[California Energy Commission Letterhead]
August 25, 1999

Dear Workshop Participants:


Enclosed is the staff's summary of the Metcalf Energy Center data request workshop that was held in Coyote near south San Jose on August 3, 1999. This summary is an informal record of the discussions that took place. It has been distributed to all project staff and to all other participants identified on the participant list attached to the summary. The summary provides the meeting participants with the opportunity to correct information that was misunderstood in the hope of having good communication and an efficient process. If you would like to make any comments or additions to the summary, please send them to me in writing. I will see that they are placed in the project file and that the appropriate staff and other meeting participants receive them. If you have any questions, please call me at (916) 654-4075, or E-mail me at lwhite@energy.state.ca.us.


Lorraine White
Siting Project Manager

cc: Proof of Service, 99-AFC-3 Docket

Staff's Data Request Workshop Regarding the Metcalf Energy Center

Date: August 3, 1999
Location: #412 Coyote Grange Hall
Coyote, California


On June 23, 1999, the California Energy Commission (Commission) determined that the Metcalf Energy Center (MEC) Application for Certification (AFC) was data adequate. Commission staff (staff) has begun their analysis of the AFC. On July 23, 1999, staff issued requests to the applicant, Calpine/Bechtel, for additional data.

On August 3, 1999, staff held a public workshop to provide Calpine/Bechtel and the public an opportunity to ask clarifying questions about the data requests. Data requests were made in the areas of air quality, alternatives, biological resources, cultural resources, power plant efficiency, facility design, hazardous materials management, land use, noise, public health, socioeconomics, traffic and transportation, transmission system engineering, visual resources, and water resources.

Prior to the workshop, the applicant informed staff that they had questions about the data requests in the areas of alternatives, biological resources, noise, socioeconomics, visual resources and water resources. This information was used to prepare the workshop agenda. No other comments about the data requests were received prior to the workshop.


A written agenda was prepared for the workshop and the items were as follows:


Lorraine White, project manager for the Commission's review of the proposed MEC, chaired the meeting. She introduced the purpose of the meeting and indicated that copies of staff data requests and the meeting notice were located at the back of the room. Ms. White indicated that meetings such as the staff's workshops were informal meetings to discuss technical concerns and issues. She then requested that persons in attendance introduce themselves and state their organization or interest in the meeting. In addition to commission staff and staff for the applicant, others in attendance included intervenors, members of the local community, local agency representatives, business-persons and regional agency representatives. A list of attendees is attached. After the introductions, Ms. White introduced the next agenda item, data request discussions.



Linda Spiegel briefly described the nature of her data requests and the issues: impacts to serpentine soils, compliance with local requirements, removal of significant trees and impacts to the riparian habitat. The applicant indicated that, in fact, they did not have any questions regarding the requested information. Shortly before the workshop, the applicant had resolved their questions and no longer needed clarification for staff. However, the applicant did inform staff that they would need more time to respond to some data requests.


Calpine/Bechtel asked Joe O'Hagan to clarify the water resources-related staff data requests. The applicant also provided staff and the public with an update regarding project changes affecting these technical areas. Specifically, the applicant indicated that instead of a septic system or a package sanitary waste treatment system, domestic waste from the project would be discharged to the local sewer system. This project change which the applicant will provide in a written description, negates the need for the applicant to respond to staff data request numbers 128 through 130. In regards to data request 131, the applicant is also considering discharging wastewater from the proposed project into the same sewer system as the sanitary waste discharge and will notify staff as to whether the project description will be changed to reflect this proposal.

The applicant discussed a number of the 38 staff data requests. On several of the requests, staff agreed that additional guidance needed to be given to the applicant prior to their responding. These data requests include number 141 that asks for water demand based upon assumed future development in Coyote Valley. Staff is still evaluating which potential developments in Coyote Valley should be taken into account in this response. Staff will provide a written respond to the applicant's request for further clarification on this data request and several others. Based upon discussions with the applicant at the workshop and information already provided, staff indicated to the applicant that further responses to the applicant for some of the data requests are not necessary. These include data request numbers 115, 116, 117, 120, 132, and 133, as well as responses 128 through 130 discussed above.

Public comments and questions touched on a variety of water issues, including groundwater supply and quality, stormwater runoff, drainage, flooding, wastewater disposal and erosion.

Staff intends to provide further guidance in writing for the applicant regarding some of the information requested by staff.

