Robert Sarvey 510 W. Grantline Rd. Tracy, Ca 95376 (209) 835-7162

State of California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission

In the matter of : ) Docket No. 01-AFC-04 ) ) Comments on the PMPD ) Application for Certification ) East Altamont Energy Center ) ______)

______Date Robert Sarvey

Comments on the PMPD

ALTERNATIVES

The PMPD incorrectly states that Intevenor Sarvey believes staff relied on a particular provision of the DWR contract to enhance the EAEC’s importance or to circumvent the quality of environmental review. No such claims are made instead Intervenor Sarvey asserts that the committee and senior CEC staff who had no part in the analysis and are not qualified to perform an environmental review are precommited to the project. This assertion is borne out in the PMPD. Despite the following testimony of staff that significant unmitigated environmental impacts will occur through the siting of the EAEC

1 the presiding member has approved the project while ignoring the following staff testimony.

Biological Resources (Staff Witness RT 10-16-20 p. 430) Withou t the ai r qual i t y mit i g a t i o n tha t 5 i s recommended by s t a f f , do you s t i l l fee l tha t 6 the r e i s no adve r s e s ign i f i c a n t impac t to 7 bio l og i c a l res ou r c e s withou t , I 'm say i ng , i f i t ' s 8 not prov i d e d , th i s mit i g a t i o n i s not prov i d e d , i s 9 the r e s t i l l a poss i b i l i t y , or I mean, do you fee l 10 tha t the r e wil l be a s i gn i f i c a n t adve r s e impac t to 11 bio l og i c a l spec i e s ? 12 A Yes , I th i nk the r e would be a 13 poten t i a l l y s i gn i f i c a n t impac t to bio l og i c a l 14 res ou r c e s withou t thos e mit i g a t i o n s . 15 MR. SARVEY: Thank you .

AIR QUALITY (S t a f f Witnes s RT 10- 21- 02 p. 330)

18 MR. SARVEY: Withou t the mit i g a t i o n 19 package you have reque s t e d in your cond i t i o n s of 20 cer t i f i c a t i o n wil l the pro j e c t res u l t in 21 s ign i f i c a n t unmi t i g a t e d envi r o nmen t a l impac t ? 22 MR. NGO: Withou t our - - 23 MR. SARVEY: Withou t your mit i g a t i o n 24 package . 25 MR. NGO: - - s t a f f recommenda t i o n ? Yes ,

AIR QUALITY (S t a f f Witnes s RT 10- 21- 02 P. 343)

MR. BOYD: I f they fa i l e d to adop t the 17 mit i g a t i o n tha t you ' r e propos i n g . 18 MR. NGO: Then we - - 19 MR. BOYD: Would tha t no longe r comply 20 with thos e requ i r emen t s ? 21 MR. NGO: Then I bel i e v e tha t we have an 22 unmi t i g a t e d s i gn i f i c a n t impac t s from the pro j e c t . 23 MR. BOYD: Which i s a CEQA 24 det e rm i n a t i o n , bas i c a l l y , cor r e c t ? 25 MR. NGO: Pre t t y much, yes .

VISUAL RESOURCES (STAFF WITNESS RT 10- 22- 02 p.190 - 191)

DIRECT EXAMINATION 14 BY MS. DeCARLO: 15 Q Mr. Clay t on , are you sponso r i n g the 16 te s t imony ent i t l e d vis ua l re sou r c e s cont a i n e d in 17 the f i n a l s t a f f asse s smen t marked as exhi b i t 1 and 18 er r a t a marked as exhi b i t 1A and 1C? 19 A Yes . 20 Q Can you plea s e summar i z e your te s t imony? 21 A What I 'm going to do i s t ry and boi l

2 22 th i s down to some very spec i f i c poin t s to sor t of 23 t r y and exped i t e our pre s en t a t i o n here , given the 24 amount of t ime . So we' r e going to fo r e go some of 25 our planned approa ch here . 1 Let me f i r s t jus t s t a r t of f by sor t of 2 addre s s i n g th i s overa l l i s s u e of impac t , the 3 s ign i f i c a n c e tha t the pro j e c t i s going to have . 4 Suff i c e to say tha t I s t r ong l y dis ag r e e 5 with the appl i c a n t ' s conc l u s i o n s rega r d i n g what 6 th i s pro j e c t i s going to res u l t in in te rms of 7 vis ua l impac t s . This pro j e c t i s going to have a 8 s ign i f i c a n t vi sua l impac t ; i s going to be 9 subs t a n t i a l ; i t ' s going to occur f rom a lo t of 10 viewing di r e c t i o n s .

In the are a of ai r qua l i t y and bio l o g i c a l resou r c e s the Pres i d i n g Member who is not an ai r qua l i t y expe r t or a bio l o g i s t has s imp ly igno r e d the te s t imony of s t a f f becaus e of his

Precommi tmen t to the pro j e c t . In the are a of visu a l re sou r c e s where sen i o r s t a f f member

Paul Rich i n s withou t the suppo r t of s t a f f recommended an over r i d e of s ign i f i c a n t unmi t i g a t e d impac t s the Pres i d i n g Member aga i n igno r e d the impac t s and sugge s t e d s t a f f had reach ed the wrong conc l u s i o n s . THE PRESIDING MEMBER IS

PRECOMMITTED TO THIS PROJECT.

The pre s i d i n g member even went so fa r as to t r y to in t im i d a t e d his own s t a f f witne s s to in f l u e n c e the outcome of his te s t imony . (RT 10- 21- 02 P. 273 Sta f f Witne s s Tuan

Ngo)

14 PRESIDING MEMBER KEESE: Which i s 15 someth i n g the Bay Area didn ' t do. So you ' v e 16 giv i ng us a di f f e r e n t da t aba s e than the Bay Area 17 did , i f the Bay Area would have used th i s ? So 18 tha t ' s my ques t i o n . You' r e ask i ng us , in a way 19 here , I th i nk by the t ime we ge t done , to igno r e 20 the f i nd i n g tha t the Bay Area made as to adequacy

3 21 of of f s e t s , and igno r e the f i nd i n g tha t San 22 Joaqu i n made as to the adequacy of of f s e t s , and 23 accep t your ana l y s i s of the adequacy of of f s e t s .

The pre s i d i n g member al so at t emp t e d to in t im i d a t e in t e r v e n o r witne s s Dick Schne i d e r .

