8.8 Socioeconomics8.8.1 Affected EnvironmentThis section discusses the environmental setting, consequences, regional and local impacts, and mitigation measures associated with the socioeconomic aspects of MEC. For purposes of this evaluation, the regional area for demographics is defined as Santa Clara County, which is equivalent to the San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The City of San Jose is used for all other information (public services and utilities), because it is intended that the facility’s site will be annexed into the city (refer to Section 8.4.4 for further discussion on the annexation process). Socioeconomic issues relevant to the existing environment include population, employment, economic base and fiscal resources, housing, schools, and public services and utilities.Most of the MEC site and the electric transmission and natural gas line routes are located in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the site is primarily agricultural and open space. Land to the south is primarily agricultural but may be developed into a campus industrial park. There are a few residences (primarily farmers) in the vicinity of the site. A large residential area begins approximately three-quarters of a mile to the northwest (on the other side of Tulare Hill) in the San Jose. The water line routes are located in San Jose. Economic activities close by include an IBM satellite facility and PG&E’s Metcalf Substation.Section 8.8.1 describes the environment that may be affected by MEC construction and operation. Section 8.8.2 identifies environmental impacts from development of the power plant, and Section 8.8.3 discusses cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 8.8.4. Section 8.8.5 presents the LORs applicable to socioeconomics. Section 8.8.6 describes the agencies involved and provides agency contacts. Section 8.8.7 presents the required permits and permitting schedule. Section 8.8.8 provides references used in the development of this section.

8.8.1.1 PopulationSanta Clara County is located in the California’s San Francisco Bay area. Located in the South Bay, the county is highly urbanized. Incorporated cities in Santa Clara County include Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. Historical population data for Santa Clara County and San Jose are summarized in Table 8.8-1. Annual average compounded population growth rates are summarized in Table 8.8-2. In 1995, Santa Clara County had a population of approximately 1.6 million persons. Over half (55 percent) of that population reside in San Jose. San Jose is the eleventh largest city in the United States and the third largest in California (San Jose Chamber of Commerce, 1999).The decade from 1980 to 1990 was a period of explosive growth for California. Although the Bay Area also experienced large population increases during this period (Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG], 1995), the rate of growth in San Jose exceeded the rate for San Jose MSA (Santa Clara County) and also the nine-county Bay Area rate. From 1990 to 1995, growth in San Jose exceeded SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-1REV. 6-4-99

the Bay Area’s and the MSA’s growth rates. However, regional population growth in the future is expected to stabilize as the area becomes more built out. From 1995 to 2015, growth in both San Jose and the MSA is expected to remain slower than the state average.

TABLE 8.8-1Historical and Projected Populations

Area 1980 1990 1995 2000 (p) 2010 (p) 2015 (p)

City of San Jose 690,100 820,900 888,800 956,800 1,031,600 1,048,900San Jose MSA/Santa Clara County

1,295,100 1,497,600 1,611,200 1,719,150 1,844,300 1,880,650

Nine-County Bay Area 5,159,800 6,020,150 6,492,950 6,777,900 7,374,250 7,548,950California 23,668,000 29,760,000 31,910,000 34,653,000 39,958,000 N/ASources: ABAG, 1995; California Department of Finance (DOF), 1999(p) projected

TABLE 8.8-2Historical and Projected Annual Compounded Population Growth Rates

Area 1980-1990 1990-1995 1995-2000 (p) 2000-2010 (p) 2010-2015 (p)

City of San Jose 1.75% 1.60% 1.49% 0.76% 0.33%San Jose MSA/Santa Clara County

1.46% 1.47% 1.31% 0.71% 0.39%

Nine-County Bay Area 1.55% 1.52% 0.86% 0.85% 0.47%California 2.32% 1.40% 1.66% 1.43% N/A(p) projected

Historically, Santa Clara County’s ethnic composition has had a Caucasian majority. In 1996, Caucasians accounted for 52 percent of the population. Asians or Pacific Islanders (21 percent) and persons of Hispanic origin (23 percent) were also well represented. African Americans constituted only 4 percent of the population (DOF, 1999). However, ethnic projections for 1998 indicate that Caucasians have dipped below the majority for the first time. The ethnic composition was projected to be 49.7 percent Caucasian, 23.8 percent Hispanic, 22.6 percent Asian and Pacific Islander, 3.6 percent African American, and 0.3 percent Native American (DOF, 1998). San Jose’s ethnic composition is very similar to that of the San Jose MSA. However, during the 1990 census, the area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project (i.e., the community of Coyote, zip code 95013) had a higher percentage than average of Caucasians (at 74.6 percent). The same area comprises 23.3 percent Hispanics, 19.5 percent Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 5.9 percent American Indians. No African Americans or other minorities are represented (CD USA, 1998; DOF, 1999). (Although Hispanics can be represented in more than one ethnic category, these data appear somewhat suspect, since all Hispanics would have to be reported in two categories.)

