LAKEPORT — The Lake County Board of Supervisors (BOS) Tuesday continued for one week a final decision regarding the Friends of Cobb Mountain appeal of the Lake County Planning Commission”s January decisions regarding the proposed Bottle Rock Power (BRP) expansion project.
The BOS heard more than five hours of testimony from the appellant, county staff, BRP and concerned Cobb citizens during Tuesday”s regular BOS meeting before closing the public hearing and taking the presented evidence under submission.
The four Supervisors present at the meeting cited various reasons in support of the continuance, including wanting more time to review the evidence and allowing absent District 4 Supervisor Anthony Farrington time to view the meeting”s video-recording and decide whether he would be informed enough to weigh in on the final decision.
BRP, which currently operates a power plant and three geothermal well pads on leased property on High Valley Road in Cobb, has proposed to construct two new well pads and drill up to 22 productions and injection wells during the life of the project.
The company also plans to add about 1.3 miles of new pipeline on roughly 470 acres of surface land the company currently leases from the Binkley Family Trust. BRP acquired the subsurface rights to the area from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 2007, according to general manager Brian Harms.
The Planning Commission voted on several motions regarding the expansion project following a daylong meeting on Jan. 13, approving minor modifications to BRP”s existing use permit and associated traffic control plan and the new major use permit for the project, and recommending the project”s rezone proposal to the BOS.
The commission previously certified the project”s final environmental impact report (EIR) following a daylong special meeting on Dec. 22.
Friends of Cobb Mountain, a local environmental group, filed an appeal of the commission”s decisions to the BOS on Jan. 19.
The group listed 11 reasons for its petition, including that the EIR inadequately addressed several issues and that the project approvals were not in line with county codes and the General Plan.
Community Development Director Richard Coel said in his staff report to the BOS that county staff recommended denying the appeal, partly because “no substantial evidence has been provided by the appellant.”
Five people spoke on behalf of the group at Tuesday”s meeting and were asked to focus their comments on one of the 11 listed reasons. Hamilton Hess, Friends of Cobb Mountain chairman, addressed the group”s concerns of “land-scarring” and “noxious and obnoxious” air quality.
Hess also asked the BOS to consider amending the mitigation measurements outlined in the approved use permit regarding preservation of sensitive plant species.
Scot Stegeman spoke next, identifying himself as a land-use and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specialist.
He said that not all potential significant impacts of the project were mitigated by the EIR and questioned whether the commission made its decision in accordance with the county code, among his contentions.
Randall Fung, a High Valley Road resident, said he questioned whether all alternate entry-exit roads were properly analyzed. BRP”s main access road is High Valley Road.
David Coleman was the fourth appellant presenter and the first to speak after the lunch break. Coleman briefly addressed a concern about whether the project had been adequately bonded and insured.
Robert Stark, another Cobb resident, was the final presenter. He questioned whether water issues were adequately addressed in the EIR, saying, “There is no watershed protection for the surface water in this document.”
Coel and Mark Winsor, a representative of AECOM, the company that drafted the EIR, responded after each presenter”s comments, saying they supported the quality and depth of the EIR as it addressed each appellant concern. Coel and Winsor also addressed Supervisors” concerns as they arose.
Harms spoke about BRP”s emergency response protocol, which he said was typical for such businesses and in line with government regulations.
BOS Chairman Jim Comstock opened the meeting for public comment just after 2:10 p.m.
Nearly 15 people spoke during the public session, most being Cobb residents and all voicing opposition to the expansion project. The concerned citizens introduced a number of topics pertaining to their objection, including issues with potential air quality, noise, vehicle traffic, health and safety, the viability of the steam energy and obstructed scenery.
The public comment closed just after 3:15 p.m., and Stegeman presented the appellant”s rebuttal at 3:30 p.m., reiterating the concerns he previously introduced.
Coel followed with a short staff rebuttal, continuing his support of the mitigation measures outlined in the use permit and of the final EIR, which he called the “most detailed” EIR he has seen in his 20 years working for the county.
Following the rebuttals, District 5 Supervisor Rob Brown said he wanted time allotted for Farrington to review the material and offer his perspective because of the “magnitude” of the issue.
District 3 Supervisor Denise Rushing concurred with Brown, and District 2 Supervisor Jeff Smith said he would like more time to “absorb the information” presented Tuesday. Comstock agreed with the other three Supervisors.
The BOS gave consensus to take the information and testimony under submission. The BOS is scheduled to make a final decision on the appeal on March 1 at 1:30 p.m.
The BOS was also scheduled to consider the rezone proposal for the project on Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. BRP is requesting to rezone about 60 acres of the parcel from Planned Development Residential, Frozen parcel size (PDR-BF) to Rural Lands, Frozen parcel size (RL-BF).
The BOS has rescheduled the rezone public hearing to March 1 at 2:30 p.m.