(RT 10- 16- 02 p. 96) PRESIDING MEMBER KEESE: - - you ' r e going 6 to - - now, are you , le t me f r ame the ques t i o n . 7 Are you ask i ng us to igno r e what the Alameda 8 County Board of Superv i s o r s has given us? I mean 9 tha t we shou l d - - we have a pos i t i o n of the 10 Alameda County Board of Superv i s o r s . Are you 11 say i ng the peop l e meant someth i n g el s e and we 12 shou l d igno r e tha t ?

The pre s i d i n g member had prede t e rm i n e d the approva l of the pro j e c t befo r e the hear i n g s even s t a r t e d . Tes t imony of s ign i f i c a n t unmit i g a t e d impac t s by s t a f f went igno r e d and witne s s e s were being in t im i d a t e d to produce the Pres i d i n g

Members preconc e i v e d outcome .

Any notion that the State was not precommited to the project is dispelled by the

Governors press release of 04/22/02 refuting Ms. Torres explanation that the DWR

Contract did not require the EAEC to be built and that the contract was part of a systems sale.

PR02:229

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

04/22/2002

STATE RESTRUCTURES EIGHT POWER PACTS 04/22/2002

4 SAN FRANCISCO State officials today announced that they have restructured eight of California's long-term energy contracts, reducing costs by approximately $3.5 billion (from approximately $15 billion to $11.4 billion, or 23 percent) and providing the state with stronger commitments for needed new power plants, greater flexibility in utilizing the power, and competitively- priced electricity that will be delivered during summer peak periods

CALPINE RESTRUCTURING HIGHLIGHTS

Reliability

 DWR has four contracts with Calpine. Two provide baseload power (#1 and #2). Two others (#3 and #4) provide peaking power that can be tailored to meet hourly and daily changes in consumer demand.

 Contracts #2, #3, and #4 have new provisions to insure new power plants are built. Calpine will suffer penalties if they are not constructed. Contract #2 requires Calpine to build four plants: Metcalf, Otay Mesa, East Altamont, and one other (to be chosen by DWR among Teayawa, Inland Empire, and San Joaquin Valley Energy Center). If Calpine does not meet certain requirements, the State may takeover the site and permit from Calpine and complete the plant itself

I t i s an in su l t to the in t e l l i g e n c e of al l the par t i e s tha t the r e ever was an al t e r n a t i v e to th i s pro j e c t . The Sta t e has obviou s l y in s t r u c t e d Mr. Keese to approve th i s pro j e c t no mat t e r what the env i r o nmen t a l impac t s . I do not cla im tha t the env i r o nmen t a l ana l y s i s tha t was done by the qua l i f i e d s t a f f was ta i n t e d only tha t the pre s i d i n g member showed no obje c t i v i t y in the hea r i n g s and even went so fa r as to co l l u d e with the app l i c a n t to t r y to preven t the publ i c par t i c i p a t i o n of CARE.

5 Air Qual i t y

The PMPD igno r e s s t a f f s te s t imony tha t withou t the mit i g a t i o n tha t s t a f f has recommended tha t the r e wil l be a s ign i f i c a n t unmit i g a t e d impac t to ai r qua l i t y .

EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002 10:21 a.m .

( Sta f f Witne s s page 330) MR. SARVEY: Withou t the mit i g a t i o n 19 package you have reque s t e d in your cond i t i o n s of 20 cer t i f i c a t i o n wil l the pro j e c t res u l t in 21 s ign i f i c a n t unmi t i g a t e d envi r o nmen t a l impac t ? 22 MR. NGO: Withou t our - - 23 MR. SARVEY: Withou t your mit i g a t i o n 24 package . 25 MR. NGO: - - s t a f f recommenda t i o n ? Yes ,

(S t a f f Witne s s page 343) 16 MR. BOYD: I f they fa i l e d to adop t the 17 mit i g a t i o n tha t you ' r e propos i n g . 18 MR. NGO: Then we - - 19 MR. BOYD: Would tha t no longe r comply 20 with thos e requ i r emen t s ? 21 MR. NGO: Then I bel i e v e tha t we have an 22 unmi t i g a t e d s i gn i f i c a n t impac t s from the pro j e c t . 23 MR. BOYD: Which i s a CEQA 24 det e rm i n a t i o n , bas i c a l l y , cor r e c t ? 25 MR. NGO: Pre t t y much, yes .

The PMPD the r e f o r e igno r e s an unmi t i g a t e d s ign i f i c a n t impac t under CEQA and withou t an over r i d e the dec i s i o n i s in vio l a t i o n of the Warren Alqu i s t Act . The dec i s i o n must be rewr i t t e n to prov i d e s t a f f s mit i g a t i o n package or the s ign i f i c a n t impac t must be over r o d e the r e can be no othe r lega l outcome .

6 The PMPD s t a t e s tha t In t e r v e n o r Sarvey ’ s pos i t i o n was iden t i c a l to s t a f f ’ s th i s i s inco r r e c t and the dec i s i o n fa i l s to addre s s tha t 67% of the app l i c a n t s ERC’s were is s u e d befo r e 1990 a vio l a t i o n of EPA Regula t i o n s .

(42% of total) of pre 1989 ERC’s. The SO2 offsets used for PM-10 ERC’S contain 436.7 tons or 90% of pre 1990 ERC’s. The total offset package consists of 67% pre 1990

ERC’s. Table 8 from the FDOC (Exhibit 2Y1) lists the applicants ERC’s . The VOC

7 offsets contain 40.9 tons (35% of total) of pre 1987 ERC’s. The NOx ERC’s contain

129.8

ERC Table

Pollutant Total ERC’s Pre 1990 ERCs % Pre 1990

VOC 116.739 41.17 35% NOx 306.387 129.8 42 % SO2 482.81 436.7 90 % Total 905.93 607.67 67 %

This Emission Reduction Package is dominated by ERC’s created over 12 years ago. No

ERC’s are not provided for the SO2 emissions and the ammonia Emissions of 411 tons per year ( RT 10-21-02 pg 362) this leaves the project severely short of mitigation for these impacts which staff has deemed significant. The mitigation agreement with the

SJVAPCD does not address these emissions.

The PMPD also fails to address the fact that intervenor has identified background concentrations for PM-10 at 150 ug/m3 recorded at the Hazeltine St. Station in Stockton.

Intervenor does not accept Staff’s or Applicant’s position that background levels for PM-

10 at Livermore or any other monitoring station is acceptable to analyze the project.

Accepted background levels for PM-10 in the Tracy Peaker Plant case and the Tesla siting case are both 150 ug/m3. This is especially critical because staff has identified 50

Tons per Year of unmitigated PM-10 emissions and this leads to a new violation of the

Federal Ambient Air Quality standard for PM-10 another violation of CEQA.

