Index to the web page below:

Correspondence with Planning re provision of documents

Staff report for August 29, 2001 Board meeting, includes errata
     Proposed resolution (Attachment A)
     Planning: to the CEC June 5, 2001 (Attachment B)
     Zoning Code re height (Attachment F)
     Matrix of Community Plan: Consistency (Attachment G)
     July 9, 2001 Counsel to Supervisor Dickinson (Attachment H)
     August 28, 2000 Counsel to Planning (Attachment I)

Staff report back Spetember 28, 2001 for Oct. 3, 2001 Board meeting
     CEC's County Land Use Consistency outline (Attachment A)
     Link to CEC order suspending FPL project (Attachment B)

Staff report back #2 November 16, 2001 for November 20,2001 Board meeting
     Overview matrix of applicable General Plan policies (Attachment A)
     Status of Agency distribution and responses (Attachment C)

Staff Report #4 for November 20, 2001 Board meeting (there was no report #3)
     Link to CPAC referral (Attachment C)
 

Other Planning Documents and links:

Planning Director letter to California Energy Commission dated January 17, 2002 (with attachments)

Planning Department home page
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay O'Brien [mailto:jayobrien@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 8:38 PM
To: Leighann Moffitt; Debbie Byrne; Lance Shaw
Subject: Staff reports

Leighann,

Please email to me the four staff reports you mentioned in your presentation to the Board of Supervisors on November 20, 2001. These are the "original staff report of August 29, Report # 1 of October 3, Report back #2 dated November 16, and Report Back #4 distributed November 20. I understand there is no report #3.

Thank you,

Jay O'Brien
jayobrien@att.net
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Staff reports
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:09:20 -0800
From: "Moffitt, Leighann" <MOFFITTL@saccounty.net>
To: 'Jay O'Brien' <jayobrien@att.net>, "Moffitt, Leighann"<MOFFITTL@saccounty.net>, Debbie Byrne <luckyacres@earthlink.net>, Lance Shaw <lshaw@energy.state.ca.us>
CC: "Ziebron, Karen" <KarenZiebron@saccounty.net>, "Hutchings, Tom"<HutchingsT@saccounty.net>

Attached are the staff reports you requested.  The electronic versions do not include attachments or graphics (e.g., the grid map in the first staff report).  I also attached an errata sheet sent with the original staff report.  As I was out much of last week, I am now working on the revised letter to the CEC (incorporating Board comments) and CPAC comments that Debbie Byrne provided to me.  Thanks.

Leighann Moffitt
874-6141

(Five files attached)
srFPLconsistency.doc & ERRATA SHEET.doc
rptback Rio Linda - Elverta Power Project.doc
rptback 2- FPL Rio Linda-Elverta.doc
Report #4 (additions for Nov 20).doc

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Try # 2 on attachments
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:15:40 -0800
From: "Moffitt, Leighann" <MOFFITTL@saccounty.net>
To: "Jay O'Brien (E-mail)" <jayobrien@att.net>

I am further providing four of the attachments from the prior staff reports sent to you. They include:

Attached to the first staff report (srFPLconsistency):
* FPL reso to CEC
* CP consistency with FPL
Attached to the 2nd report back (rptback 2-FPL Rio Linda-Elverta):
* status of agency responses
* working GP matrix for Nov 20

Please note that the 3rd report back (identified at Report #4, as I occasionally can't seem to count) includes some responses not identified in the "status of agency responses".

Leighann
 (Four files attached)
FPL reso to CEC.doc
CP consistency with FPL.doc
status of agency responses.doc
working GP matrix for Nov 20.doc

ON: RIO LINDA/ELVERTA POWER PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:  202-0090-030 through 033

LOCATION: The property is located east of the Union Pacific rail lines, ½ mile south of Elverta Road, west of West 6th Street, and ¼ mile north of Straugh Road.

PROJECT PROPONENT:

FPL Energy Sacramento Power, LLC
700 Universe Boulevard
Juno Beach, Florida  33408

Gary A. Bernick Revocable Trust
329 Country Club Road
Eugene, OR  97401

The FPL Energy Sacramento Power, LLC has submitted an application for certification to the State of California Energy Commission for a power plant in Elverta. Sacramento County has approved a prior rezone application for a power plant and cogeneration facility at the same site.  The Board of Supervisors will be asked to make a final determination as to whether the proposed power plant is consistent with the General Plan, Community Plan, and current zoning including the prior zoning approval, which would allow the project to be evaluated and approved through the State of California Energy Commission public hearing and review process.

I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

A. Recommended Actions:

1. Adopt the attached resolution provided as Attachment “A” indicating that the General Plan, Community Plan and zoning land use designations on the subject property allow consideration of the proposed Florida Light and Power power plant through the State of California Energy Commission (CEC) review and hearing process.  Request that the CEC address compliance with identified Community Plan and General Plan policies as performance standards via requiring modifications to the project or as Conditions of Certification.
2. Direct County and appropriate agency staff to form a “response team” to provide comment to the California Energy Commission regarding compliance and conditions related to County rules and regulations.  Also direct staff to enter into a reimbursement agreement with FPL to provide funding for such efforts.

B. Justification:  The staff recommendations are based upon the following considerations:

1. State Law requires that the California Energy Commission has the statutory authority to site and license thermal power plants that are rated at 50 megawatts and larger.
2. A power plant would be appropriate in the Industrial Intensive General Plan designation.  Appropriate General Plan policies will be taken into consideration via the California Energy Commission review and approval process.
3. A power plant would be consistent in the Heavy Industrial (M-2) Community Plan designation.  Appropriate Community Plan policies will be taken into consideration via the California Energy Commission review and approval process.
4. The proposed development will conform to applicable Zoning Code regulations with the exception of height.  The consideration of a variance or exemption from height standards shall be considered by the California Energy Commission as part of their approval process for the project.
5. The California Energy Commission hearing and approval process will address any potential environmental impacts and other effects from the proposal which could result in a significant detrimental impact on adjoining or neighboring properties.
6. It is appropriate to allow the proposed FPL power plant to utilize a septic sewer system pending the extension of the Northwest Interceptor to the general area.

A. Introduction:

FPL Energy Sacramento Power, LLC submitted an Application for Certification (AFC) on January 30, 2001 to the State of California Energy Commission requesting approval to construct and operate the Rio Linda Power Project.  This proposed project is a 560 MW natural gas-fired power plant and is located on the property formerly approved for the SEPCO power plant and ethanol cogeneration facility.

The Planning Department issued a letter regarding zoning consistency to the California Energy Commission dated June 5, 2001, provided as Attachment “B”, indicating that it was the Department’s determination that the proposed power plant is consistent with the M-2 zone.  A component of this determination relates to the fact that State Law requires that the California Energy Commission has the statutory authority to site and license thermal power plants that are rated at 50 megawatts and larger.  (See excerpts from the Warren-Alquist Act below.)

Residents of the Rio Linda and Elverta Community, and members of the Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) specifically, expressed concern and opposition to the Department’s interpretation to both County staff and CEC staff.  Therefore, it was agreed that the item would be scheduled before the Board of Supervisors to confirm this interpretation of zoning consistency and to address consistency with the General Plan and Community Plan.

It is staff’s understanding that the CEC must make a finding of consistency with local plans and zoning in order to approve a power plant.  If this finding cannot be made, the CEC must make a special finding that amounts to an override of local land use policy.  This finding of consistency relates to the use itself, as well as to development standards such as height and setbacks.