8.8.1.2 HousingAs of January 1, 1998, the total housing stock for the San Jose MSA was 573,593 units (DOF, 1999). Single family homes accounted for 368,188 units, multiple family dwellings accounted for 184,787 units, and mobile homes accounted for 20,618 units. New housing authorizations for the San Jose MSA in 1997 totaled SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-2REV. 6-4-99

8,810 units; these were almost evenly split between single family and multi-family units. These authorizations were valued at $1.329 billion (DOF, 1999). In November 1998, the median home price was $295,000. Although the San Jose MSA’s vacancy rate increased slightly between 1990 and 1998 (from 3.7 percent to 3.85 percent), the housing shortage in the area is still a significant issue. In addition, the 1998 figure is less than the federal housing standard of 5 percent; this also indicates a short supply of housing in the San Jose MSA.Housing stock for San Jose as of January 1, 1998, was 278,403 units. Single family homes accounted for 184,045 units, multiple family dwellings accounted for 82,689 units, and mobile homes accounted for 11,669 units. San Jose’s vacancy rate is 3.53 percent, which is also less than the federal housing standard of 5 percent. Although San Jose issued permits for 5,710 units between January 1996 and June 1997 (ABAG, 1999), which is the highest number of any city in the Bay Area, the city and the MSA are still struggling with a housing shortage. By 2020, the San Jose MSA is projected to gain 50 percent more jobs but only 20 percent more housing units (ABAG, 1999).

8.8.1.3 EconomyThe local agencies with taxing power include Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose. Santa Clara County is the center for the development of high technology products. California’s DOF named the county as having the strongest economy in the state (Santa Clara County Office of Education [SCCOE], 1999). For FY 1998, Santa Clara County’s Board of Supervisors approved an annual budget of $2.1 billion. Comparing the FY 1999 Approved budget and the FY 2000 Recommended budget, funding decreases are planned to occur in the following areas: Legislative and Executive, Social Services, Environmental Resources, Employee Services, and Finance. The funding categories generally include the following county programs: Special Programs and Reserves: Medical Care Financing, Criminal Justice

System, Re-budgeted Items Legislative and Executive: Board of Supervisors, County Clerk, County

Executive, Assessor, County Counsel General Services Agency: Data Processing, Systems Planning, User Training,

Communications, Emergency Preparedness, Administrative Management, Registrar of Voters, Facilities Operations

Health and Hospital System: Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Emergency Services, Disease Control, Public Health, Mental Health, Children’s Center, Alcohol and Drug Services

Social Services Agency: Administration, Nutrition Services, Welfare Law and Justice Departments: Child support, Criminal Units and Crime

Laboratory, Public Defender, Conflicts Administration, Municipal Court, Office of the Sheriff, Department of Corrections, Probation Department

Finance Agency: Controller, Treasurer Fire Districts Environmental Resources Agency: Housing and Community Development,

Planning and Development/Agriculture, Department of Environmental Health, Parks and Recreation

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-3REV. 6-4-99

Employee Services Agency: Human resources, Labor Relations, Occupational Safety and Environmental Compliance, Risk Management

Roads and AirportsTable 8.8-3 shows how the funds were allocated. Table 8.8-4 shows funding revenues for the county in FY 1997, FY 1998 and FY 2000.

TABLE 8.8-3Santa Clara County Budget Appropriations for FY 1998, FY 1999 and FY 2000 Recommendations ($ Million)

Expenditures by AgencyFY 1998 (Actual)

FY 1999 (Approved)

FY 1999 (Adjusted)

FY 2000 (Recommended)

Special Programs and Reserves $54 $122 $122 $132Legislative and Executive $52 $60 $341 $59General Services Agency $132 $125 $175 $143SCV Health and Hospital System $781 $467* $475* $776Social Services Agency $350 $427 $432 $420Law and Justice Departments $355 $367 $374 $366Environmental Resources Agency $46 $69 $9 $68Employee Services Agency $42 $494 $50 $48Finance Agency $118 $33 $91 $31Roads and Airports $21 $38 $53 $50Fire Districts $38 $42 $42 $53Total Expenditures $1,990 $1,801 $2,247 $2,147

*The totals for the Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System are incorrect for FY 1999. Correct information will be provided at the FY 2000 Recommended Budget hearings in June 1999.