Intervenor also takes issue with the assertion in the PMPD that a complete cumulative air analysis was performed. Only a limited PM-10 analysis was done that did not

8 include the Tracy Gateway Project, Plan C development, Catellus Project., mobile sources from the other major residential developments, and other significant reasonably foreseeable projects in the area. No cumulative air studies were performed for any other criteria air pollutants or secondary impacts from other emissions most notably the 411

TPY of ammonia from the EAEC. No modeling files were provided and the study was not even properly introduced as evidence in the hearing. The study was introduced as an addendum to staff testimony after the filing date for prefiled testimony. Intervenor notes the repeated requests for a complete Cumulative air study one even made by

Barbara Matthews of the California State Legislature which went ignored

CEQA REQUIRES A CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

CEQA provides that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment when the possible effects on the environment are individually limited but “cumulatively considerable.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21083(b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15065.)

“’Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15065,emphasis added.) In addition to analyzing the direct impacts of a project, the CEQA Lead Agency must determine whether or not a project will result in a significant cumulative impact. The analysis must include other past, present and probable future projects stationary and mobile sources causing related cumulative impact regardless of whether such projects are within the control of the lead agency. (Cal. Code

Regs., tit. 14, §15130, subds. (a)(1) & (b)(1)

9 California courts have repeatedly emphasized that the rationale for the cumulative impact analysis is to provide the decision maker a broad perspective on the overall impact of a project. (See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263;

Citizens Association v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151.) In Bozung, the State

Supreme Court termed the CEQA cumulative impact requirement a “vital provision” which “directs reference to projects, existent and planned, in the region so that the cumulative impact of all projects in the region can be assessed.” (Bozung v. Local Agency

Formation Com., supra, 13 Cal.3d 263, 283, emphasis added.) The lack of a complete cumulative air analysis in this case goes against one of the basic tenets of CEQA, full disclosure of environmental impacts.

As noted by the courts, “a cumulative impact analysis which understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decision maker’s perspective concerning the environmental consequences of a project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval.” (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura

(1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431) By excluding these new projects stationary and mobile source emissions, staff’s analysis understated the significance of cumulative impacts, thereby rendering the analysis incomplete and jeopardizing the PMPD decision based upon the analysis. The CEC has required previous applicants to include in a cumulative impact model of sources other than stationary power plant facilities. In the Metcalf

Energy Center (MEC) CEC Staff required the applicant to model the full build-out of the

Coyote Valley Research Park (CVRP), which involved the potential addition of 20,000 employees much like the Gateway Business Park in this case.

10 Public Health

The public health analysis is dependent on a complete and comprehensive cumulative impact analysis no such analysis has been performed because the Commission did not compel the applicant to do so. As mentioned many times the CEC Staff recommended that the applicant perform a complete analysis of all projects with mobile sources include ding the impact analysis of all criteria air pollutants. The public health analysis also fails to include background cancer and asthma rates in the project area which are some of the highest incident rates in the State. The public health impact analysis is incomplete. The public impact analysis also depends on the staffs proposed air quality mitigation package to be adopted to prevent significant impacts to public health. Worker Safety and Fire Protection

The PMPD continues to characterize the area around the EAEC as a rural environment. As with all sections of the environmental analysis with the curious exception of water resources the Mountain House Community does not exist in the analysis. By the time the EAEC is constructed and operational there will be thousands of houses in the vicinity of the plant. The EAEC is a dream on the architect’s board the

Mountain House community is already under construction. The EAEC is not being constructed in some remote region of California. The CEC environmental documents go so far as to list the Mountain House Fire Station as first response to the facility but fail to recognize the reality of the 20,000 homes that will surround the EAEC.

The PMPD relies on the inadequate response times predicted by Alvin Greenberg and

Chief McCannon who admit that they do not even know the exact distance between the current firehouse in Livermore or the distance of the new relocated firehouse that does

11 not exist. Their new relocated firehouse is much less of a reality than the Mountain

House community which is under construction and is ignored in the analysis.

Sta f f Witne s s Chie f McCannon (RT 10- 15- 02 P. 95- 97)

Q You s t a t e tha t you are re l o c a t i n g your 22 Live rmore Sta t i o n to Greenv i l l e Road, i s tha t 23 cor r e c t ? 24 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: That ' s cor r e c t . 25 MR. SARVEY: And have you f i n a l i z e d the 1 loca t i o n and the f i n a nc i n g plan for - - 2 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: No, we haven ' t . 3 MR. SARVEY: - - tha t with the board of 4 supe r v i s o r s ? 5 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: No, we haven ' t . 12 MR. SARVEY: Oh, so you ' r e not - - can 13 you te l l me how clos e to 580 th i s new s t a t i o n wil l 14 be? 15 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: At th i s poin t 16 probab l y the area we' r e look i ng in i s abou t th r e e - 17 quar t e r s of a mile from 580 . 18 MR. SARVEY: About th r e e - quar t e r s , okay . 1 From the t ime your per s onne l rece i v e s the ala rm 2 how long does i t take fo r your per s onne l to exi t 3 the s t a t i o n , ave r ag e ? 4 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: Between a minut e 5 and a minut e and a hal f . 6 MR. SARVEY: Okay. And how many mile s 7 i s i t f rom Greenv i l l e Road to Mounta i n House Road? 8 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: I don ' t know the 9 exac t mile age . 10 MR. SARVEY: Were you aware tha t i t ' s 11 10.7 mile s ? 12 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: I don ' t know the 13 exac t mile age . 14 MR. SARVEY: How many mile s i s i t from 15 the Mounta i n House exi t to the pro j e c t s i t e ? 16 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: Again , I don ' t 17 know the exac t mileage to the pro j e c t s i t e ; and 18 I 'm re l y i n g on my s t a f f tha t sa i d i t would be an 19 es t ima t e d 15- minut e re spon s e t ime from the 20 exi s t i n g loca t i o n . And tha t res pons e t ime would 21 reduce to ten minut e s af t e r the s t a t i o n was 22 re l o c a t e d . 23 MR. SARVEY: So you - - 24 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: So I don ' t know 25 the exac t mileage s . 1 MR. SARVEY: - - aren ' t aware tha t from 2 the Mounta i n House exi t to the s i t e was s ix mile s ? 3 You were not aware of tha t ? 4 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: No. 5 MR. SARVEY: What ' s the maximum speed of 6 your f i r e t r u c k? 7 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: Maximum speeds ,

12 8 probab l y 65, 70 mile s an hour . 9 MR. SARVEY: Okay. Were the da i l y 10 t r a f f i c conges t i o n on 580 and 205 cons i d e r e d in 11 your es t ima t e d res pons e t ime? 12 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: No, i t wasn ' t . 13 MR. SARVEY: Thank you . 11 MR. SARVEY: Do you cons i d e r an area 12 with 20,000 homes a rur a l area ? 13 FIRE CHIEF McCAMMON: I would say i t ' s 14 not qui t e a rur a l area .