B. History:

Zoning and related activities.  The site was historically zoned Industrial Reserve, IR and Industrial Reserve with a Flood Combining Zone, IR(F).  A community plan amendment, rezone and parcel map request (82-CP-RZ-PM-0758 and 0759) was made in 1982 to divide 91.6 acres into 18 lots.  This proposal was ultimately denied and a modified project for a 4 lot parcel map was approved (83-PM-0607) that divided the 91.6 acre property into 4 lots.  The site was rezoned to M-2 and M-2(F) or Heavy Industrial in conjunction with review and approval of the SEPCO project discussed further below.

The SEPCO Project.  A rezone application (92-RZB-0893) was submitted in 1992 to rezone the property from IR and IR(F) to M-2 for the purposes of allowing a combined cycle cogeneration power plant on 7+ acres and an adjoining rice straw-to-ethanol plant on 25+ acres of which about 15+ acres would have been used for rice straw storage.  That rezone process acknowledged that the proposed power plant component of the project was exempt from local regulation; however, the ethanol plant component required heavy industrial zoning.  The power plant was to be a 115 MW gas fired plant.  The rice straw was to be trucked from valley rice fields and converted to ethanol through a acid-hydrolysis process.  The steam from the power plant would have been used in a cogeneration application for processing the rice straw to ethanol.  A Zoning Ordinance Amendment was approved in May of 1994 approve the rezone.  Certain conditions were associated with that ordinance including compliance with the CEC Conditions of Certification for the project; the establishment of an Oversight Commission; a community benefit package; preferential local hiring; and dedication of a multi-use trail.

An amendment to the Zoning Agreement (Resolution No. 95-0116) was adopted in February 1995 to address modifications to the project related to air quality, water supply, and cogeneration issues.  This Zoning Agreement remains in effect and is provided as Attachment “C”.  Specifically related to the cogeneration component, the applicants modified the project to allow continued operation of the power plant notwithstanding any interruption in either operations or in the construction schedule of the ethanol plant.  That is, if the cogeneration component of the project became infeasible, the CEC would need to determine whether the project was in conformance with the adopted Conditions of Certification and to potentially require a formal amendment to those conditions.  The project was, however, not modified to be a stand-alone power plant.

The SEPCO project was not constructed and the CEC’s approval expired.  The Zoning Agreement, however, does not expire and remains in effect.

Community Plan Designations.  The 1970 Community Plan identified the entire area between W. 6th Street and the Railroad as “Industrial.”  The 1975 Community Plan modified this to “Industrial Intensive” and indicated that industrial uses would “normally” require utilities.

C. The Proposed Project:

The following project description is excerpted from the submittal to the CEC.  The Executive Summary of the submittal is provided as Attachment “D” and a site plan is Attachment “E”.  The proposed project is a 560 megawatt (MW) natural gas power plant proposed by FPL Energy Sacramento Power, LLC.   The project is located on a 90-acre parcel bordered by the Union Pacific rail lines to the west and West 6th Street to the east.  Elverta Road is approximately ½ mile to the north of the site and Straugh Road is approximately ¼ mile south of the site.  Site access will be provided from Elverta Road via an extension of Sorento Road.  The natural gas will be provided by PG&E and will be conveyed to the site via a new 16 to 20-inch, 20-mile pipeline.  The plant will generate and supply power to Western Area Power Authority (WAPA).  The existing WAPA transmission lines that cross the proposed power plant site will be rerouted through the plant switchyard and connect the plant with a substation located approximately 0.5 miles north of the site.

D. Zoning Consistency:

The Planning Department issued a letter regarding zoning consistency to the California Energy Commission dated June 5, 2001, provided as Attachment “B”.  This letter indicated that it was the Department’s determination that the proposed power plant is consistent with the M-2 zone.  The letter further recognizes that power plants are not specifically referenced in the use tables of the Zoning Code, but are considered substantially similar in characteristics, intensity and compatibility to other permitted uses in the M-2 zone, in particular the “Public Utility and Public Service Facility” category.  The Public Utility and Public Service Facility category references code Sections 301-10 through 301-13.  Specifically Section 301-13 references the possibility of a use permit.  As identified in the Introduction section, State Law regulates power plants and specifically precludes requiring entitlements such as a use permit.  Therefore, the CEC review process would supercede the County’s use permit process.

The debate about zoning consistency primarily focuses on whether the project is consistent with the conditions of approval adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the SEPCO project.  Specifically, Condition #1 states, in part:

“The development of this property under the M-2 zone shall be limited to a power plant and ethanol manufacturing facility (ethanol facility).  Such use shall be regulated by the California Energy Commission (CEC).  The applicant/owner shall comply with all Conditions of Certification adopted by the CEC on May 11, 1994, and revised by the CEC on January 18, 1995, which conditions are by this reference incorporated herein.”

Although the FPL is a power plant only project and no longer contains an ethanol facility, the June 5 staff letter to CEC provided the opinion, based on legal advice by County Counsel, that the proposed FPL plant is consistent with the conditions of approval found in the zoning agreement.  To be consistent, the power plant only proposal would need to comply with the yet to be adopted CEC conditions and, at a minimum, with the community benefit conditions found in Conditions 2-6.

The CPAC found that the project is inconsistent with the zoning agreement, and therefore is not consistent generally with the zoning.  They argue that the property was only zoned to the M-2 zoning for the express purpose of accommodating the cogeneration facility and that any other project should require a recission of the zoning agreement and adoption of a new zoning agreement. (See Section III for more detail on the CPAC recommendation).

If the Board of Supervisors finds that the project is not consistent with the zoning agreement, the Board may request that the applicants make an application to amend the zoning agreement.  Such an amendment would require a public hearing process through the County with a final decision by the Board of Supervisors.  This process could be handled similarly to the SEPCO process where there was a MOU between the County and CEC regarding conditions of approval and enforcement.

E. Site Suitability:

Further analysis of specific site related issues will be conducted by the CEC (with County input) during the review process.  Much of the information summarized below comes from the Application for Certification to the CEC.  A Preliminary Staff Assessment by the CEC is anticipated in December of 2001 (per recent request for a revised scheduled by FPL).  The following is, therefore, a general introduction of issues related to the site.

Public Services.  The project proposes to utilize a septic sysem with leach field for disposal of waste from sinks, toilets and other sanitary facilities.  The applicants have estimated a full-time staff of 23 individuals with a peak daytime presence of 14 employees.  Water from plant operations will not utilize the septic system.

A zero liquid discharge system for plant operations will be utilized.  Essentially the cooling towers will be utilized to evaporate the water.  Excess sludge from dissolved solids and remaining water will be trucked from the site to a recycling or landfill facility.

The applicants have indicated that water will be provided by the Rio Linda and Elverta Community Water District utilizing ground water from wells and an expanded distribution system pursuant to the District’s Water Master Plan.  The application indicates an estimated water consumption of 1,627 gallons per minute daily or 2,823 acre-feet on an annual basis.  The applicants are also evaluating alternative water supply sources as the CEC staff has identified water supply as a significant issue.

Wetlands and Habitat.  The project site has 5.42 acres of wetlands; however, the applicants indicate the project is designed to avoid the wetlands with a temporary impact of 0.6 acres and a permanent impact of 0.2 acres.  Mitigation to both wetlands and other biological resources are proposed in the application and will be addressed in the CEC approval process.

Floodplain.  The actual power plant facilities are to be located out of the identified floodplain as with the SEPCO project.  The access road, however, is to be constructed northward, extending Sorento Road south from Elverta Road.  Portions of the access road extension would cross floodplain boundaries of the NEMDC.  Impacts to the floodplain such as any needed compensating storage area should be addressed as part of the CEC review process.

Air Quality:  The Air Quality Management District is currently conducting permit review of the FPL project.  Preliminary indications are that the project does utilize best available control technology however, emissions do exceed significant levels and emission reduction credits must be secured.  As FPL has indicated, the applicants are continuing to work towards obtaining sufficient credits.