Source: County of Santa Clara, 1999

TABLE 8.8-4Santa Clara County Revenues, 1997- 1998 ($ Million)

Revenues by TypeFY 1998 (Actual)

FY 1999 (Approved)

FY 1999 (Adjusted)

FY 2000 (Recommended)

Taxes – Current Property $204 $207 $207 $213Taxes – Other than Current Property $23 $28 $36 $30Licenses, Permits, Franchises $16 $8 $8 $8Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties $15 $5 $5 $17Revenue from Use of Money/Property $47 $31 $31 $26Aid from State Government $486 $515 $520 $520Aid from Federal Government $239 $294 $302 $319Charges for Current Services $54 $56 $57 $58Transfers $89 $95 $96 $94Other Revenues $32 $48 $50 $34Total Revenue $1,205 $1,286 $1,312 $1,319

Source: County of Santa Clara, 1998

As shown in Table 8.8-4A, San Jose adopted a $623 million general fund budget in FY 1998-99, a 23 percent increase over the prior year. However, the proposed budget for FY 1999-2000 is $590 million, a 5.3 percent decrease from the current budget. For FY 1999-2000, there is a slight decrease in General Government spending and Community Services, but a strong increase in spending for Public Safety (10%). The proposed FY 1999-2000 budget anticipates a decrease in revenues from the Federal Government, Departmental Charges and Other Revenue, as shown in Table 8.8-4B.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-4REV. 6-4-99

TABLE 8.8-4ASan Jose General Fund Budget Appropriations FY 1997, FY 1998 and FY 1999 ($ Million)

1997-98 (Actual)

1998-99 (Adopted)

1999-2000 (Proposed)

General Government $46 $ 53 $ 52Public Safety Fire $77 $ 77 $ 87 Police $156 $ 159 $ 174Capital Maintenance $47 $ 50 $ 50Community Services Environmental Services $1 $ 1 $ 1 Library $18 $ 17 $ 17 Planning, Building & Code Enforcement $20 $ 25 $ 23 Convention, Arts & Entertainment $10 $ 9 $ 9 Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood $34 $ 38 $ 37Non-Departmental $96 $ 192 $ 138TOTAL $507 $ 623 $ 590Source: City of San Jose, 1999.

TABLE 8.8-4BSan Jose General Fund Revenue Sources for FY 1997, FY 1998 and FY 1999 ($ Million)

1997-98 (Actual)

1998-99 (Adopted)

1999-2000 (Proposed)

Fund Balance $109 $ 118 $ 67Property Taxes $63 $ 61 $ 67Sales Taxes $121 $ 121 $ 128Transient Occupancy Taxes $7 $ 7 $ 7Franchise Fees $26 $ 26 $ 29Utility Taxes $65 $ 48 $ 50Licenses and Permits $66 $ 61 $ 62Fines and Forfeitures $8 $ 9 $ 9Money & Property $15 $ 13 $ 13Revenue from Local Agencies $30 $ 32 $ 32Revenue from State Government $39 $ 39 $ 43Revenue from Federal Government $ 6 $ 2 $ 2Departmental Charges $21 $ 20 $ 18Other Revenue $7 $ 8 $ 6Interfund Transfers & Reimbursements $ 54 $ 58 $ 57TOTAL $ 634 $ 623 $ 590Source: City of San Jose, 1999.

The San Jose MSA economy is based on (in order of importance): services, manufacturing, and retail trade (see Table 8.8-5). High technology jobs are projected to continue to drive the San Jose MSA’s economy (ABAG, 1995). Multimedia, networking, and other new types of high technology companies will continue to locate in the valley to have access to the technological and business community that has nurtured high technology businesses in the past. Between 1995 and 1998, employment in the San Jose MSA increased by 137,250 jobs. This 17 percent increase (5.25 percent average annual compound growth SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-5REV. 6-4-99

rate) is well above California’s net increase (10 percent) during that same period. Government and construction led the expansion; most gains were in local education and special trades. However, although government and construction employment increased substantially between 1995 and 1998, the contribution by these sectors to the San Jose MSA economy remained relatively small. Employment in the services industry also increased (15 percent), primarily in business

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-6REV. 6-4-99

services and health care. The agriculture and mining sectors saw the only decrease in employment (21 percent).