Staff Witness Alvin Greenberg (RT 10-15-02 P. 104)

18 Dr. Greenbe r g , you say you re l y on 19 Alameda County ' s pro j e c t i o n s for re spon s e t ime , 20 cor r e c t ? You don ' t comput e your own, i s tha t 21 cor r e c t ? 22 DR. GREENBERG: That i s cor r e c t . 23 MR. SARVEY: Okay. So you would agree 24 with the res pons e t imes even though you have not 25 ver i f i e d them? 1 DR. GREENBERG: I always re l y on the 2 f i r e chi e f s of any ju r i s d i c t i o n for any power 3 plan t under the appl i c a t i o n procedu r e . The f i r e 4 chi e f s know the i r re spons e t ime ; they know the i r 5 area s .

Essentially the PMPD relies on an analysis from two experts who have done no analysis and don’t even know the distance from the fire house to the facility and they admit that they have not even factored the traffic problems in the area which are legendary. The PMPD relies on a fire house which has no financing plan no set location and has not even been approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and yet they deny the existence of the under construction Mountain House community in describing the project site as rural. The PMPD in its water resources analysis discuses the rapid development of the Mountain House Community. It identifies in footnote 134 p 301 that Wickland Village is already under construction and that another 2200 single family homes are expected to be built starting in 2003 and yet it still characterizes the project area as rural . On page 194 of the PMPD under commission discussion the

PMPD states “Staff found that even without existence of a mutual aid agreement,

13 firefighting and EMS response times by AFCD to the EAEC will be no greater (and in some places far less) than for California rural power plants. According to the PMPD when we are discussing water resources Mountain House exists but when discussing

Worker Safety Mountain House does not exist and the project area is rural. When discussing visual impacts the Mountain House community is not in existence the same is true with air quality, visual resources and land use analysis. The PMPD is inconsistent in relation to the Mountain House Community. This fact threatens the credibility of the

PMPD and leads to a poorly written decision.

Tracy Fire has already informed Alameda County it will not respond to the power plant as it is not covered in the current mutual aid agreement. Tracy Fire is not obligated to respond to EAEC under the State mandated SEMS unless there is a major catastrophe.

This leaves construction workers and plant operators at the EAEC and local residents vulnerable to inadequate response times in medical emergencies and hazardous anhydrous ammonia incidents. Lives depend on response times in a medical emergency and the CEC is legally and morally obligated to evaluate the true ability of Alameda

County to save the life of an accident victim. In a medical emergency a response time of

10 minutes in inadequate. I am sure if the Presiding Member or a member of his family were to have a medical emergency that he would not want to rely on such a faulty analysis to save his life.

Water Resources

The PMPD completely supports my argument that BBID will not have enough water to support the EAEC and its current customers during dry hydrological years.

14 BBID has understated its agricultural demand during dry years by as much as 30% as testified by CEC Staff (EH 10-16-02 pg 305). This statement is confirmed by conclusion

32 on page 331 of the PMPD . A 30% increase in agricultural demand would require

BBID to allocate an additional 9,000 AFY in a dry year to support its agricultural customers.

Staff has testified that during dry conditions cooling needs for the EAEC will probably increase not decrease due to the reduction in hydroelectric generation and increased temperatures requiring more water for power plant cooling.

Supply

DWR Water Right 50,000 Possible Recycled Water 5,930 Total Supply 55,930

Demand

Agricultural Use 31,028 Increase Ag Dry Year 30% 9,000 Mountain House 9,415 EAEC 7,000 Tracy hills per EIR 6,000 Unimin 500 East County Airport 1,000 Byron 600 Total Demand 64,543 Shortage 8,613

The PMPD confirms my two major assumptions that agriculture use will increase in dry hydrological years and that the Tracy Hills development will need 6,000 AFY (PMPD p.300). These two factors lead to a shortage of BBID water supplies . The footnote in the PMPD states

133 Intervenor Sarvey’s argument here presumes that BBID will service the EAEC entirely with fresh (raw) water from the California Delta. Staff notes that 7,000 afy of fresh (raw) water would be equivalent to serve about 9,000-14,000 homes or 27,000-42,000 residents. (10/16 RT 231:7- 232:7.)

15 My argument contains no assumption as to who uses the water as recycled water is included in the total supply. My argument displays that BBID has underestimated agricultural demand in dry hydrological years and the PMPD is in error because BBID has represented that Tracy Hills uses only 3,000 AFY in its demand analysis (BBIB table

10). Logically in dry hydrological years BBID’s demand will exceed its supply which should require the EAEC to use dry cooling. In fact the PMPD states that staffs preferred method of cooling is dry cooling. (PMPD p.315)

The PMPD recognizes the cumulative impacts of the three CEC power plants and the other development projects in the region in relation to the expected increase in demand for water supplies in the State. It also recognizes that other projects have no water alternatives recycled or raw. The conclusion that should be reached in the PMPD is that the applicant should employ dry cooling because other projects have no alternatives but raw water. The cost of the dry cooling alternative and the proposed alternative are comparable and in the light of the possible impacts to users within the BBID service area and outside the service area EAEC should be required to use the dry cooling method.

Any other conclusion is erroneous under CEQA.

The PMPD and the staff analysis fail to recognize impacts to other users of recycled and raw water in the region. Other irrigation districts will be affected. Other municipal users will be affected. The PMPD fails to address the issues raised by my expert witness

Eric Parfrey who has more knowledge of water use and current development issues than any other participant in the proceedings. The PMPD acknowledges the increase in

BBID’s historical usage in a footnote 132 of the PMPD but fails in its CEQA

16 responsibility as does staff in analyzing the negative impacts on other water districts in the area of EAEC water use. The analysis also fails to recognize that it is highly probable that other projects in the BBID service area will be precluded because BBID will have no water to allocate to them. The assumption that the current developments are the only ones that will come forward in the nest thirty years is ludicrous. Other developments such as the Delta Community Satellite Campus may be prevented by the evaporation of

7,000 AFY of water be it raw or recycled.

Land Use

The PMPD fa i l s to dis c u s s the i s s u e s sur r o und i n g land use ins t e a d i t choose s to defe r to the County of Alameda . Sta f f open ly dis a g r e e d with Alameda County ’ s in t e r p r e t a t i o n of measur e D and othe r land use prov i s i o n s of The Eas t County Area Plan .