Noise.  The most restrictive requirement of the County Noise Ordinance is 45 dBA at nighttime at the southwest corner of the site.  The application indicates the project is designed to meet this requirement.  The CEC, however, can require that noise levels not be raised by more than 5 dBA over existing ambient levels, which can be very low in this area at a stated 34 decibels at night.  The CEC’s Status Report #1 (7-3-01) indicates the project may exceed the criterion and have requested further information.

As a note, a recent County Zoning Admistrator use permit for a cell tower antenna collocation on an exiting radio tower raised considerable neighborhood attention to noise from equipment cabinents and related fans.  While the noise levels met the County noise ordinance standards, community complaints were received and are being addressed.

Traffic.   The Application for Certification estimates trip generation at 55 one-way daily trips with 11 of those trips at the p.m. peak hour.  The application concludes this addition to be insignificant.

F. Development Standards:

The power plant use in the M-2 zone is regulated by the industrial development standards.  (For point of clarification, despite the reference to public utilities in Section 320-01 of the Institutional Development Standards, Section 320-03 refers back to the Industrial Standards when in an industrial zone.)

Setbacks:  The industrial standards require a 50-foot front yard setback.  The distance to the fenced area is approximately 650-feet from West 6th Street and potential future extension of West 6th to the north.  Sideyard setbacks are not required adjacent to the rail line or M-1 and M-2 zoned properties.  Sideyard setbacks adjacent to IR require 10-feet.  Therefore, adjacent to the IR areas to the north and south, a minimum 10-feet is required.  The distance to the fenced site area is approximately 625-feet to the north and 350-feet to the south.  Based on the site plan provided, the project appears to have far greater setbacks than required.

Landscaping:  Per 325-03 (a), industrial standards require a 5-foot planter at the roadway right-of-way.  Per 325-03 (c), and in conjunction with the fencing requirement identified below, screen trees must be planted 30 feet on center adjacent to the required wall.

Building Height:  The stacks or cooling towers for the project will project upward to a height of 150-feet.  The application indicates that the two stacks will each be 20 feet in diameter.

Attachment “F” provides an excerpt of zoning code provisions related to height.  Based on Section 325-04 (a), the maximum height of the use would be 100-feet if the structure is located at least 100 feet from an agricultural, agricultural-residential, or residential zone. To exceed this height, a project typically must either (a) qualify for a height exception per Section 301-21, or (b) obtain a discretionary approval of a deviation from the height standard.  Staff had initially indicated that Section 301-22 would apply, allowing a discretionary approval process to increase the height to 150-feet but upon further review has concluded it does not apply. Staff assumed that the CEC review process would be equivalent to the County’s discretionary process. [the preceeding paragraph includes two errata sheet changes, underlined]

Further analysis of the height standards leads to the conclusion that the project likely qualifies for the “height exception” for towers and similar structures per Section 301-21.  A tower is exempt from the height requirement if the structure doesn’t cover more that 15% of the area of the lot, or have a base greater than 1600 square feet.  The 150 foot stacks are 20 feet in diameter and do not appear to exceed the 1600 square feet base requirement (at an estimated 630 square feet of total base area). [includes errata sheet change, underlined]

If the height exception defined above is not applicable to this project, then a variance to the height standard would be needed.  Again, staff assumes that the CEC review process would be equivalent to the County’s variance process.  If a variance is needed, the applicants should be required to provide adequate justification to the CEC in order for the CEC to make findings equivalent to the County’s variance findings.

Parking.  Assuming the use under a public facility description, per 330-55, the project would be required to provide 1 space for every 2 employees on the premise at any one time including overlaps in shifts.  Appropriate parking standards related to stall and isle widths and landscaping must also be followed.

Fencing.  Pursuant to Section 301-61, a masonry wall shall be provided along the interior property lines where adjacent to the AR-2 zoned property.

G. Community Plan Consistency:

The project description for the adopted 1998 Community Plan indicates:

The three industrial designations are:  Industrial Office Park (MP); Light Industrial (M-1); and Heavy Industrial (M-2).  Industrial Reserve is classified as an agricultural designation.
Industrial Office Park (MP).  The Industrial Office Park designation provides for industrially related office uses and larger groupings of office uses such as in business parks.  There are currently no MP uses in the community plan area.
Light Industrial (M-1).  The light industrial designation provides for a range of industrial activities, including production, assembly, warehousing and distribution where the external physical effects are generally restricted to the industrial area and where the uses are compatible with surrounding uses.  Industrial activities should be conducted entirely within enclosed buildings and outdoor storage areas should be screened.
Heavy Industrial (M-2).  The heavy industrial designation provides for a full range of industrial activities where the location and operation tend to have moderate to high nuisance characteristics and therefore require segregation from other land uses.  Uses should have access to a major transportation route, such as an Interstate Highway or heavy rail line.

The Open Space and Agricultural Designations include:
Industrial Reserve (IR). The industrial reserve designations provide for agricultural pursuits in an area that may be suitable for future industrial uses.  Much of the area shown for industrial reserve is significantly impacted by flooding.  Any redesignation to industrial should fully evaluate the impact of the use on the floodplain and the impact of flooding upon the use.

Attachment “G” provides a matrix evaluating the power plant against the Community Plan policies.  The approach that staff has taken in interpreting consistency is that many of the Policies must be treated as performance standards that should be considered by the CEC in their project review and, if the project is approved, considered as required modifications of the project or as Conditions of Certification.

The CPAC in conducting their analysis, determined inconsistency if the project does not demonstrate compliance (see further discussion under Community Council comments).  In addition, a key component of the discussion at the CPAC had to do with whether the power plant is considered an “urban use.”  (This issue is also discussed in the following section on General Plan consistency.)  In particular, the failure to provide for public sewer as required by Policy PF-4 was identified as a critical component in their determination of inconsistency.  The CPAC also included a discussion of a number of other issues as indicated in Attachment “G”.

Specifically related to Policy PF-4, the County had approved the SEPCO power plant and cogeneration facility utilizing a septic system.  In addition, the community and County were aware of the approved SEPCO project during the preparation and approval of the Policy Plan.  Staff’s opinion is that the intent was to address urban residential uses and not to specifically create a policy conflict with a power plant project on the site.  However, given the controversy, it may be appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to clarify the interpretation of this policy.

The applicants have prepared a separate matrix evaluating their project against the Community Plan.  This matrix can be made available upon request; however, it is not provided as an attachment to the staff report.

H. General Plan Consistency:

The site is located in the Industrial Intensive land use category.  This designation is typically associated with more urban uses; however, Planning has considered a power plant use as a rather unique activity and not necessarily appropriate in an urban area.  This fact was addressed with the prior SEPCO project.  The staff report on SEPCO prepared in November 1993 stated that “although the proposed M-2 zone is an urban land use zone, the proposed project is viewed as a rural-oriented industrial facility that, in fact, may not be appropriate in a more urban setting.  Urban services are not being provided.  This project is considered unique in that its purpose requires close proximity to agricultural areas (i.e. rice fields) and full urban services are not needed.  Given the unique characteristics of the project, the rezone to M-2 to accomplish this project is considered consistent with General Plan and Community Plan policy.”

While the current stand alone power plant does not have the same relationship with nearby agricultural areas, it is an activity that may not appropriate in an urban area.  This could be likened to other public utility activities such existing and past uses at Rancho Seco, although that site is specifically identified as Public/Quasi Public on the General Plan.

Specific General Plan land use policies that would appear to relate to this proposal include:

LU-36.  New industrial uses using large amounts of material and with low employment densities, such as warehousing, shall be located outside new growth areas along primary transportation routes such as Interstate facilities, airports, railroads, or navigable waterways.