TABLE 8.8-5Employment Distribution in the San Jose MSA, 1995 to 1998

Industry

1995 1998 1995-1998

Number of Employeesa

Employment Share

Number of Employeesb

Employment Share

Percentage Change

Average Annual Compound Growth Rate

Agriculture, Mining 6,430 1% 5,100 1% -21% -7.4%Construction 28,730 3% 44,000 5% 53% 15.3%Manufacturing 231,590 28% 250,300 26% 8% 2.6%Transportation, Utilities 25,440 3% 29,000 3% 14% 4.5%Wholesale trade 52,240 6% 59,400 6% 14% 4.4%Retail trade 120,430 15% 134,600 14% 12% 3.8%Finance, Insurance and Real Estate

31,280 4% 31,600 3% 1% 0.3%

Services 278,410 34% 319,000 33% 15% 4.6%Government 52,800 6% 91,600 9% 73% 20.2%Total Employment 827,350 100% 964,600 100% 17% 5.25%

Sources: a: ABAG, 1995b: California CEDD, 1999

Table 8.8-6 provides more detail on the characteristics of the San Jose MSA labor force. It shows employment data for the San Jose MSA and for San Jose in relation to California. Over half (51 percent) of the San Jose MSA’s labor force works in San Jose, while 54 percent of the San Jose MSA’s unemployed laborers reside there. However, the MSA’s unemployment rate (3.4 percent) is well-below California’s unemployment rate (5.8 percent), with only 32,100 people unemployed. California does not forecast unemployment rates, so no future forecast is available.

TABLE 8.8-6San Jose MSA Employment Data, 1998

Area Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment Rate

San Jose 485,460 468,260 17,200 3.5%San Jose MSA 957,000 924,900 32,100 3.4%California 16,326,600 15,380,700 945,900 5.8%

Source: CEDD, 1999

8.8.1.4 Plant ConstructionActual construction will take place over approximately 18 to 20 months during the 2-year construction period, from the fall of 2000 to the summer of 2002. Personnel requirements will be minimal during the mobilization period (i.e., during the first 4 months of the construction period). The primary trades in demand will include boilermakers, carpenters, electricians, ironworkers, laborers, millwrights, operators, pipefitters, and others, as presented in Table 8.8.7. Tables 8.8-7 and 8.8-8 estimate construction personnel requirements for the plant and pipeline facilities, respectively. Total construction personnel requirements during the 20 months of construction will be approximately 4,085 person-months, or 340.4 person-years. Construction personnel requirements will peak at 399 workers during month 16 of the construction period. SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-5REV. 6-4-99

TABLE 8.8-7Construction Personnel for Plant Construction by Month

Months After Notice-To-Proceed

Discipline 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Total

Insulation Workers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 14 20 24 24 18 6 0 122Boilermakers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 20 36 42 42 42 42 36 25 15 5 0 0 310Bricklayers/Masons 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 30Carpenters 0 2 7 10 10 10 12 14 14 10 8 8 8 6 5 4 4 1 0 0 133Electricians 0 2 4 5 10 12 14 20 39 56 58 65 65 52 44 31 21 14 4 4 520Ironworkers 0 2 3 5 10 10 18 18 25 30 30 30 25 8 3 3 3 1 0 0 224Laborers 2 3 9 9 9 9 10 15 15 13 11 11 11 10 7 7 15 11 3 2 182Millwrights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 19 24 24 22 16 8 2 1 0 133Operating Engineers 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 10 12 12 12 12 12 10 7 5 4 2 1 1 138Painters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 3 2 2 18Pipefitters 0 0 2 3 6 6 12 49 63 79 86 86 74 74 52 34 25 10 4 4 669Sheetmetal Workers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 8 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26Surveyors 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 34Teamsters 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 58Total Manual Staff 10 17 36 44 58 61 80 139 196 252 275 296 285 250 207 160 127 68 22 14 2,597Total Contractor Staff 3 6 11 15 17 17 26 30 31 32 32 32 32 32 30 24 18 12 6 4 410Total Site Staff 13 23 47 59 75 78 106 169 227 284 307 328 317 282 237 184 145 80 28 18 3,007

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-6REV. 6-4-99

TABLE 8.8-8Construction Personnel Requirements for Pipeline Construction by Month