(S t a f f Witne s s RT 10- 16- 02 p. 147) And al t h ough we don ' t comple t e l y agre e 20 with the conc l u s i o n s of the County of Alameda , we 21 f i nd tha t i t s in t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a rea s onab l e one . 22 And we defe r to the County ' s in t e r p r e t a t i o n of 23 the i r own LORS tha t the Eas t Altamont Energy 24 Cente r i s a cons i s t e n t and al l owed use .

Dick Schne id e r co- autho r of Measur e D and the autho r i t y on the in t e n t of measur e D conf i rmed s t a f f s view of the cor r e c t in t e r p r e t a t i o n of Pol i c y 13 and othe r ECAP prov i s i o n s . The PMPD (page 367 ,368 ) in a Freud i a n s l i p renames ECAP pol i c y 13 Eas t Altamon t Energy Cente r (EAEC) pol i c y 13 which i s approp r i a t e as th i s i s a new in t e r p r e t a t i o n of Pol i c y 13 tha t has been deve l op ed exc lu s i v e l y fo r the EAEC.

EAEC Policy 13 provides that: The County shall not provide nor authorize public facilities or other infrastructure in excess of that needed for permissible development consistent with the Initiative. This policy shall not bar 1) new, expanded or replacement infrastructure necessary to create adequate service for the East County, 2) maintenance, repair or

17 improvement of public facilities which do not increase capacity, and 3) infrastructure such as pipelines, canals, and power transmission lines which have no excessive growth-inducing effect on the East County area and have permit conditions to ensure that no service can be provided beyond that consistent with development allowed by the Initiative. (Ex. 1 K, p. 10.)

The key words in the pol i c y are “Thi s pol i c y sha l l not bar

1) new expanded or rep l a c emen t in f r a s t r u c t u r e nece s s a r y to cre a t e adequa t e se rv i c e fo r East County , ”

The pol i c y does not say adequa t e se rv i c e fo r Alameda

County , I t does not say adequa t e se rv i c e fo r the Bay Area , i t does not say adequa t e se rv i c e fo r North e r n Cal i f o r n i a i t spec i f i c a l l y says adequa t e se rv i c e fo r East County . The only way you cou ld in t e r p r e t th i s as any othe r geogr aph i c a l are a i s i f you were to rec e i v e $4,000 , 0 0 0 a year to do so .

The Count i e s in t e r p r e t a t i o n of th i s pol i c y i s in f l u e n c e d by the bene f i t s package of $6,000 , 0 0 0 and the $4,000 , 0 0 0 in prope r t y tax money tha t wil l annua l l y acc r u e to the County .

This i s a fac t u a l er r o r in the dec i s i o n .

The County ’ s visu a l LORS are al so broken by the s i t i n g of the EAEC as admi t t e d unde r oath by s t a f f witne s s Adolph

Mart i n e l l i (TR 10- 21- 02 P. 49) The PMPD conven i e n t l y igno r e s th i s evid enc e .

EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002 10:21 a.m .

18 Q We were ta l k i n g abou t pro t e c t i n g 19 sens i t i v e viewshed , and , Mr. Mart i n e l l i , you sa i d 20 tha t the Eas t Altamont Energy Cente r does not 21 impac t any sens i t i v e viewshed l i k e Mount Diab l o 22 and such , i s tha t cor r e c t ? 23 A Yes . 24 Q I 'm going to show you a pic t u r e from the 25 FSA, and I 'm going to ask you th i s ques t i o n aga i n . 1 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Mr. Sarvey , 2 befo r e you do tha t , why don ' t you te l l us what 3 tha t pic t u r e i s . 4 MR. SARVEY: This ques t i o n i s a 5 Sept embe r 2002 pic t u r e f rom KOP-1 from the FSA. 6 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: And i s i t a 7 f i gu r e - - i s i t iden t i f i e d as a f i gu r e , or - - 8 MR. SARVEY: I t i s f i gu r e 2. 9 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank 10 you . 11 BY MR. SARVEY: 12 Q Now, does the Eas t Altamont Energy 13 Cente r obscu r e anyone ' s view of Mount Diab l o ? 14 A From th i s depi c t i o n i t does . From the 15 edge of the prope r t y l i n e look i ng , yes , tha t ' s 16 nor t h - - nor t hwes t . 17 Q Thank you . 18 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Mr. Sarvey , 19 coul d you pas s tha t around to the Commit t e e , 20 plea s e . 21 MR. SARVEY: Sure .

Regard l e s s i f the commit t e e choose s to defe r to Alameda

County they canno t igno r e the evid enc e . Mr. Mart i n e l l i cle a r l y te s t i f i e s tha t visu a l LORS are broken . These LORS must be sub j e c t to an over r i d e . The PMPD al so igno r e s al l othe r is s u e s re l a t e d to Alameda County Land Use hid i n g beh ind defe r e n c e to Alameda County . I wil l not out l i n e them here as the s e is s u e s are addr e s s e d in my br i e f which the commit t e e choose s to igno r e .

The Sta f f ’ s land use ana l y s i s igno r e s the Mounta i n House

Communi ty becaus e i t s t a t e s tha t the r e are no cur r e n t re s i d e n t s (PMPD P. 371) even though the homes are cur r e n t l y

19 under cons t r u c t i o n and the CEC i s re l y i n g on recyc l e d wate r f rom the MHCSD. The Mounta i n House deve lo pmen t exi s t s only to supp ly recyc l e d wate r f rom phan tom re s i d e n t s tha t we canno t be sur e exi s t but they wil l be f lu s h i n g the i r to i l e t s even i f they

Do not .

Visua l Plumes

The PMPD comple t e l y igno r e s my ana l y s i s and evid enc e produced under cros s - examina t i o n on visu a l plumes .

Perhap s my ana l y s i s was los t in fax t r a n sm i t t a l to the

Publ i c adv i s o r tha t can be the only exp l a n a t i o n . I wil l repe a t my ana ly s i s aga i n here fo r the commit t e e so they can cons i d e r i t when the rev i s e the PMPD.

Visual Plume

Chairman Keese has identified two ways that a plume can be a significant negative impact . One is a plume that can be a negative visual impact and the other is a plume that can come down on the highway and that is definitely a significant negative impact.

(RT 10-22-02 pg 5)

14 Number one , we have to know tha t a plume 15 has a nega t i v e impac t - - tha t a plume can have a 16 nega t i v e impac t . And number two , we want to know 17 tha t the plume f rom th i s plan t can have a nega t i v e 18 impac t . 19 So, a two- s t ep proce s s here . Number 20 one , somebody needs to es t a b l i s h tha t plumes are 21 bad , can be bad ; and number two , somebody has to

20 22 es t a b l i s h tha t the plumes f rom th i s power plan t 23 can be bad . 24 I 'm not ta l k i n g abou t the plume tha t 25 comes down and s i t s over the highway . That ' s bad .

