Probably the most reasonable concern I've heard voiced is the storage of aqueous ammonia at the facility. We need to get more information about this situation.

Other that that, I see that there is a lot of emotional reaction to this proposal and that no matter what data may be submitted, that reaction would not be altered.

Those who are concerned about the appearance of the plant should go up on Metcalf road and see if they can even see where the site is. The view is largely blocked by the PG&E substation which is much larger than the proposed power plant. The transmission line towers are taller than the cooling towers would be. I don't see how anyone who chooses to live in view of the substation would upset about the view of the power plant.

Those who believe the plant should be built in one of the alternate sites don't seem to give a [xxxx] about the impact that construction of the plant, water pipes, and transmission lines would have on areas that 'environmentalists' are so keen to leave untouched by human activity.

I submit that living next to another home is a greater danger to you than having this power plant located at the proposed site.

It make sense to build it there given the existing substation, and other support facilities.

We all use power, we are all dependent on power. I think it would be good to have the reliability of having a source nearby. Given the size of the proposed facility by Cisco, I'm sure they won't be upset at having reliable power nearby.

I don't see any reason at this point, pending revelation of some significant factor, to be unalterably opposed to the proposal. Calm down and let's learn all we can first.

Sam Grove
www.santateresa.com