Months After Notice-To-Proceed

Discipline 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Total

Water LinePipefitters 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 201Laborers 9 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 27 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 362Teamsters 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 193Surveyors 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 48Operating Engineers 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 80Foremen/Supervisors 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 69Water Line Subtotal 24 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 71 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 953Gas LineForeman/Supervisors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14Equipment Operators 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27Surveyors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Laborers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 25 28 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75Teamsters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Gas Line Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 40 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125Total 24 48 48 48 48 48 48 73 88 88 68 71 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 1,078

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-7REV. 6-4-99

Available skilled labor in Santa Clara County was evaluated by surveying local labor unions (Table 8.8-9) and contacting the CEDD (Table 8.8-10). Both sources show that the workforce in the county will be adequate to fulfill MEC’s labor requirements for construction. In addition, as shown in Table 8.8-5, the construction workforce within the San Jose MSA has been growing at an average annual rate of 15.3 percent per year.

TABLE 8.8-9Labor Union Contacts

Labor Union Contact Phone Number

IBEW Local No. 332 Julie McCarthy 408/294-4906Cement Masons Union Local 400 Hector Cartez 408/266-9160Millwrights Local Union 102 Ed Gable 510/635-0323Operating Engineers Union Local No. 3 Terry Empert 408/295-8788

TABLE 8.8-10Available Labor by Skill in Santa Clara County, 1995 to 2002

Occupational Title

Annual AveragesAbsolute Change

Percentage Change

Average Annual Compounded Growth Rate1995 2002

Carpenters 4,450 5,430 980 22% 4.06%

Masons 1,590 2,080 490 31% 5.52%

Painters 1,600 2,120 520 33% 5.79%

Metal Workers 5,120 6,350 1,230 24% 4.40%

Electricians 15,000 17,040 2,040 14% 2.58%

Welders 1,210 1,470 260 22% 3.97%

Excavators 190 250 60 32% 5.64%

Graders 110 140 30 27% 4.94%

Industrial Truck Operators 1,450 1,740 290 20% 3.71%

Operating Engineers 510 650 140 28% 4.97%

Helpers, Laborers 23,440 30,940 7,500 32% 5.71%

Pipefitters 1,700 2,270 570 34% 5.95%

Administrative Services Managers 3,020 3,630 610 20% 3.75%

Mechanical Engineers 2,640 3,500 860 33% 5.80%

Electrical Engineers 18,430 24,400 5,970 32% 5.77%

Engineering Technicians 21,860 26,700 4,840 22% 4.08%

Plant and System Operators 750 860 110 15% 2.77%

Source: CEDD, 1999

It is expected that most of the construction labor force will be drawn from the local area and will commute daily less than 30 miles each way to reach the job site. Almost all of the workforce will commute 60 miles or less.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-8REV. 6-4-99

8.8.1.5 Plant OperationThe proposed MEC facility is expected to begin commercial operation in 2002. It is expected to employ at least 20 full-time employees. Anticipated job classifications are shown in Table 8.8-11. All of the permanent workforce are expected to commute from within Santa Clara County.

TABLE 8.8-11Plant Operation Workforce

Department Personnel Shift Work days

Operations 10 Operating Technicians Rotating 12-hour shift, 2 operators per shift, 2 relief operators

7 days a week

Maintenance 5 Maintenance Technicians (2 mechanical, 1 electrical, and 2 instrumentation)

Standard 8-hour days 5 days a week

(Maintenance technicians will also work unscheduled days and hours as required [weekends])

Administration 5 Administrators (1 Operations Supervisor, 1 Maintenance Supervisor, 1 Plant Manager, 1 Plant Administrator, and 1 Plant Engineer)