1) There is a s ign i f i c a n t visua l impact from th i s plume because as sta f f tes t i f i e s the plume could occur as of t en as 58% of the t ime and i t wil l s i t over Byron highway and the surround ing roads and impact tra f f i c . (RT 10- 22- 02 p. 75)

1 MR. SARVEY: Fif t y - eigh t perc en t of the 2 t ime . Okay. Is the r e any poss i b i l i t y tha t th i s 3 plume cou ld impac t any peop l e dr i v i n g on any of 4 the s e roads sur r o und i n g th i s pro j e c t s i t e , s in c e 5 the fac i l i t y is sur r o unded by th r e e road s tha t are 6 fa i r l y wel l used? 7 MS. DeCARLO: I 'm going to obje c t , 8 tha t ' s out s i d e the scope of his te s t imony . I 9 bel i e v e tha t ana ly s i s was inc l u d e d in the t r a f f i c 10 and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n sec t i o n . 11 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Over r u l e d . 12 MR. WALTERS: Well , we do pre s e n t 13 f i nd i n g s in te rms of fogg i ng f r equen cy . I 'm not 14 exac t l y prepa r e d in te rms of hav ing tha t ana l y s i s 15 in f ron t of me, but I bel i e v e we had iden t i f i e d 16 there could be some impact s to Byron Bethany Road 17 from the fac i l i t y . And did , at lea s t in my 18 analy s i s I ind i c a t e d tha t i t would probably be a 19 good idea to have some warning s igns up and down 20 from the expec t ed loca t i o n where there could be 21 fogg ing (RT 10- 22- 02 275- 275)

25 MR. SARVEY: So the r e ' s ci r c ums t a n c e s 1 here where th i s fac i l i t y cou ld impac t peop l e 2 dr i v i n g on Byron Bethany Road, a pre t t y wel l 3 t r a v e l e d road , speed l im i t ' s abou t 55 mile s an 4 hour . 5 Now, assuming tha t th i s plume would 6 cause an acc i d e n t , would you det e rm in e tha t a 7 s ign i f i c a n t impac t ? (RT 10- 22- 02 pg 276)

21 2) Does the plume f rom th i s fac i l i t y have a s ign i f i c a n t unmi t i g a t e d visu a l impac t ?

The answer to tha t ques t i o n depends on whethe r (1 ) we have a rea s on ab l e s imul a t i o n of th i s plume and (2 ) i f we do does i t impac t scen i c resou r c e .

1) Do we have a reasonab l e s imula t i o n of th i s plume .

The app l i c a n t and s t a f f have a dis a g r e emen t as to the s i z e and f r equen cy of th i s plume which i s on of the var i a b l e s which make i t hard to det e rm in e the plumes impac t s .

BY MR. SARVEY: 23 Q From my under s t a n d i n g f rom your 24 te s t imony , both you and s t a f f conc l ud ed the r e wil l 25 be vis i b l e plumes , is tha t cor r e c t ? MR. RUBENSTEIN: That ' s cor r e c t . 2 MR. SARVEY: What you dis ag r e e on i s 3 over the f r e qu en cy and the s i z e , or jus t the 4 f r e quen cy ? 5 MR. RUBENSTEIN: I th i n k we have 6 dis ag r e emen t s on both the s i z e and the f r e quen cy , (RT 10-22-02 pg41)

The appl i c an t has not prov ided a visua l s imula t i o n of the expec t ed plume.

MR. SARVEY: Do you have an accu r a t e

18 rep r e s e n t a t i o n of what you fee l th i s plume ' s going

19 to look l i k e ?

20 MR. RUBENSTEIN: Not with me. I have

22 21 taken photog r a p h s of plumes in othe r coo l i n g

22 tower s and they don ' t look any th i n g l i k e tha t . 23 MR. SARVEY: So, in th i s proce ed i n g , as 24 evid en c e the app l i c a n t has not in t r o d u c e d any 25 visu a l s imu la t i o n s of the i r plume , is tha t cor r e c t ? 2 MR. RUBENSTEIN: That ' s cor r e c t . 3 MR. SARVEY: So, in absenc e of the 4 s t a f f ' s - - I mean the app l i c a n t ' s visu a l plume 5 s imul a t i o n the only s imu l a t i o n we have in evid en c e 6 is the s t a f f ' s , cor r e c t ?

The sta f f concurs that the appl i c an t has prov ided no visua l plume s imula t i o n .

BY MR. SARVEY: 14 Q Has the app l i c a n t prov i d e d you with a 15 visu a l plume s imu la t i o n ? 16 MR. EDWARDS: No, I don ' t bel i e v e so . 17 MR. SARVEY: Have you reque s t e d a visu a l 18 plume s imul a t i o n f rom the app l i c a n t ? 19 MR. EDWARDS: No, (RT 10- 22- 02 pg 269)

The appl i c an t has not prov ided a visua l s imula t i o n of the plume and the appl i c an t admit s he has never seen nor has he ever modeled a fac i l i t y with the equipment that EAEC i s propos ing to use .

: 25 MR. SARVEY: Have you eve r modeled a 1 fac i l i t y with the equ ipmen t tha t you are propos i n g 2 fo r a vis i b l e plume? 13 MR. SARVEY: I 'm sor r y , Gary , th i s i s a 14 s tup i d ques t i o n becaus e I al r e a d y asked you and 15 you sa i d you didn ' t have the equ ipmen t 16 conf i g u r a t i o n so you cou ldn ' t poss i b l y have eve r 17 modeled i t . So, I apo log i z e . 18 MR. RUBENSTEIN: Okay. We have modeled 19 exi s t i n g plan t s befo r e , but not - -

23 20 MR. SARVEY: Yeah, I 'm sor r y , Gary . 21 MR. RUBENSTEIN: - - th i s par t i c u l a r 22 des i g n . Okay. (RT 10- 22 02 pg 50)

The sta f f has no exper i e n c e model ing a fac i l i t y of th i s magni tude ei t h e r .