LU-40.  The County shall support activities which attract industrial development that:

Do not pose a significant risk of pollution to water, air, or other natural resources

Provide for diversification in industrial development

Expand opportunities for those entering the labor force, and for Sacramento’s unemployed and underemployed.

In staff’s opinion, the proposed power plant is consistent with these policies.  The use has low employment densities and is outside a new growth area.  In addition, the project has access to Elverta Road, a planned thoroughfare, which leads to Highway 99 and is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad.

The Public Facilities Element of the General Plan also contains policies that may relate to the proposed project.  Specifically the Element states:

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

Objective: Minimize the health, safety, aesthetic, cultural, and biological impacts of energy facilities in Sacramento County.

PF-71. Locate and design production and distribution facilities so as to minimize visual intrusion problems in urban areas and areas of scenic and/or cultural value including the following:

Recreation and historic areas.

Scenic highways.

Landscape corridors.

State or federal designated wild and scenic rivers.

Visually prominent locations such as ridges, designated scenic corridors, and open viewsheds.

Native American sacred sites.

PF-72. Locate and design energy production and distribution facilities in a manner that is compatible with surrounding land uses by employing the following methods when appropriate to the site.

Visually screen facilities with topography and existing vegetation and install landscaping consistent with surrounding land use zone development standards where appropriate, except where it would adversely affect photovoltaic performance or interfere with power generating capability.

Provide site-compatible landscaping.

Minimize glare through siting, facility design, nonreflective coatings, etc.

Site facilities in a manner to equitably distribute their visual impacts in the immediate vicinity.

The adopted Energy Facilities component of the Public Facilities Element does not appear to have anticipated merchant power plants as is now proposed after energy deregulation.  The CPAC has interpreted the stated goal as creating an inconsistency with the General Plan, because the FPL project does not provide a guarantee that the energy produced will be utilized by the residents of the local community or even the greater Sacramento County area.  Staff is not certain that this was the intent of the Board in adopted this element, and that the assumption may have been that any facilities would be provided by local public utility purveyors such as SMUD.  As with the Community Plan policies, staff would view the goals, objectives and policies as performance standards that as the local jurisdiction we must work with the CEC in ensuring adequate mitigation to address.  Policy PF-71 references “open viewsheds” and Policy PF-72 discusses compatibility with surrounding land uses such as through screening.  Furthermore, the site is in a generally flat area and does have open viewsheds. Therefore, the County and community should continue to work within the CEC process to address visual intrusion.

As with Community Plan consistency, FPL has prepared a very long matrix addressing General Plan consistency.  This matrix can be made available for the record, however it is much too long to provide as an attachment to the staff report.

I. Oversight Committee:

A separate resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors creating an Oversight Committee.  This Committee would have been involved with the project after approval.  The stated purpose of the Committee was:
• The Advisory Committee, in consultation with the CEC Compliance Project Manager (CPM), will review plans, reports, etc. submitted by the applicant to the CEC pursuant to the Conditions of Certification.
• The Advisory Committee will work with the CEC CPM in identifying and resolving complaints regarding non-compliance of Conditions of Certification as prescribed by the CEC’s Compliance Plan and Monitoring Program.  The Advisory Committee may request that the CEC or other agency (inlcuidng the County) investigate complaints and report back to the Advisory Committee.
• The Advisory Committee will serve as a clearinghouse (i.e. information dissemination) for preferential local hiring and purchase of services and materials as prescribed by the “Special Compliance Procedure” of the Compliance Plan and Monitoring Program.
• The Advisory Committee has no final decision-making powers and would serve in an advisory capacity to the CEC, Sacramento County, and other agencies that have jurisdiction over the SEPCO Project.
The Board may wish to reactivate this Committee via revisions to the membership categories and subsequent new appointments.  The Board may also wish to clarify the role of the Oversight Committee as it relates to the negotiation of community benefits as discussed further in the next section.

J. Community Benefit Package:

The County has indicated a requirement that the Community Benefit Package in a minimal requirement for consideration of the project by the CEC.  FPL is in concurrence with this.

The original Community Benefit Package was negotiated by members of the Rio Linda and Elverta community not necessarily under any formal organization or appointment.  A component of the discussion to-date has been the need to have a forum or group to address the re-negotiation of any revisions or enhancements to the adopted Community Benefit Package.  While this was discussed at the CPAC hearing, no formal action or recommendation was made (given their stated opposition to finding the project consistent with the zoning etc.)

The Planning Department would, therefore, recommend that pending the outcome of the Board’s determination of consistency, a follow-up hearing be held to discuss any County involvement or Board endorsement of a group to negotiate changes to the Community Benefit Package.  It is the Department’s opinion that such group would not necessarily have the same composition as the makeup of the Oversight Committee.

K. On-going County Involvement:

If the Board determines the project to be consistent with the adopted Zoning Agreement and that no specific further County entitlements are required, Planning Staff would recommend that the Board direct on-going County involvement in the review process conducted by the CEC.  This may be done via the formation of a “response team” which might be comprised of representatives of:
• Planning
• Environmental Review
• Water Resources – Drainage Section
• Water Resources – Groundwater Supply
• Transportation
• Water Quality – Sewers
• Environmental Management – Septics and Noise
• Air Quality Management
FPL representatives have indicated a willingness to fund participation by Planning staff at a minimum.  Estimated costs of up to $10,000 have been discussed to-date.

L. Conclusions:

The Board of Supervisors is being asked to make a finding of General Plan, Community Plan and zoning consistency for the FPL power plant.  Staff’s recommendation is that the plant can be found generally consistent with the basic land use designation of the General Plan and Community Plan, and that the plant is not inconsistent with the adopted zoning agreement for the property.  A number of Community Plan policies relating to performance standards need to be addressed through the CEC process, especially as they relate to water supply, sewer service, land use compatiblity, and other policies identified in Attachment G.  In addition, development standards of the Zoning Code should be complied with.

If the Board determines inconsistency, then it is important to address the nature of the inconsistency so the CEC can determine if that inconsistency can be addressed through their review process and through Conditions of Certification, or if the inconsistency results in a basic incompatibility with local planning objectives. A finding of inconsistency with the zoning agreement may mean that the project proponents must amend the zoning agreement through the County’s  public hearing process.

A. Community Council:

The Rio Linda and Elverta Community Planning Advisory Council has discussed the proposed power plant at a number of meetings over the past months.  Two public meetings specifically on the issue of zoning, community plan and general plan consistency were held on August 14 and August 21, 2001. Representatives of the Planning Department and FPL were present at both meetings.

The meeting on the 14th focused primarily on the issue of zoning consistency.  Testimony was taken, primarily at the meeting of the 14th, and included testimony from 27 individuals, generally residents near the project.  Numerous concerns were identified regarding impacts to area residents including (but not limited to):  impacts to property values, drawdown of groundwater, visual intrusion, lack of benefit to local community, air quality pollutants and humidity, noise, fire suppression capability, adequacy of proposed landscaping, groundwater contamination (particularly in the event of a fire), adequacy of alternative site analysis, affect on local residents’ quality of life, disposal of sludge, affect on nearby elementary school, and adequacy of community outreach.

The CPAC also engaged representatives of FPL in answering questions related to the project including:  air quality best available technology, local employment, hazardous materials handling, funding to the volunteer fire department, access roads (indicating a desire to have a second point of access on West 6th Street), compliance with noise standards and ability to detect noise particularly low frequency noise beyond the project boundary, and mitigation of dewatering of area wells, examples of similar plants and references from such, alternative sites analysis, visual impacts and tower height, on-site stormwater detention, disposal of sludge, and where the electricity is sold.

