|
Information Meeting Details
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) conducted a public
meeting on Application No. 03-03-043, an application submitted
by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) seeking approval of a Permit
to Construct for electrical facilities with voltages between 20 kV and
50 kV. The proposed project is referred to as the Viejo System Project
and consists of:
- Proposed construction of a new 220/66/12 kV substation;
- Addition of a new 3.1-mile 66 kV circuit in an existing transmission
corridor;
- Replacement of 19 tubular steel poles carrying two 66 kV circuits
with 13 H-frame structures capable of carrying up to four
66 kV circuits; and
- Various related improvements.
The proposed project would be located in the Cities of Mission Viejo
and Lake Forest in Orange County, California.
The purpose of the meeting was:
- To inform the public about the project
- To provide information on the CPUC's application review and permit
process
- To describe the environmental review process
- To identify issues of concern and areas of potential controversy
Date and Time. Tuesday, September
30, 2003. The meeting began at 6:00 p.m. and ended at approximately 9:00
p.m.
Location. The Saddleback Room
located in the Mission Viejo City Hall in Mission Viejo, California.
Public Notice. Notice of the
public meeting was published in:
- The Orange County Register on Sunday, September 21, 2003;
and
- The Saddleback Valley News on two consecutive Fridays, September
19 and 26, 2003.
Sign-In and Meeting Handouts.
Each meeting attendee was welcomed upon entering the Saddleback Room and
asked to provide name and contact information. In total, 24 attendees
signed in. Informational handouts about the proposed project, environmental
review process, and the public meeting were distributed, including:
- The meeting agenda;
- A project fact sheet providing a brief project description, a summary
of the regulatory review and regulatory process, a map of the project
location, the project website address, hotline number, and U.S. Mail
address; and
- A copy of the public meeting presentation slides.
Presentation. Aspen Environmental
Group (Aspen), the CPUC's environmental consultant, conducted a presentation
about the Viejo System Project, the CPUC regulatory authority and application
review process, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental
review process starting at 6:15 p.m. Representatives from CPUC and Aspen
presented as follows:
- Jon Davidson, Aspen Project Manager, welcomed all members of the public,
conducted introductions, described the meeting purpose, and summarized
the agenda.
- Michael Rosauer, CPUC Energy Division Project Manager, gave an overview
of the CPUC regulatory authority and application review process applicable
to the proposed project. In addition, he opened the floor to questions
and comments concerning the proposed project. Questions from the audience
were fielded throughout the remainder of the presentation.
- Jon Davidson briefly described the proposed project, presented the
proposed project schedule, and answered questions from the public regarding
tower heights, EMF, exact location of the right-of-way, and purpose
of the project. In addition, the meeting attendees asked about the location
of the project, the possibilities of the project being built underground,
and voiced significant concern regarding the visual impacts that would
result if the proposed project is approved. At this point, Jon Davidson
began directing technical questions regarding project need, project
design, and EMF to Neal Hunstein of SCE and other SCE representatives
in attendance at the CPUC's request. SCE representatives provided answers
to questions as needed throughout the remainder of the meeting.
- Negar Vahidi, Aspen Deputy Project Manager, gave an overview of the
CEQA review process (and how it pertains to this project), outlined
the issues to be analyzed in the environmental document, and answered
questions about how to provide comments during the environmental review
process.
- Jon Davidson provided information on how to track the project, provide
future comments, and offered closing comments.
Comments and Questions. Overall,
the members of the audience were vocal about a number of issues regarding
the proposed project. These issues are summarized below by category.
|
—
|
Project Description |
| |
Concerns were expressed over why Mission Viejo would have to bear
the burden of a transmission line if the City is already almost 100%
built out and the line would service areas outside of the City (i.e.,
what are the benefits of the proposed project to Mission Viejo homeowners). |
— |
Proposed Alternatives |
| |
Request for consideration of an underground alternative. |
| |
Project alternatives are not addressed in SCE's fact sheet. |
| |
Requests to be notified about all the project alternatives.
|
— |
Aesthetics |
| |
Discussions occurred regarding whether CPUC takes aesthetic values
into account in the decision-making process. |
| |
Most meeting attendees were extremely concerned about the resultant
visual impacts on their homes if the proposed project is constructed. |
| |
Concern was expressed that approximately 4,000 homes would be affected
visually if the proposed project were constructed. (This was an estimate
of the number of homes from which the transmission corridor is visible.) |
| |
Most homeowners present were concerned about how the proposed project's
visual impacts will affect their property values. |
| |
Homeowners expressed discontent over the current visual effects
(from the existing transmission lines) they experience on a day-to-day
basis. |
| |
General concerns were voiced about the potential for additional
transmission lines being constructed in the future on the new and
larger H-frame structures if the project is approved.
|
— |
Noise |
| |
Concern was expressed about corona noise from both the existing
and proposed transmission lines. |
— |
Property Values |
| |
Numerous attendees expressed concern about the proposed project's
adverse effect on property values. |
| |
Questions were asked about how property value effects would be considered
in the decision-making process. |
| |
Questions were asked regarding the possibility of monetary compensation
for any decrease in property values if the project is approved. |
| |
One attendee expressed concern that the values of approximately
4,000 homes would be affected if the proposed project is constructed. |
— |
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) |
| |
Concerns were expressed about the amount of EMF emitted by transmission
lines and the resultant health effects. |
| |
Meeting attendees wanted to know the current EMF levels associated
with the existing transmission lines versus the potential EMF levels
with the proposed project. |
| |
Questions were asked about potential EMF levels if transmission
lines were built underground versus overhead. |
| |
There was discussion about the possibility of shielding underground
transmission lines in order to decrease EMF levels. |
| |
SCE provided an explanation of the different amounts of EMF that
could be emitted from transmission lines placed aboveground versus
underground. |
| |
Questions were asked about the configuration of the proposed H-frame
structures and how this could potentially decrease EMF levels. |
— |
Public Involvement and Notification |
| |
One attendee asked that the Initial Study (IS) and Proponents Environmental
Assessment (PEA) be posted at all repository sites. |
| |
Complaints were received saying that the CPUC mailer resembled junk
mail and therefore may have been ignored by many who received it. |
| |
A complaint was received saying that the newspaper notice was too
small in both the Orange County Register and the Saddleback
Valley Newspaper. |
| |
One attendee asked that all homeowners be notified by mail of the
availability of the IS upon completion. |
| |
One attendee asked that an informational meeting be made a required
step in the CPUC review process. |
| |
Concerns were expressed that the public was being informed about
the project too late in the process. |
| |
Some attendees wanted to know how they could become more involved
in the CPUC decision-making process. |
| |
Some attendees expressed confusion about the CPUC approval process
and environmental review process. |
| |
Some attendees requested information on how to provide feedback
and input to CPUC decision makers. |
|