John Carrier, from CH2M Hill, the main consultant for the applicant, asked Robert Anderson a question to clarify a request for information on surface water drainage (DR#46). Mr. Anderson said that the on-site surface water drainage was to be designed to accommodate the 25 year, 24-hour storm, while off site drainage was to accommodate the 100 year, 24-hour storm event. Mr. Carrier said that he understood after talking with the Santa Clara Valley Water District that the design storm event is the 25 year, 24-hour storm event. Mr. Anderson said that this was correct for on-site drainage but that off-site drainage is the 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Mr. Anderson also said that the site is located adjacent to a 100 year flood zone as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (the Fisher Creek Drainage). Mr. Anderson requested that the applicant provide a grading and drainage plan that was legible, suggesting a "D" size drawing. Mr. Carrier agreed to this request.

Mr. Mike Tataris (local resident) indicated that Fisher Creek was at capacity during heavy rains. Jeff Harris, legal counsel for the applicant, said that they do not plan on discharging cooling water into the creek. Members of the public raised concerns about the sewer and natural gas lines crossing of Fisher Creek. Questions on this topic included: Would the sewer line cross beneath Fisher Creek? Would the natural gas line cross over Fisher Creek?

0 Mr. Bert Mallach (a local resident) pointed out the Fisher Creek Bridge is prone to flooding, and was concerned about the potential (if any) for the project to increase the potential for flooding at the bridge. Other residents indicated that the Coyote Valley area is a major groundwater recharge area for the City of San Jose. Still others expressed concern about possible flooding of the MEC and in the vicinity due to a sudden release of water from the Anderson Reservoir.


Most of the discussions for the noise-related data requests dealt with the underlying assumptions that the project owner will use to perform the noise analysis. Part of the proposed project site currently is located in Santa Clara County and the remainder in the City of San Jose. The two local agencies have different noise standards and ordinances, with Santa Clara having the more restrictive requirements. It is staff's position that the project should be designed to meet the more restrictive requirements until such a time that the applicant is successful in rezoning the portion of that property from Santa Clara County to the City of San Jose (DR#56, DR#57).

A member of the public asked if staff's noise analysis will take into consideration noise related to the project cycling on and off (start-up/shut-down). They made an analogy with air quality analysis and wanted to know if we will perform a similar analysis in the noise technical area. Kisabuli responded that staff had not done the specific noise analysis for this project yet. He said that he would follow up on this suggestion and ask the applicant to provide a noise operating profile for start-ups and shut-downs.

Also, staff discussed the 5dB noise requirements and how it should apply in the analysis. In the AFC, Calpine/Bechtel proposes to analyze the project to meet the local city noise LORS. The point of departure with staff is that the applicant then would add the 5bB noise criteria to show compliance with the local LORS and CEC criteria. Kisabuli let the applicant know that the 5dB criteria are not additive to the local noise LORS. The applicant promised to look into that issue, and use a consistent basis for performing the noise analysis. Kisabuli and the applicant tentatively settled on the applicant using the L90 as a basis to determine whether or not the project complies with the local LORS.


The discussion regarding staff's two data requests for Socioeconomics focused entirely on staff's request that the applicant conducts a property values impact analysis (DR #70). The applicant had no questions regarding the other data request (DR #69). Staff clarified for the applicant that the potential for the proposed power plant to adversely affect local residential property values has been raised as an issue. Staff is requesting that Calpine/Bechtel do their own analysis to address this issue. Staff recognizes this is an important local issue and is conducting their own analysis of the potential for the proposed power plant to affect property values if it is built.

Mr. Carrier informed staff that such an analysis can not be completed by August 23rd and that the applicant will need to submit the results after the deadline to respond to data requests. Mr. Carrier said they were prepared to submit a scope, methodology and schedule for a property values impact analysis by August 23, 1999 and will submit the results of the study at a later date. Ms. White said this was acceptable, but stressed that the August 23rd filing needs to clearly indicate when the results will be filed and that the study should be completed in time to be reflected in staff's Preliminary Staff Assessment which must be completed December 7, 1999.

Members of the public asked if staff was going to rely only on the results of the applicant's analysis in their assessment. Mr. Adams clarified that he was doing his own analysis. Mr. Adams stated that he had begun a literature search, will likely be hiring a consultant to assist in the analysis and is collecting available information on this topic. Mr. Adams informed those in attendance that he has not found any studies comparable to this case, but there are suitable studies that address impacts associated with hazardous waste sites and other industrial projects.