A discussion on the consistency of the project with the adopted zoning agreement was also held.  Planning staff spoke regarding the letter to the CEC finding the project consistent with the zoning code and zoning agreement amendment.  The CPAC articulated their belief that because the power plant proposal differs significantly from the SEPCO project, the rezone to M-2 should not be applicable.  The CPAC passed a formal motion on an 8 to 0 vote indicating that the CPAC does not believe that the FPL project is consistent with the zoning agreement and that a rescission and new agreement should be required or the zoning should be returned to Industrial Reserve.

The project was then discussed at a second meeting held on August 21, 2001.  This meeting focused on Community Plan and General Plan consistency with discussions regarding the oversight commission and retention of taxes in the community.  The CPAC reviewed the Community Plan focusing on policies they felt potentially inconsistent with the project.  Planning staff has attempted to note CPAC concerns in the Matrix provided as Attachment “F” based on notes taken at the meeting, however, formal correspondence from the CPAC may also be forthcoming providing further clarification.  The CPAC voted to find the project inconsistent with the Community and General Plan.

A brief discussion regarding the oversight committee from the prior SEPCO project was held, however, no formal action on this topic was taken.

Finally, the CPAC discussed the retention of tax dollars within the Community, recommending that at 50% of any increase in tax revenues from the project be retained within the Rio Linda and Elverta community.

A. Resolution from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to the California Energy Commission
B. Planning Department correspondence to the CEC dated June 5, 2001
C. Zoning Agreement  [not included in this web page]
D. Executive Summary from the FPL Application for Certification [not included in this web page]
E. Site Plan  [not included in this web page]
F. Zoning Code Provisions related to height
G. Matrix of Community Plan policies
H. July 9, 2001 memorandum from County Counsel to Supervisor Dickinson
I.  August 28, 2000 memorandum from County Counsel to the Planning Department
J. Community Council Referral (if received)  [not provided by Planning]

08/27/01

     WHEREAS,  State Law requires that the California Energy Commission (CEC) has the statutory authority to site and license thermal power plants that are rated at 50 megawatts and larger; and

     WHEREAS,  a power plant is appropriate in the Industrial Intensive General Plan land use designation; and

     WHEREAS,  a power plant is appropriate in the M-2, Heavy Industrial Community Plan land use designation; and

     WHEREAS,  the CEC review process will address conformance to zoning code standards including the issue of height; and

     WHEREAS,  the CEC review process will address any potential environmental impacts and other effects from the proposal which could result in a significant detrimental impact on adjoining or neighboring properties;

     NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors finds a power plant to be consistent with the adopted M-2, heavy industrial zoning, the Rio Linda and Elverta Community Plan M-2, Heavy Industrial land use category and the Sacramento County General Plan Industrial Intensive land use category.

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors requests that the California Energy Commission take into account identified General Plan policies, Community Plan policies and all Zoning Code provisions as performance standards in the CEC review and approval process and that the project be appropriately modified or conditioned to address such standards.

     On a motion by Supervisor __________________, Seconded by Supervisor ______________________, the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento, State of California, at a regular meeting thereof this ________ day of ____________, 19___. by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:  Supervisors:
NOES:  Supervisors:
ABSENT: Supervisors:
ABSTAIN: Supervisors:
 

Chapter 1:  General Provisions

Article 2:  General Height Regulations

301-21. Exception

Towers, penthouses and other roof structures for the purpose of shelter for mechanical equipment, cupolas, water tanks, church steeples, carillon towers, radio television antennas, and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances may be erected on a building, or on the ground, to a height greater than the limit otherwise established within the zone, or for that use, provided that no such exception shall cover at any level more than fifteen percent (15%) of the area of the lot, nor have an area at the base greater than sixteen hundred (1600) square feet.  (See Section 301-15 for dish antenna regulations.)  All construction is subject to approval of Building Inspection.  Signs may not be placed on such structures at any height exceeding the height of an otherwise permitted building.  Fences, or walls, may be required and conditions to exceed six (6) feet in height for a project, as determined by the appropriate authority hearing related to planning matters on the same parcel of land.

301-22 Height Exceptions for Buildings in Residential, Commercial and Industrial Zones

Either the Board of Supervisors or the Project Planning Commission may, after reviewing development plans which address (1) glare/reflected heat/ (2) energy efficiency; (3) traffic impacts; and (4) effects on adjacent parcels relating to height, scale, and mass of the proposed building; grant the following height exceptions if the appropriate authority finds that any adverse effects caused by the above factors have been adequately mitigated through design features incorporated into the proposed project:

(a) All residential land use zones:  Public buildings, hotels, apartment houses, schools, churches, hospitals, and other similar buildings may be erected to a height not to exceed seventy-five (75) feet, provided that the required yards shall be increased one (1) foot for each one (1) foot of height of said building.

(b) All commercial and industrial land use zones:  The number of stories and the height limits for commercial or industrial buildings, hotels and apartment buildings may be increase to a maximum of one-hundred fifty (150) feet, provided that all buildings are set back from the ultimate right-of-way line of all abutting streets and freeways a distance at least equal to the height of the building.  For any residential portion of a hotel or apartment house, all required yards and courts shall be increased one (1) foot for each foot that such building exceeds forty (40) feet in height.  In any case, the floor area to lot area ratio shall not exceed 2.5:1.

325-04 Height Requirements

(a) The maximum height in the MP, M-1 and M-2 zones shall be twenty-four (24) feet when buildings or structures are located within 100 feet or contiguous to parcels zoned for any agricultural, agricultural-residential or residential purposes.  Buildings beyond 100 feet may be a maximum of forty (40) feet in the MP zone or one hundred (100) feet in the M-1 and M-2 zones.

(b) The maximum height in the Industrial Zones when buildings or structures are located on property contiguous to parcels zoned for uses other than those listed in (a) above shall be forty (40) feet in the MP zone, and one hundred (10) feet in the M-1 and M-2 zones.  Such height may be increased to a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) feet pursuant to Section 301-22 of this Code, wherein development plans are reviewed by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors.

A. Retain the rural character of the communities.

B. Maintain agricultural and agricultural-residential uses.

C. Design and location of new growth should encourage alternative modes of travel.

D. Maintain a balance of housing types and ownership patterns.

E. Prevent inappropriate land uses from encroaching upon McClellan AFB.

F. Discourage any 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.

H. Recognize and maintain opportunities for trail systems and public transit corridors.

I. Support the future Dry Creek Parkway and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal as major open space/recreational features within the Community Plan Area.

J. Preserve and enhance areas of natural resources.

*  The CPAC identified concerns that the project is incompatible with Guiding Principles A, F, and G.

LAND USE STRATEGIES FOR GROWTH ACCOMMODATION

GOAL:

Accommodate growth in an efficient manner creating pleasant neighborhood environments for existing and future residents.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXISTING URBAN AREA

• Objective: Continued improvement of existing neighborhoods with investment in well-designed new and reused residential, commercial and employment uses.
• Policies:

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW URBAN AREAS

• Objective: Well planned new neighborhoods with adequate funding and timing of services and infrastructure compatible with existing urban and rural uses.
• Policies:

DEVELOPMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL AREAS

• Objective: A Plan that allows residents to pursue a semi-rural lifestyle on agricultural-residential lots.
• Policies:

LAND USE STRATEGIES FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT

GOAL:

A pattern of development that minimizes the impacts of new growth through well-designed, traditional neighborhoods emphasizing neighborhood identity while maintaining a majority of the Plan area in agricultural, agricultural-residential, open space or recreational uses.