20 The f i r s t unique fac t with the coo l i n g 21 tower i s i t s s i z e so i t ' s two to two and a hal f t imes la r g e r than any of the 2 othe r coo l i n g tower s tha t we have ana ly z e d , or at 3 le a s t cer t i f i e d , to dat e . (RT 10- 22- 02 pg Walte r s )

14 unique fac t o r s rega r d i n g th i s case . I ' l l s t a r t 15 with the HRSGs. For the HRSGs fo r th i s case , the 16 duc t burne r s are very la r g e , and the temper a t u r e s 17 are very low. I don ' t th i n k we've cer t i f i e d a case 19 with tempe r a t u r e s with i n 20 degr e e s of the s e ; 20 ce r t a i n l y not with i n 15 degr e e s . Or at lea s t I 21 haven ' t ana ly z e d them tha t low. 22 So the combina t i o n of the low 23 temper a t u r e and the highe r mois t u r e con t e n t , the 24 duc t burne r s ess en t i a l l y cre a t e a highe r mois t u r e 25 con t en t , inc r e a s e the plume f r e quen cy (RT 10- 22- 02 pg 70) Walte r s

In add i t i o n the r e i s no meteo ro l o g i c a l dat a ava i l a b l e f rom th i s s i t e so the dat a used fo r the ana l y s i s is f rom Sacr amen t o .

18 MR. SARVEY: So you s t a t e d the 19 app l i c a n t ' s meteo r o l o g i c a l dat a was not 20 rep r e s e n t a t i v e , is tha t cor r e c t ? 21 MR. WALTERS: In our compar i s o n of the 22 meteo r o l o g i c a l dat a , the one year of dat a they 23 used f rom Stock t o n was cons i d e r a b l y le s s 24 rep r e s e n t a t i v e than ours . 25 MR. SARVEY: You al so s t a t e d tha t you 1 used meteo r o l o g i c a l da ta f rom Sacr amen t o , is tha t 2 cor r e c t ? 3 MR. WALTERS: That ' s cor r e c t , dat a f rom

24 4 1990 th r ough 1993 . 5 MR. SARVEY: So essen t i a l l y you don ' t 6 have meteo r o l o g i c a l dat a at th i s plan t s i t e tha t 7 is re l i a b l e ? 15 MR. SARVEY: How can the Commit t e e , and 16 myse l f , as an in t e r v e n e r , accep t the fac t tha t 17 the r e ' s no s ign i f i c a n t impac t s f rom th i s plume 18 under the ci r c ums t a n c e s tha t we have ju s t 19 desc r i b e d in the la s t , say , nine ques t i o n s ? (RT 10- 22- 02 pg 270 )

Neithe r the sta f f or the appl i c an t modeled a worst case plume.

MR. SARVEY: Okay. What would the wors t 14 case scena r i o , you sa i d you modeled the - - you 15 sa i d th i s was not the wors t case scena r i o . What 16 would the wors t case scena r i o look l i k e in a 17 visu a l s imu la t i o n ? Do you have any th i n g tha t I 18 can look at tha t would give me an idea whethe r 19 th i s i s ac tu a l l y a s ign i f i c a n t impac t ? Because 20 the r e seems to be some dis ag r e emen t abou t what you 21 guys pre s en t e d here . 22 MR. EDWARDS: We don ' t s imu l a t e the - - 23 i f you ' r e ask i ng me what i s the wors t case 24 s imul a t i o n , or what is the wors t case fo r plume 25 gene r a t i o n , we do not make s imu la t i o n s of tha t . (RT 10- 22- 02 pg 273)

So essen t i a l l y we have no worse case scenar i o plume we have no meteoro l o g i c a l data from the proje c t area we have a fac i l i t y with a equipment conf i gura t i o n that the appl i c an t and sta f f have never had any exper i e n c e with and the only visua l s imula t i o n that we have i s the plume s imula t i o n prov ided by sta f f which is admit t ed l y not the worst case scenar i o . (Vis i b l e Plumes Figure 2)

25 2) Does the plume s imula t ed in f igur e 2 obscure any s ign i f i c a n t visua l resourc e and there f o r e prov ide a s ign i f i c a n t Impact

Firs t we must def ine i f there are s ign i f i c a n t visua l resourc e s in the area . Mr. . Martene l l i def in e s Alameda count i e s in t e rpr e t a t i o n of s ign i f i c a n t viewshed in the area .

MR. MARTINELLI: I f you read pol i c y 52 you ' l l see tha t Sens i t i v e viewshed are def i n e d very cle a r l y in the def i n i t i o n s . And they ta l k abou t r idg e l i n e s , ce r t a i n peaks , such as 1 Brushy Peak and Mount Diab lo ( RT 10- 22- 02 p. )

The appl i c an t s witne s s re luc t an t l y agree s .

MR. SARVEY: Do you cons i d e r Mount 7 Diab lo and the sur r o und i n g range a scen i c 8 re sou r c e ? 9 MR. RUBENSTEIN: I ' d have to defe r tha t 10 to Mr. Pr i e s t l e y ; you ' r e get t i n g out s i d e the range 11 of vis i b l e plumes . 12 MR. SARVEY: I 'm sor r y . 13 DR. PRIESTLEY: Yeah, in gene r a l , yes .

All part i e s agree tha t there i s sens i t i v e viewshed behind the proje c t now by showing each party f igur e 2 we can dete rmine i f th i s sens i t i v e viewshed i s impacted . Mr. Martene l l i th inks so .

24 Q I 'm going to show you a pic t u r e f rom the 25 FSA, and I 'm going to ask you th i s ques t i o n aga in . HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Mr. Sarvey , 2 befo r e you do tha t , why don ' t you te l l us what 3 tha t pic t u r e i s . 4 MR. SARVEY: This ques t i o n is a 5 Septembe r 2002 pic t u r e f rom KOP-1 f rom the FSA. 6 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: And i s i t a 7 f i gu r e - - is i t iden t i f i e d as a f igu r e , or - - 8 MR. SARVEY: I t i s f igu r e 2. 9 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank 10 you . 11 BY MR. SARVEY: 12 Q Now, does the Eas t Altamon t Energy

26 13 Cente r obscu r e anyone ' s view of Mount Diab lo ? 14 A From th i s dep i c t i o n i t does . From the 15 edge of the prope r t y l i n e look i n g , yes , tha t ' s 16 nor t h - - nor t hwes t . 17 Q Thank you . (RT 10- 21- 02 pg 47- 48)

The sta f f witne s s bel i e v e s tha t the viewshed i s impacted

. MR. EDWARDS: The s imul a t i o n does show 4 Mount Diab lo which is pre t t y much di r e c t l y beh ind 5 the plume as i t ' s ind i c a t e d or s imul a t e d , or i t 6 is - - Mount Diab lo i s di r e c t l y beh ind . (RT 10- 22- 02 p. 226)

M r . Gris sam from Trimark Development i s stunned when he see s the visua l plume s imula t i o n a def in i n g moment in the hear ing s .