Ms. Sharron Spotts asked Mr. Adams to consider doing a case study analysis of the Crockett area near the cogeneration plant there and perhaps a survey of the residents in the Crockett area. Ms. Elizabeth Cord cautioned that this would not be representative of the MEC case because the Crockett power plant was built at an existing industrial site. There is no existing industry near the South San Jose residents. Mr. Issa Ajlouny stressed that property values are affected by people's perceptions and that staff should take this into consideration when doing their analysis. Another member of the public voiced concerns about the potential for the power plant to adversely effect local businesses in the Coyote Valley. Yet another informed staff that CISCO Systems, in a recent news article, voiced concerns about the power plant and that staff should evaluate the adverse economic impact if CISCO Systems decides not to development their project because of the power plant. Mr. Adams indicated that he would consider this input as he develops his methodology.


Ken Abreu, representing Calpine, stated that the applicant realizes the visual concerns are important in this case. They have continued a dialogue with parties since filing the AFC, and have considered alternative designs. He said that they plan to provide a supplemental alternative design that may become the preferred option. No date for submitting this supplemental information was given.

Tom Priestley, consultant to the applicant, said that responding to the visual resources data requests would require a lot of work. He noted that a large number of simulations were called for. He asked whether staff could group or prioritize the data requests according to which answers are needed first to aid in staff's analysis. He suggested that specifically Data Requests #77 through #82 may become moot once the new design is submitted. Gary Walker asked whether the applicant would drop the original proposal in favor of the revised design. Mr. Harris said that the applicant wants staff to consider both designs in their analysis. Mr. Walker then said that all of the data requests regarding the original proposal must be answered, unless after examining the new design staff determines that it would clearly cause less visual impact. Mr. Priestley asked staff which data requests need to be answered first. Mr. Walker said that the new design needs to be provided as soon as possible. Joe Donaldson and Mr. Walker agreed to consider whether some data requests could be answered later, and let the applicant know once they made this decision.

Mr. Priestley asked whether the information regarding documenting the accuracy of the simulations, requested in Data Request #72, was the same as what staff had requested in a previous case, the Delta Energy Center. Mr. Walker explained that the request was to obtain similar documentation. A member of the public asked how the information for the Delta case could be appropriate for MEC. Mr. Walker explained that the process used to document the accuracy of the simulations could be the same, but that the facts would be project or site-specific.

Mr. Priestley also asked whether all of the drawings or simulations asked for in Data Requests #83 and #84 were necessary. Staff agreed to eliminate the requirements of Data Request #83c and to modify the requirement of Data Request #84c to ask for color simulations from Key Observation Points 2 and 3 showing the project at five and twenty years after the landscaping is planted.

In regard to Data Request #88, Mr. Priestley asked whether the City of San Jose representative knew if the city is planning to raise the height limit in the industrial campus area to 120 feet. Laurel Prevetti, a planner for the City of San Jose, stated that changes to the plan were being considered but that she did not know whether an increase in the height limit to 120 feet was part of the proposal. Mr. Walker asked the applicant where they learned about the potential change in the height limit. John Hathaway, representing Calpine, said that they had heard this from other developers/land owners.

Mr. Priestley expressed difficulty in responding to Data Request #96 regarding Guideline 2A because the applicant has not developed a plan for the nearby riparian corridor, specifying on which side of Fisher Creek a potential public trail would be placed. Mr. Walker agreed to modify the data request to state "Please address the conformity of the project with this guideline."

In regard to Data Request #100c, Mr. Priestley stated that it would be difficult to provide a map that would show the linear features without becoming too large. It was agreed that he would refer to other maps that do show these features.

In regard to Data Request #102, Mr. Priestley asked if staff could provide any literature regarding appropriate colors to minimize visual prominence. Mr. Walker said that staff has no such literature.

In regard to Data Requests #103, #104, and #105, Mr. Priestley stated that the statement in the AFC that "the overall design concept embodied in the design guidelines is to follow the example of the IBM complex" was not meant to imply that the project as proposed in the AFC follows the example of the IBM complex.