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.
• Policies:

HOUSING

• Objective: An adequate mixture of housing affordability dispersed throughout the Plan area.
• Policies:

URBAN RESIDENTIAL USES

• Objective: An efficient use of urban residential land through approval of appropriate infill projects and new urban areas designed with a wide variety of lot sizes.
• Policies:

AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL USES

• Objectives:
Viable agricultural-residential areas with one and two acre lots served by public water and public sewer.
Protection of agricultural-residential areas from urban encroachment.
• Policies:

RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES

• Objective: A wide range of well planned commercial services, conveniently accessible to all residents of Rio Linda and Elverta.
• Policies:

OFFICE EMPLOYMENT USES

• Objective: Increased office employment uses within the community particularly local serving offices.
• Policies:

INDUSTRIAL USES

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

AGRICULTURAL USES

Objective: Viable permanent agricultural lands in the northwest portion of the plan area and continued passive agricultural activities in the Dry Creek Parkway consistent with the Dry Creek Parkway Plan.
Policies:
 

LU-48    Adequately mitigate impacts associated with nuisance, pollutant, and other problems that exist between urban and non-urban uses.	The CEC review process and associated environmental review process will evaluate such nuisance impacts.  The Community and County will comment on such impacts during that review process.  To the extent that the CEC process identifies impacts that cannot be mitigated, the project could be inconsistent.
LU-49    Lot reduction requests should be approved only if it is demonstrated that such requests will not be detrimental to the agricultural use of the property.	Not applicable.

OPEN SPACE USES

• Objective: Abundant open space areas on public and private lands including agricultural lands, public parks, and natural resource areas managed as open space.
• Policies:

LAND USE CONSTRAINTS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

• Objective:  Existing and future development protected from potential hazardous materials.
• Policies:

GOAL:

A safe, efficient and organized pattern of circulation within the community that is linked with land use.

ROADWAY FACILITIES

• Objective: Enhanced accessibility into and within the community through additional roadway facilities and improvement of existing roadway facilities emphasizing trip reduction measures and multiple access routes.
• Policies:

PUBLIC TRANSIT

• Objective: Efficient public transit including express bus service for internal community circulation and commuting to worksites outside the community.
• Policies:

 GRADE IMPROVEMENTS AT RAILROAD STREET CROSSINGS

• Objective: Protect heavy rail access for industrial and commercial purposes.
• Policies:

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION ROUTES:  BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS

• Objective: Provide on and off road bikeways and trails for recreation and alternative transportation.
• Policies:

COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS (CLUPs) FOR THE RIO LINDA AIRPORT AND McCLELLAN AFB

• Objective: Viable general aviation services within the community and a viable air force base protected from encroachment by urban uses.
• Policies:

GOAL:

Ensure the timely provision of public infrastructure and services to the Plan area.

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.
• Policies:

WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY

• Objectives:

A reliable, high quality, long-term source of water to meet the community's needs along with a water distribution system capable of conveying that water to urban and agricultural-residential users.

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.

• Policies:

COMMUNITY DRAINAGE AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

• Objective: A community protected from the impacts of flooding.
• Policies:

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

• Objective: Provide and maintain a solid waste collection and disposal service to all areas of the community while reducing the amount of solid waste generated within the community area through source reduction and recycling.
• Policies:

 ENERGY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

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

SHERIFF SERVICES

• Objective: Safe neighborhoods for all Rio Linda and Elverta residents.
• Policies:

FIRE PROTECTION

• Objective: Provision of adequate fire protection services for all areas of the community.
• Policies:

LIBRARY FACILITIES

• Objective: Provision of adequate library services to meet the performance standards for library services, including facilities, material and equipment levels, to all rural and urban areas of Rio Linda-Elverta.
• Policies:

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Objective: Construction of adequate school facilities consistent with residential development.
Policies:
 

PF-34    Prior to the approval of any development within the new urban growth area, a financing plan is required to ensure the adequate funding of school facilities.  The financing plan must be adopted prior to issuance of any building permits.	Not applicable.
PF-35    Development shall not be approved if school overcrowding will result and the provision of adequate facilities cannot be provided in a timely manner.	Not applicable.
PF-36    Project proponents shall coordinate with the appropriate school district(s) in the adequate siting, funding, and construction of any necessary new school facilities.	Not applicable.
PF-37    The Elverta School District, Center School District, and Grant High School District are encouraged to coordinate the siting, funding, construction and operation of schools within the new growth area in eastern Elverta.	Not applicable.

PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES

• Objective: A diverse network of local and regional parks and recreation facilities, to meet adopted park acreage standards.
• Policies:

GOAL:

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

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.

Continue agricultural activities that provide habitat for wildlife species.

• Policies:

WETLANDS REGULATION PROGRAMS

• Objective: Conserve and protect wildlife habitat, including wetlands and other unique natural environments, through federal, state and local regulatory programs such as the California Environment Quality Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
• Policies:

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.

• Policies:

AIR QUALITY

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

NOISE

• Objective:  Protection from excessive noise.
• Policies:

CULTURAL RESOURCES

• Objective:  Protection of cultural resources.
• Policies:

From:  PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Subject: REPORT BACK — RIO LINDA/ELVERTA POWER PLANT PROJECT

Contact: Tricia Stevens or Leighann Moffitt (874-6141)

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:  202-0090-030 through 033

LOCATION:

The property is located east of the Union Pacific rail lines, ½ mile south of Elverta Road, west of West 6th Street, and ¼ mile north of Straugh Road.

FPL Energy Sacramento Power, LLC
700 Universe Boulevard
Juno Beach, Florida  33408

Gary A. Bernick Revocable Trust
329 Country Club Road
Eugene, OR  97401

A. Recommended Actions:

1. Staff recommends the Board take a tiered approach regarding a determination of consistency as follows:

a. The Board would find that the existing zoning agreement does not preclude consideration of a stand-alone power plant.  In addition, a stand-alone power plant would be a conditional use in either the M-2 or IR zones.   This threshold determination, as requested by the CEC, would allow review of the project to proceed.

b. Defer a determination of actual consistency of the project with the General Plan, Community Plan and any proposed performance standards pending further analysis of the project.  As part of that determination of consistency, the County Board of Supervisors could chose to take a position to endorse or oppose the project, similar to making findings for issuance of a conditional use permit.

2. Provide County staff any desired direction on the creation of a Board-endorsed group to negotiate a Community Benefit Package.

Background:  The Board of Supervisors heard this item on August 29, 2001.  At that hearing, staff presentations were provided by Planning and County Counsel’s office; and testimony was received from representatives of Florida Power and Light.  Representatives of the Rio Linda and Elverta Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) spoke in opposition to the project; and testimony was taken from numerous area residents and members of the public.

As a result of the testimony and discussion, the Board of Supervisors was not prepared to make a determination of consistency of the project with County policies and regulations.  Several Board members referenced the lack of detailed analysis and information regarding the project, including that the CEC staff assessment is not yet prepared, as reasons for their inability to determine actual consistency.  The Board directed that staff meet with the CEC staff to explore issues including clarification regarding what direction the CEC is looking for from the County and regarding the process for CEC and County staff interaction.  Staff is also preparing a funding agreement with FPL to cover the costs associated with project review as identified at that Board meeting.

Meeting With CEC Staff:  Pursuant to Board direction, staff met with representatives of the California Energy Commission with members of the CPAC in attendance.  This meeting, held on September 10, 2001, was attended by Tom Hutchings, Tricia Stevens, Leighann Moffitt, John Whisenhunt, and Karen Ziebron from Sacramento County; Deborah Byrne and Hal Morris of the CPAC; and Mark Hamblin, Darcy Houck, and Caryn Holmes of the California Energy Commission staff.  The outset of the meeting centered around the on-going discussion of the prior zoning agreement and the need, or lack thereof, for rescission.  CEC staff identified a strong interest in seeing any discussion of zoning consistency address the specific issue of the apparent conflict between the express language of the zoning agreement and the project as proposed.  County staff continued to explain that because a stand-alone power plant is a conditional use in either the IR or M-2 zones, staff does not see the need to rescind the prior zoning agreement.  This is because the zoning agreement does not serve to modify applicable Zoning Code provisions allowing a stand-alone power plant at the site as a conditionally permitted use.  Therefore, rescission of the zoning agreement is not necessary in order for the proposed project to be found consistent with the Zoning Code.