14. Does the loca t i o n of the 15 Eas t Altamon t Energy Cente r nea r your deve l opmen t 16 give you any conce r n tha t your demand fo r homes 17 wil l weaken? Sens i t i v e viewshed 18 MR. GRIMSMAN: That ' s a good ques t i o n , 19 and tha t ' s one tha t we eva l u a t e d in - house , what 20 the impac t s would be of a power plan t on our 21 marke t a b i l i t y . 22 And we were conv in c ed by the Calp i n e 23 fo l k s af t e r look i n g at dig i t a l l y enhanced 24 photog r a p h s tha t the r e would be not much of a 25 visu a l impac t f rom our communi t y . MR. SARVEY: I f the app l i c a n t had showed 13 you th i s pic t u r e here , would tha t change your 14 opin i o n ? HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Let ' s go of f 23 the reco r d . 24 (Of f the reco r d . ) 1 MR. GRIMSMAN: I don ' t remember see i n g 2 any of the s e pic t u r e s . (RT 10- 21- 02 pg 382)

So the part i e s agree that there is a s ign i f i c a n t impact to a scen i c resourc e and tha t leave s us with a s ign i f i c a n t unmit i g a t e d impact to scen i c resourc e s from the visua l

27 plume. There i s also a s ign i f i c a n t unmit i g a t e d impact and a heal t h and saf e t y impact from the plumes fogg ing on Byron

Bethany Road and Mounta in House Road. With the evidence in the record th i s unmit i g a t e d impact wil l not al l ow the CEC to cer t i f y th i s plant ,

Visua l Resour c e s

The commit t e e to l d us th roughou t the s i t i n g case to re l y on s t a f f the pro f e s s i o n a l s to do an expe r t ana l y s i s to pro t e c t our in t e r e s t s . Unfor t u n a t e l y the Commit t e e does not cons i d e r i t s own s t a f f s guidan c e . Even in the pre s en c e of s t a f f te s t imony tha t is not re f u t e d the PMPD only acqu i e s c e s to the Alameda County ’ s in t e r p r e t a t i o n tha t i t s visu a l LORS are not broken . The app l i c a n t pre s e n t e d no evid en c e which was compel l i n g to re f u t e s t a f f s te s t imony .

The PMPD prov i d e s no autho r i t y to re f u t e s t a f f s te s t imony .

Mr. Mart i n e l l i te s t i f i e d as to the visu a l impac t s tha t the fac i l i t y wil l have which is a cle a r vio l a t i o n of Alameda

Count i e s Visua l LORS.

EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2002 10:21 a.m .

Q We were ta l k i n g abou t pro t e c t i n g 19 sens i t i v e viewshed , and , Mr. Mart i n e l l i , you sa i d

28 20 tha t the Eas t Altamont Energy Cente r does not 21 impac t any sens i t i v e viewshed l i k e Mount Diab l o 22 and such , i s tha t cor r e c t ? 23 A Yes . 24 Q I 'm going to show you a pic t u r e from the 25 FSA, and I 'm going to ask you th i s ques t i o n aga i n . 1 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Mr. Sarvey , 2 befo r e you do tha t , why don ' t you te l l us what 3 tha t pic t u r e i s . 4 MR. SARVEY: This ques t i o n i s a 5 Sept embe r 2002 pic t u r e f rom KOP-1 from the FSA. 6 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: And i s i t a 7 f i gu r e - - i s i t iden t i f i e d as a f i gu r e , or - - 8 MR. SARVEY: I t i s f i gu r e 2. 9 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Okay, thank 10 you . 11 BY MR. SARVEY: 12 Q Now, does the Eas t Altamont Energy 13 Cente r obscu r e anyone ' s view of Mount Diab l o ? 14 A From th i s depi c t i o n i t does . From the 15 edge of the prope r t y l i n e look i ng , yes , tha t ' s 16 nor t h - - nor t hwes t . 17 Q Thank you . 18 HEARING OFFICER WILLIAMS: Mr. Sarvey , 19 coul d you pas s tha t around to the Commit t e e , 20 plea s e . 21 MR. SARVEY: Sure .

Regard l e s s i f the commit t e e choose s to defe r to Alameda

County they canno t igno r e the evid enc e . Mr. Mart i n e l l i cle a r l y te s t i f i e s tha t visu a l LORS are broken . These LORS must be sub j e c t to an over r i d e . The PMPD only s t a t e s tha t s in c e the CEC Sta f f defe r s to Alameda County ’ s in t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t s visu a l LORS the r e canno t poss i b l y be a s ign i f i c a n t Visua l impac t unde r CEQA. No othe r exp l an a t i o n i s prov i d e d in the PMPD.

Conc lu s i o n

Sign i f i c a n t unmit i g a t e d ai r qua l i t y impac t s ex i s t becaus e the PMPD did not adop t the Sta f f ’ s Proposed Air Qual i t y

29 Mit i g a t i o n Proposa l even though the PMPD cou ld f ind no fau l t with s t a f f ’ s ana l y s i s . (PMPD foo t no t e 50 p. 137)

The Sta f f ’ s pos i t i o n on visu a l impac t s which rema in s unre f u t e d was dismi s s e d becaus e of the CEC’s doc t r i n e of defe r e n c e to Alameda County and othe r loca l gove rnmen t agenc i e s . As ment i o n e d in the PMPD on page 374 “ the

Energy Commiss i o n as the le ad agency wil l give defe r e n c e to loc a l gove rnmen t s in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the i r land use LORS and pol i c i e s excep t when such an in t e r p r e t a t i o n would lead to a fac t u a l er r o r in our dec i s i o n . ” CEC Sta f f ’ s ana ly s i s of unmi t i g a t e d visu a l impac t s and Adolph Martene l l i ’ s te s t imony tha t the plan t obscu r e d sens i t i v e viewshed poin t s to the fac t u a l er r o r s in the PMPD. Accord i n g l y the PMPD must be rev i s e d to re f l e c t the s e rea l i t i e s no mat t e r how pain fu l l th i s i s to the Appl i c a n t s con t r a c t u a l obl i g a t i o n s with the Sta t e .

The CEC s t a f f i s the charg ed with per f o rm ing an independen t ana ly s i s to eva lu a t e the impac t s of the EAEC upon which publ i c hea l t h and sa f e t y and the env i r o nmen t can be pro t e c t e d . By dismi s s i n g th i s ana l y s i s withou t jus t cause or sound rea son i n g the PMPD is essen t i a l l y a prejud i c i a l abuse of disc r e t i o n .

30