As announced at the workshop, Tom Priestley, Joe Donaldson, and Gary Walker visited potential locations for new Key Observation Points. They agreed that simulations should be prepared from Coyote Parkway Lakes and southbound Monterey Road, as requested in Data Requests #73 and #75. They agreed that due to the substantial distance from the proposed power plant site to the residences at the southern end of Basking Ridge Road and due to the intervening development, including the Metcalf Substation and Highway 101, a photograph from that location looking toward the project site would be sufficient to satisfy Data Request #74, and no simulation would be required.

During the workshop local residents had expressed concern regarding two other locations. The owner of Coyote Ranch stated that he was concerned that the power plant would be visible from his property and would adversely affect his business. Mr. Priestly, Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Walker drove by his property. After later consultation, Mr. Priestley agreed to revisit the property and examine it in detail as a potential location for a simulation. In addition, Sharon Spotts stated that she was concerned residents on the north side of Tulare Hill would see the power plant. Mr. Priestly, Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Walker walked to the end of the water district access road closest to the project site and determined that intervening topography would prevent any views of the power plant from the residences on the north side of Tulare Hill or from the access road.

Following the site visit, Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Walker established four categories or priorities for the visual-related data requests, based on when information is needed by staff.

Category A (answer by August 23, 1999 or before):
Data Requests 73, 74, 75, 76, 83, 84, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 109, and 110.

Category B (answer by August 23, 1999, or as soon as possible thereafter):
Data Requests 72, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 102, 107, and 108.
Category C (answer for the original design after staff examines the new design and determines this information is still needed):
Data Requests 77, 78 and 87.

Category D (answer for both the original design and the new design):
Data Requests 94 through 99.

Responses to all visual-related data requests made to date are needed by no later than September 15, 1999.


Ms. White began the discussion on the alternative data requests by briefly summarizing the issues covered in the data requests that staff will be addressing in their analysis. The applicant did not have questions about the specific data requests, but, instead, wanted to inform the staff that Calpine/Bechtel will be objecting to many of these data requests. Mr. Abreu stated that if the applicant answered these questions, they would be disclosing their business plans.

Mr. Abreu explained that Calpine/Bechtel announced over a year ago that they intended to develop at least four power plants in the Bay Area and have only publicly disclosed two of these locations. Calpine/Bechtel is investigating areas that are viable for development even beyond the four sites under development. Mr. Abreu stated that some of the questions in staff's data requests get to issues of competition, not just alternatives, and will not be answered. According to Mr. Abreu, Calpine/Bechtel is looking for any good, viable site for power development.

In their filing on August 9, 1999, Mr. Abreu stated that the applicant will indicate which specific questions they object to and provide a brief explanation of thier objections. They will also attempt to better clarify their criteria for the alternatives analysis in the August 23, 1999 filing for the data responses.

Mr. Scott Scholz, an intervenor, voiced concern about the alternatives analysis conducted by the applicant. In particular, Mr. Scholz wanted the applicant to explain why the Almaden Valley site (alternative site C discussed in the AFC) was chosen since it was not a viable site and did not meet Calpine's own criteria for the alternatives analysis.


Due to time limitations, discussions of other technical areas was not possible during this meeting.


Members of the public raised several comments and concerns about the proposed Metcalf Energy Center and questions about staff's data requests. Many of these comments are discussed above. Below are additional comments and concerns.

How is commissioning of the power plant addressed in staff's analysis?

People most affected by this power plant are those that will be part of the future development of the Valley (i.e., employees of the CISCO development and future homeowners). Will staff weigh their concerns?

What recourse do homeowners in the area have if the power plant causes housing prices to fall?

What are the effects of this power plant on future development? Will it result in more power plants being built in the area?


Many members of the local community attended staff's data request workshop. Several of those in attendance wanted the opportunity to voice their general concerns about the project and to state their opposition/support for the project. The noticed purpose of the meeting required that we address questions on the staff's data requests prior to general public comments. Because of lengthy discussions and many questions in some of the technical areas, the meeting went beyond its noticed time of 4 p.m.. The applicant requested that staff continue the meeting beyond 4 p.m. so that they could obtain the clarifications they needed to respond to staff's data requests. Members of the public were concerned that they would not be able to participate in these discussions or have the opportunity to make their concerns known.

Ms. White decided to continue the meeting with the applicant beyond the 4 p.m. scheduled end time to ensure that the applicant would have enough time to address staff's data requests and file their response by August 23, 1999. In addition, staff indicated that an additional meeting would be scheduled to discuss and answer questions about key technical areas and receive more general comments. This additional meeting will be scheduled before the end of August 1999.

The meeting concluded at approximately 6:40 p.m..


