Board of Supervisors would have to make findings as required by PF-8 with respect to an agreement with the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District or SNAGMA. The CPAC found that an agreement had been reached with neither.

PF-11 Detention basins for the purposes of stormwater detention and water quality requirements shall be located on site if technically feasible to mitigate all impacts from additional runoff emphasizing the protection of existing homes and properties.
The CPAC expressed serious concerns that the proposed drainage for this site is not adequate to protect the surrounding properties and the environmentally sensitive NEMDC. The applicant does not appear to appreciate the seriousness of the significant, annual, localized flooding on this site, and therefore have not mitigated all impacts from additional runoff.
 

ENERGY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Objective: Provision of adequate energy facilities and services for all areas of the community.

The proposed project will not provide any electrical services for this community. In fact, as a result of the applications of Enron for a large facility in Roseville, and of SMUD at Rancho Seco, both of which propose to supply electricity to residents in the communities in which they will be located, this proposed FPL facility does not appear to be necessary for transmission load support, a potential “public benefit.” Indeed, it is now possible that this proposed project will overload the transmission system, and the transmission system will have to be enhanced to accommodate the increased load this proposed project will generate.

PF-22 Require property developers to work closely with SMUD or PG&E to ensure compatibility between the siting of electrical subtransmission facilities and the land development process.
SMUD indicated to the CPAC, despite representations by the applicant to the contrary, that FPL has not “worked with SMUD” during the land development process. In fact, the applicant appears to have contacted SMUD to inquire about the possibility of selling power to SMUD long after the FPL application was filed. SMUD has indicated that they are not interested in buying power from the proposed project, except on an emergency “peaker” basis, and only until SMUD’s new facility is up and running. The proposed FPL project would not be up and running until about the same time as the SMUD project. so essentially, SMUD has indicated that it is not interested in purchasing any power from the applicant.
 

SHERIFF SERVICES

Objectives: Safe neighborhoods for all Rio Linda and Elverta residents.

PF-24 Incorporate crime prevention techniques in the urban design of all new developing areas within Rio Linda and Elverta. Development plans shall address crime prevention measures including increased visibility and interaction between uses.
During the hearing process, CPAC asked about security measures that would be in place at the proposed facility, especially in light of the terrorist threat to the propane facility in the south area of Sacramento county. The applicant indicated that there would be a fence around the property and that there would be personnel on duty 24 hours a day.

The CPAC felt that the proposed security measures were inadequate, especially in light of the local terrorist threat, and this was before the events of September 11.
 

FIRE PROTECTION

PF-31 Developers shall coordinate with the American River Fire Protection District, the Rio Linda Water District, and the Citizens District early in the project design stage in designing water distribution systems, hydrant locations and fire flow requirements for all new development proposed within the community area.
The CPAC found that the applicant had not consulted with the Fire District or the Water District sufficiently early in the process. In fact, the applicant does not appear yet to know what will be required of it by either the Fire District or the Water District. This was noted in regard to emergency access and equipment with respect to fire protection or hazardous materials or other emergencies, or the Water District with respect to water supply.
 
 

NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES

The CPAC finds that the FPL project is NOT CONSISTENT with the following Natural Resources Policies:

GOAL: Protect and conserve Natural Resources including agricultural lands, open space, and sensitive habitats.

The CPAC found that this project represented significant risks to the adjoining agricultural lands and sensitive habitats, both on the proposed site and on adjoining sensitive habitats, and would be very intrusive upon the open space, especially given the size of the project.
 

CONSERVATION OF VIABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Objectives: Recognize agricultural lands as a resource and seek mechanisms to conserve and protect such agricultural areas from urban encroachment.

The Industrial Reserve designation is considered to be an agricultural use, and much of the surrounding property is Agricultural-Residential. The development of the proposed project would be a significant encroachment due to visual and noise elements which would be present 24 hours a day. The CPAC considered this in the context that Industrial Reserve means that one day, this property could potentially be developed for industrial uses. However, the CPAC felt that, when the time was right, if ever, due to a shortage of other industrial land in the Community, and the presence of the required urban infrastructure, that this site was much better suited to light industrial, and only uses that were not obtrusive or in operation 24 hours a day, but a project that was much smaller in scale and more in keeping with the surrounding uses. The CPAC emphasizes that it does not find that ANY industrial use is appropriate at this time, and that is reflected in the RESERVE designation which indicates a potential for industrial development much farther in the future.

Continue agricultural activities that provide habitat for wildlife species.

The CPAC found that the proposed project would not continue agricultural activities in this area, and furthermore would be detrimental to agricultural activities in the surrounding area.
 

WETLANDS REGULATION PROGRAMS

NR-4 Public or private projects involving the filling or removal of marsh/riparian habitat or wetlands outside of areas designated Natural Preserve where on-site mitigation is not desirable or appropriate shall be mitigated through the purchase of mitigation credits for restored wetlands/riparian areas at a ratio of 2:1.
The CPAC found that the applicant did not appear to be proposing an offset in the correct ratio of 2:1.
 

HABITAT PROTECTION AND MITIGATION

Objectives: Conservation of lands with significant natural resources such as vernal pools, riparian areas, oak woodlands, including but not limited to resources within the Dry Creek Parkway area and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal.

Protect and create natural environmental corridors along the two channels of Dry Creek, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, and in other areas where significant natural resources are found (e.g., the NEMDC tributaries) as means to preserve and protect natural features, including but not limited to riparian areas, oak woodlands, grasslands and other wildlife habitat.