The meeting then moved to a discussion of the project as a conditional use, regardless of the prior zoning agreement for the SEPCO project.  The group discussed that the County, via the Board of Supervisors, could provide input into the CEC process by identifying criteria (aka proposed conditions of project approval) for the FPL power plant at this site based on General Plan and Community Plan policies, and on typical conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors as part of a use permit.  This would include any comments or conditions on other entitlements such as the exception or variance to height raised in the prior staff report.  Correspondence with the City of Morrow Bay (see attachment “C”) was provided as an example of a tiered approach taken regarding a determination of consistency.

As an interim step, staff could return to the Board with a report back on the performance standards/conditions to be forwarded to the CEC.  Representatives of FPL have provided County staff with an initial draft of a proposal for performance standards.  Those have not been included in this staff report given their preliminary nature and given that Planning and other staff has not had adequate time for review.  Opportunity for review by the community would also be appropriate.  These performance standards would represent a further refinement of specific General Plan and Community Plan policies and define the types of conditions that FPL must meet in order to be consistent with County policies and regulations.

The CEC staff has, however, requested a threshold decision regarding whether there is a basic inconsistency with the zoning for the site.  As indicated at the prior Board meeting, staff does not feel that the County General Plan, Rio Linda and Elverta Community Plan, and zoning for the site preclude consideration of a stand-alone power plant via the CEC process.  This is not intended to indicate Board support for the project or that a final determination of consistency has been made.  Therefore, staff has proposed recommended action #1 for Board consideration to provide CEC staff with an initial determination.

Status of the FPL Project in the CEC Process:  On September 21, 2001, the California Energy Commission issued an order suspending scheduling on the Rio Linda Power Plant pending the applicant’s response to additional data requests; an AFC (Application for Certification) Supplement; and a Preliminary Determination of Compliance from the Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District (see Attachment “B”).  However, the transcripts from the Status Conference held prior to this order indicates that CEC staff would remain available to work with the County and other involved agencies even though the project schedule might be suspended.

Community Benefit Package:  If the Board is interested in participating or directing the negotiation of any community benefit package, the Board could direct staff to return with a report back on such efforts and the specifics of community benefits.

Conclusion:  In conclusion, community input, the interaction at the Board hearing and subsequent discussions with CEC staff, have emphasized the desirability for the County to take a more active role in the review and consideration of this project.  Planning staff proposes to continue to meet with CEC staff and representatives of Florida Power and Light as additional project information becomes available.  Staff proposes to return in public meetings before the Board of Supervisors for a determination of actual consistency and appropriateness of the use of this location.  The Board may direct staff to return in the interim for Board input into and endorsement of County comments on the project to the CEC in the form of performance standards.  Separate and apart from its determination of consistency with County land use regulation, the Board may also choose to take a position in favor of or in opposition to the project at the proposed Elverta location.  In the interim, staff is recommending that the Board provide the CEC with an initial threshold determination, per the CEC staff request, that County regulations and policies do not preclude consideration of a stand-alone power plant at the project site.

A. County Land Use Consistency Review Outline provided by CEC staff for meeting of September 10, 2001
B. CEC order suspending scheduling of FPL project dated September 21, 2001
C. Correspondence from the City of Morro Bay to the CEC  [not included in this web page]

 
 Respectfully submitted,

 __________________________________________
 THOMAS W. HUTCHINGS, DIRECTOR
 Planning and Community Development Department

County Land Use
Consistency Review Outline (From CEC Sfaff)

From:  PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Subject: REPORT BACK #2— FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT, RIO LINDA/ELVERTA POWER PLANT PROJECT

Contact: Leighann Moffitt (874-6141)

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:  202-0090-030 through 033

LOCATION: The property is located east of the Union Pacific rail lines, ½ mile south of Elverta Road, west of West 6th Street, and ¼ mile north of Straugh Road.
 

PROJECT PROPONENT:  FPL Energy Sacramento Power, LLC  700 Universe Boulevard  Juno Beach, Florida  33408

OWNER:  Gary A. Bernick Revocable Trust  329 Country Club Road  Eugene, OR  97401

I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

A. Forward the letter provided as Attachment “B” to the California Energy Commission (CEC) regarding the County’s status of review against County policies and regulations and indicate to the CEC that a stand-alone power plant would be a conditional use at this site and can, therefore, be considered by the CEC.  This letter also indicates that the County finds that the project can be found consistent with the General Plan and Community Plan map and policies if appropriately conditioned by the CEC.

B. Direct planning staff to return with a report back to the Board at such time as the CEC staff analysis has been prepared.  Based on the information available at that time, provide an additional review of the project to determine whether the additional analysis and associated mitigation does address all relevant General Plan and Community Plan policies.  The County Board of Supervisors could also chose to take a position to endorse or oppose the project, similar to making findings for issuance of a conditional use permit.

C. Provide County staff any desired direction on the creation of a Board-endorsed group to negotiate a Community Benefit Package.

The Board of Supervisors has heard this item twice, first on August 29, 2001 and again on October 3, 2001.  At these hearings, staff presentations were provided by Planning and County Counsel’s office; and testimony was received from representatives of Florida Power and Light.  Representatives of the Rio Linda and Elverta Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC) spoke in opposition to the project; and testimony was taken from numerous area residents and members of the public.

As a result of the testimony and discussion, the Board of Supervisors was not prepared to make a determination of consistency of the project with County policies and regulations.  At both meetings, Board members referenced the lack of detailed analysis and information regarding the project as reasons for their inability to determine actual consistency.  At the last hearing, the Board requested a more thorough review of the project.  Planning staff therefore distributed excerpts from the Application for Certification to the CEC, Sections 1 and 3 as the project description; appropriate sections as pertinent to the reviewer, the matrix of Community Plan policies provided to the Board; and a matrix of General Plan policy analysis provided by the applicants.  Attachment C lists the agencies sent the distribution and to what extent comments were received.

Planning staff notes that:

• The project remains on suspension at the CEC with a current date of December 1, 2001 indicated by FPL for submittal of additional information (this had been identified as October 1st  at the prior Board hearing).
• There is no CEC staff analysis to provide more detailed independent review (also, the equivalent of an environmental document) of the application.
• The applicants have indicated that a revised landscape plan will be provided prior to the Board hearing on November 20th.

General Plan policies

CLUP Consistency.  SACOG staff have identified an inconsistency with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Sacramento International Airport that does not allow “natural gas and petroleum pipelines and storage” in the approach-departure zone of the airport.  These regulations are incorporated into the Noise Element of the General Plan.  If this project were to be approved under the jurisdiction of the County, an override of the CLUP by the Board of Supervisors would be required, thereby elevating the use permit to the Board of Supervisors.  The CEC, however, is under no legal requirement to override the CLUP which is a local land use document.  Based on personal communication with PG&E staff, initial meetings were held between PG&E staff  (who would be the gas provider)  and County Airport staff which did not raise safety concerns.  Planning staff is checking with County Airports to identify whether they have actual concerns regarding an underground pipeline.  It may be appropriate for the Board to indicate to the CEC their opinion on the advisability of such an override, to address the issue of consistency with the General Plan.  Another alternative would be to suggest relocation of the gas pipeline our of the approach-departure zone.