John Carrier
CH2M Hill
2485 Natomas Park Dr. #600
Sacramento, CA  95833

Jeff Harris
Ellison & Schneider
2015 H Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Jim Adams
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Richard Buikema
City of San Jose
801 N. First Street
San Jose, CA  95110

Hyman Yip
278 Kaybe Ct.
San Jose, CA  95139

Thomas Priestley
HARZA Engineering
1900 Bates Ave, Suite K
Concord, CA  94520

Laurel Prevetti
City of San Jose
801 N. First St. #400
San Jose, CA  95110

William J Garbett
The Public
PO Box 36132
San Jose, CA  95139

Fred Herschbach
Operating Engineers
760 Emury Street
San Jose, CA  95126

Shiloh Ballard
Senator Sher's Office

Kerry Willis
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Joe Donaldson
Jones & Stokes
2600 V Street
Sacramento, CA  95819

Issa Ajlouny
168 Sprucemont Rd.
San Jose, CA  95139

Patrick Wigley
18 Cheltenham Way
San Jose, CA  95139

Sharron L Spotls
Tulare Hill +10A
7387 Tulare Hill Dr.
San Jose, CA  95139

Andrew Mendoza
CSJ - Dist. 2
801 N. First Street
San Jose, CA  95110

Helen M. Serenka
319 Los Pinos Way
San Jose, CA  95119

Burt Malech
1025 Masten Avenue
Gilroy, CA  95020

Paul Burnette
1960 Llagas Road
Morgan Hills, CA  95037

Jeffrey N. Browning
Coyote Ranch
PO  Box 13036
Coyotem CA  95013

Linda Spiegel
1516 Ninth Street-MS 40
Sacramento, CA  95814

Debra Crowe
2485 Natomas Park Dr. St. 600
Sacramento, CA  95833

Toni Pezzetti
2485 Natomas Park Dr. St. 600
Sacramento, CA  95833

Maria Ferrer
517 River Veiw Drive
San Jose, CA  95111

Houghton F. (Tom) Sawyer
Resident & Consultant
10005 Hale Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA  95037

Bob Nishimura
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco  94109

Eric Knight
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Ute M. Lorenz
Member of Rancho Santa Teresa
286 Sorrento Drive
San Jose, CA  95119

Dorothy Torres
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Tim Alton
243 French Ct.
San Jose, CA  95139

Ruth E. Malech
PO Box 13006
Coyote, CA  95013

Bob Anderson
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Lucille A. Melot
PO Box 13006
Coyote, CA  95013

California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Mike Ringer
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Gary Walker
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA  95814

Barry Witt
San Jose Mercury News
801 N. First Street, #206
San Jose, CA  95110

City of Morgan Hill
2940 Holiday Ct.
Morgan Hill, CA  95037

Dave Calderman
23 Kent Ct.
San Jose, CA  95139-1227

Rob Malect
17760 Monterey Rd. #A7
Morgan Hill, CA  95037

Donna Logan
Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation
298 Garden Hill Drive
Los Gatos, CA  95032

Randy Lamb
Gibson Speno
60 S. Market Street, Suite 1120
San Jose, CA 95113

Susan Ziemann
Villa De Santa Teresa HoA
PO Box 13122
Coyote, CA  95013-3122

Linda Hart
6429 DuSault Drive
San Jose, CA  95119

Burt Malech
Malech Farms
1025 Master Avenue
Gilroy, CA  95020

Jeff Dixon
5542 Monterey Rd. PMB129
San Jose, CA  95139

Paul Malech
17730 Del Monte Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA  95037

Sally Presant
Rancho Santa Teresa Committee
6456 San Anselmo Way
San Jose, CA  95119

Janis Moore
City of San Jose
801 N. 1st Street, Rm 400
San Jose, CA  95110

Michelle Wiktorowicz
Rancho Santa Teresa Committee
6416 San Anselmo Way
San Jose, CA  95119

John Hathaway
Calpine/Bechtel JV
6700 Koll Center Parkway, Ste 200
Pleasanton, CA  94566

Don Hall
111 Alameda Blvd.
San Jose, CA  95037

Ken Abreu
6700 Koll Center Parkway, Ste. 200
Pleasanton, CA   94566
8_3datreq.doc 10 August 25, 1999

August 25, 1999 1 8_3datreq.doc

| Back to Main Page | Homepage | Calendar | Directory/Index | Search |