There are vernal pools on the site of this proposed project. There is feeding habitat for the Swainson’s Hawk. There are potentially other threatened or endangered species such as the Giant Garter Snake and the Fairy Shrimp. This project may have significant impacts on the NEMDC due to noise, air pollution, discharge of water vapor, the gas pipeline proposed to be drilled under the NEMDC or other factors. The CPAC found that this proposed project, would not protect these resources, but instead had great potential to endanger them.

NR-6 No new developments shall be allowed within the riparian corridor, established from the edge of the outside bank of each channel of Dry Creek, as defined within the adopted Dry Creek Parkway Plan. Development adjacent to these riparian corridors shall be compatible with the preservation of the natural habitat and environment values and sensitive to adjacent property owners.
The CPAC found that this project was not compatible with the preservation of the natural habitat and is not sensitive to adjacent property owners.
NR-8 The Dry Creek Parkway, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, and other appropriate areas within the community shall be utilized as areas for off-site mitigation of wetlands or riparian habitat.
(This policy implements EIR mitigation measure BR-2 which states: Mitigation for impacts to biological resources within the Community Plan areas shall be accomplished within the boundaries of the Plan area. Potential mitigation sites include: the Dry Creek Corridor; Elverta Villages; Liddawi Diversified property; Natomas East Main Drainage Canal; West 6th and U Streets; south of Straugh Road; and agricultural lands located throughout the Community Plan area.)

The applicant was specifically asked to provide offsets, where any were determined to be necessary, within the community, even if it meant creating new mitigation sites. The community was defined in this context as being the Rio Linda/Elverta community. The applicant continues to state that there is no mitigation possible in the Rio Linda/Elverta community and that the credits would be within the greater Sacramento area. The CPAC found that this is not consistent with the policy of keeping the mitigation within the Rio Linda/Elverta community. The CPAC even gave as an example the site mentioned in this policy with the potential to be developed as a mitigation site (south of Straugh Road) which is almost directly south of the site of this proposed project, but the applicant said it was not interested in developing new mitigation sites.

NR-11 The use of native drought tolerant plant species is encouraged in developed areas adjacent to Dry Creek and other environmentally sensitive corridors.
The proposed landscape plan presented to the CPAC did not appear to be drought tolerant and in fact did not appear to be taken into account when calculating the water usage requirement of the proposed project. Calculations done based on the plan presented to the CPAC appeared to represent as much as an additional 500 acre feet per year of water for watering the proposed landscaping.
NR-17 Implement the following EIR mitigation measure:
BR-1 Future development within the Community Plan area shall minimize impacts to biological resources through the implementation of the following measures, where appropriate:
As stated above, the CPAC found that the applicant was not willing do add natural preserves or enhance existing habitats or restore low quality habitats within the Rio Linda/Elverta community.
 

AIR QUALITY

Objective: Air quality protected from short term construction impacts and long term degradation from auto and other emission sources.

The CPAC recognizes that the proposed site of this project is in a predominately agricultural area. While the burning of rice straw has a significant short-term and temporary impact on air quality in the immediate area, it is important to note rice straw will not be allowed to be burned in the near future, so the air will be even cleaner in this area very soon. While the CPAC recognizes that the AQMD, with the help of the EPA, will determine if the applicant’s proposed package of “air credits” would favorably impact the region’s air quality, the CPAC notes that air credits do nothing to protect the air quality in the immediate area of the proposed project. The CPAC found that the impact on air quality from this proposed project will be significant, both short-term and long term.
 

NOISE

Objective: Protection from excessive noise.

The CPAC, in considering this project, took into account that, in addition to audible noise, there will be low frequency noise emitted from this site. In this predominately agricultural area, the CPAC felt that in addition to considering the potential for a negative impact on the people in the area, the noise which would emanate from the site, 24 hours a day, could have a significant impact, on the animals, both wild and domestic, as well. The CPAC found that this noise could affect the viability of domestic agricultural animal production, such as the production of milk from dairy animals or reproduction of any species, wild or domestic
 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

NR-20 Implement the following EIR mitigation measures:
CR-3 If ground disturbing activities are planned within or adjacent to the boundaries of any known archaeological sites, the following shall be required:
(A) The site area will be inspected by a qualified, professional archaeologist to assess the condition of the property and to determine the current status of the deposit.

(B) Based on this review, and, as appropriate, a subsurface testing program will be developed and implemented to determine if the property meets criteria specified in Appendix K of CEQA to qualify as an important archaeological resource. The course of the testing program should be clearly delineated in a research design which outlines prehistory of the area; research domains, questions and data requirements; research methods inclusive of field and laboratory studies; report preparation; and significant criteria.

(C) Following field investigations, a technical report describing the evaluation program should be prepared. At a minimum, this report shall include the elements discussed in the research design, as well as a description of the recovered site assemblage and a significance evaluation. If, based on the results of the testing program, a site is not determined to be an important archaeological resource, then effects to it would have been reduced to less than significant.

(D) If the site is determined to be an important archaeological resource, then additional mitigation measures, namely data recovery investigations may be necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant.

(E) As Native American archaeological resources are involved, identification and treatment shall be conducted in consultation with the local Native American community.

(F) Archaeological investigations shall be conducted by a qualified, professional archaeologist who either meets the federal standards as stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 61) or is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA).

This site is, according to public testimony, adjacent to a known archaeological site. The CPAC found that the list of requirements under such circumstances does not appear to have been complied with.