Energy Facilities Goal.  The stated Goal of the Energy Facilities component of the Public Facilities element references the provision of energy resources to the residents of Sacramento County.  Staff is not certain that merchant power plants were anticipated at the time of preparation of the Element and that this wording was not intended to necessarily prohibit such a plant.  The Board may, however, wish to offer their interpretation of the goal.

Community Plan policies

Use of septic.  The CPAC has raised the issue of the interpretation of Community Plan Policy PF-4 which states that “new development in urban zones must have public sewer.”  Staff has suggested an alternative interpretation of Community Plan Policy PF-4 (see August 29, 2001 staff report, top of page 12).  Staff suggests that the project be conditioned to connect to the public sewer system when such service becomes reasonably available.  This is because the power plant is a public utility use which could occur in a more rural environment such as with the SMUD proposal, and because the employee load (full time staff of 23 individuals and peak daytime presence of 14 individuals) utilizing the septic system is relatively low given a 70 acre site.  Water Quality staff have indicated that public sewer service cannot be provided to the site at this time.  Environmental Health staff have indicated that a septic system is feasible given the number of employees and size of the site with a recommended condition for a test drill or soil evaluation prior to final design.

Zoning Code regulations

Height.  As indicated in the staff report to the Board for the August 29th hearing, Section 301-21 of the zoning code addressing exceptions to general height regulations may apply to the cooling stacks.  If the County determines that the cooling towers are similar to “towers, penthouses and other roof structures for the purpose of shelter for mechanical equipment, cupolas, water tanks, church steeples, carillon towers, or radio television antennas”, the 100-foot limitation could be exceeded without a variance.  If the Board determines that the exceptions provisions should not apply, then the County may wish to indicate to the CEC the appropriateness of approving the equivalent of a variance to height.

Landscaping and fencing.  In addition, the County may wish to comment upon the final landscape plan with regards to zoning code requirements and Community Plan policies.  The zoning code would require perimeter landscaping and fencing.  The Community Plan calls for design concepts that retain a rural character.  Modifications to traditional landscaping requirements may be appropriate to provide for landscaping of the developed portion of the site rather than treating the property edge as a more urban scheme.  Fencing in the floodplain is also presumed to be unacceptable.

Visual impacts.  Planning staff understands that a revised landscape plan is under preparation and will be provided to the County prior to the November 20th Board hearing.  Planning staff will bring any revised plans and available photosimulations for Board comment on visual impacts.

Other items

Water Supply.  Water supply has also been addressed by the community as a concern.  A revised plan for providing water from the Natomas area is proposed.  County Water Resources staff is reviewing the revised proposal.

Air Quality.  AQMD is continuing to conduct permit review of the project and have continued to request and receive additional information.

Negotiation of a Community Benefit Package.  As indicated at the prior Board hearings, if the Board is interested in directing County staff to participate in the negotiation of any community benefit package, the Board could direct staff to return with a report back on such efforts and the specifics of community benefits.  At this time, it is staff’s understanding that FPL is negotiating directly with various groups within the Community.

The Board of Supervisors has the opportunity to review the proposed Florida Power and Light power plant against the policies and regulations of Sacramento County.  While the Application for Certification has been submitted to the California Energy Commission, the project remains in suspension and a CEC staff analysis has not yet been prepared.  Planning staff has provided the Board with a discussion of the consistency of the project with zoning, including as related to the zoning agreement for the prior SEPCO project.  Planning staff at the two prior Board hearings provided a discussion of the project against General Plan and Community Plan policies.  The Community Planning Advisory Council has indicated their opinion that the project is not consistent with various General Plan and Community Plan policies.

Staff understands that many community members are strongly opposed to the project.  Further, the CPAC has raised several issues related to General Plan and, in particular, Community Plan consistency and has identified those concerns to the Board.  Staff has narrowed these down to several “key issues” in the discussion section of the report where the Board may wish to provide its own interpretation of regulations and policies.  Planning staff, however, has not concluded that any particular regulation or policy should preclude the project from being considered and analyzed via the CEC review process.  Staff further concludes that, if appropriately mitigated, the project can be found consistent with the General Plan and Community Plan provided that the issue location of the natural gas line within the approach departure zone is addressed.

Given the level of controversy over the project, the lack of the equivalent of an environmental document (which will be covered by the CEC staff analysis), and potential modifications to the project description, staff suggests that the Board once again review the project upon issuance of the CEC staff analysis.  In the meanwhile, staff has prepared a draft letter for input into the review process detailing key policies and regulations and attaching a list of items for consideration in the project analysis.

A. Overview matrix of applicable General Plan policies.
B. Draft letter to the California Energy Commission from Sacramento County including attachment of draft Performance Standards and Conditions. [not included in this web page]
C. Status of Agency distribution and responses.

 
 Respectfully submitted,

 __________________________________________
 THOMAS W. HUTCHINGS, DIRECTOR
 Planning and Community Development Department

Other Agencies:  (Staff notes that these agencies may also choose to communicate directly with the CEC during the CEC review process.)
 

SMAQMD (Air Quality Mgt. District)	No additional response.  Previous comments related to air quality credits (see staff report dated 8/29/01).
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District	Written response requesting a variety of measures.
SACOG (Airport Land Use Commission)	Written response identifying inconsistency with CLUP with respect to gas pipeline proposed to be located in approach/departure zone of Sacramento International Airport.
Rio Linda and Elverta Park and Rec. District	Per verbal communication the District has not taken a formal stand on this project and currently has no comments.
Rio Linda Water District	No response.
Elverta School District	Per verbal communication the School District has not taken a formal stand on this project and currently has no comments.
SAFCA	Responded requesting compliance with existing regulations particularly regarding no net loss of floodplain storage.

From:  PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Subject: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT, RIO LINDA/ELVERTA POWER PLANT PROJECT – REPORT #4

Contact: Leighann Moffitt (874-6141)
 

Additional comments have been received by Planning staff for today’s report on the Florida Power and Light project.  These include:

1. Additional performance standard developed by Planning and Water Resources to be forwarded to the California Energy Commission (CEC) stating “Coordinate with the Sacramento Groundwater Authority to ensure that the project is in compliance with the Water Forum and the governance principles for water use in the North Area Basin.”  While more simply stated, this statement is intended to reference coordination with the Sacramento Groundwater Authority as does Community Plan policy PF-8.
2. Comments from the Environmental Management Department, Hazardous Materials Section and Environmental Health Section (noise).  The letter from the Hazardous Material Section is quite detailed and indicates that several permits and review would be required from  the County prior to operation of the power plant.  Staff recommends that the Board direct staff  to incorporate this information into the attachment to the correspondence to the California Energy Commission (CEC).
3. Additional correspondence from the Air Quality Management District reiterating their prior comments explaining that the proposed power plant is currently under review to determine compliance with local, state and federal air quality rules and regulations.  Additional information has been requested by the AQMD (letter of October 23, 2001 to FPL) regarding FPL’s submittals for emission reduction credits.  In addition, the AQMD has identified recommended construction mitigation measures. Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to incorporate these measures into the attachment on performance standards to the CEC.
4. Detailed comments from the Rio Linda and Elverta Community Planning Advisory Council.  These comment capture their meetings from past months on the project.  The first section clarifies and details the CPAC’s findings on inconsistencies with the General Plan and Community Plan.  The second section identifies a detailed series of questions and concerns by topic about the proposal.  At the Board’s discretion, this section could be included in the attachment to the CEC for consideration in their analysis.

 Respectfully submitted,

 __________________________________________
 THOMAS W. HUTCHINGS, DIRECTOR
 Planning and Community Development Department