Standard 8-hour days 5 days a week with additional coverage as required

8.8.1.6 Fiscal ResourcesThe MEC initial capital cost is estimated to be $300 to $400 million; of this, materials and supplies are estimated at approximately $250 million. The estimated value of materials and supplies that will be purchased locally is between $5 and $10 million. The total sales tax expected to be generated during construction is $412,500 to $825,000 (i.e., 8.25 percent of local sales). MEC will provide about $40.8 million in construction payroll, at an average salary of $60 per hour (including benefits).The annual operations budget will be $2 to $4 million, which will be spent locally. In addition, there will be an annual maintenance budget of $10 to $15 million. Assuming an average operations salary of $50,000 per year, MEC will spend $1 million in annual operations payroll.MEC is expected to bring both sales tax and property tax revenue to Santa Clara County. The valuation of a power generating facility for property tax purposes is typically based on one of two approaches: 1) the cost approach (i.e., the cost to build MEC until the point at which it is operational, including tangible and soft costs); or 2) the revenue approach (i.e., MEC’s anticipated revenue-generating capability over time). Generally, the cost approach is used if projected revenues are difficult to establish (Jackson, 1999). According to the California State Board of Equalization, the selection of valuation approach is decided by the jurisdiction that is charged with assessing the property. The California State Board of Equalization is currently debating whether a power generating facility should be valued at the county or the state level. If it were assessed by the state, the property tax revenues would be allocated on a countywide basis; if it were assessed at the county level, the allocation would be disbursed to the local tax jurisdiction within which the facility is located (Jackson, 1999).

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-9REV. 6-4-99

The basic countywide property tax rate of 1.0 percent, plus any existing bonds or special assessments (no greater than 1.3 percent), will be applied to the estimated valuation. If the facility is assessed between $300 and $400 million, the total property tax obligation will range from $3 to $5.2 million annually.

8.8.1.7 Public Services8.8.1.7.1 Law EnforcementThe Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department is headquartered at 1541 Civic Center Drive in Santa Clara. The department handles emergency calls from locations outside of city boundaries. Depending on the magnitude of the emergency, it calls upon the San Jose Police Department for additional assistance. The nearest police substation to the MEC site is in San Martin between Morgan Hill and Gilroy, at 12425 Monterey Road. The police substation has 26 to 30 sworn full-time officers. In addition, the MEC site is on the border of two units (East Side and South County) that patrol the area near the site. The response time to an emergency call from MEC would be approximately 3 to 6 minutes (Hirokawa, 1999). The San Jose Police Department is headquartered at 201 West Mission Street in northern San Jose. It has 1300 sworn police officers, 429 civilian support personnel, 350 patrol cars, and other vehicles and equipment. The Communications Division, equipped with a state-of-the-art, computer-aided dispatch system, receives and processes 9-1-1 calls for service and coordinates the response of emergency equipment and personnel.The San Jose Police Department is separated into 13 districts and has law enforcement responsibility within the city limits. However, police units will respond to calls made from pockets of county areas as necessary. The MEC site is on the southern border of the Yellow District. The Yellow District is equipped with 15 patrol units and, depending on the time of day, 5 to 6 units typically patrol the district. The response time to a call from the MEC site ranges from 15 seconds to 3 minutes, depending on other incidents in the area.The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is the primary law enforcement agency for state highways and roads. Services include law enforcement, traffic control, accident investigation, and the management of hazardous materials spill incidents. 8.8.1.7.2 Fire ProtectionThe MEC site is formally within the South Santa Clara County Fire District’s jurisdiction. However, the San Jose Fire Department generally provides service to county pockets that are surrounded by city lands, such as the MEC site (McClure, 1999; Dunlap, 1999). Station No. 27 on Bernal Road near Santa Teresa Park will respond to a call from the MEC site in approximately 6 to 7 minutes. Station No. 27 is staffed by four fire fighters and one fire engine. For a major structural fire, the assistance of Station No. 18, located at the intersection of Monterey Road and Skyway Avenue, will be enlisted. Station No. 18 is staffed by nine fire fighters, one fire engine, and one fire truck. A 270,000-gallon capacity fire/service water storage tank onsite will have a minimum of 240,000 gallons of water dedicated to the fire protection system.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-10REV. 6-4-99

The dedicated water supply is sized in accordance with NFPA 850 to provide 2 hours of protection from the onsite worst-case single fire. 8.8.1.7.3 Hazardous MaterialsIn the event of an emergency, plant personnel will defer to a city or county Hazardous Materials Response Team. For Santa Clara County, the team is the Seven Springs Unit, a Type I team located in Cupertino at Fire Station No. 2. For San Jose, the team is the HIT (hazardous incidence team) located at San Jose Fire Station No. 29 (1999 Innovation Drive) in northern San Jose between Highways 101 and 880. Station No. 29 is able to manage all kinds of hazardous materials emergencies, including incidents involving aqueous ammonia (Smith, 1999).8.8.1.7.4 HospitalsThere are approximately 15 hospitals with emergency rooms in Santa Clara County. The Valley Medical Center (VMC), located at 751 South Bascom Avenue, is a publicly owned, 394-bed, full-service, primary, secondary, and tertiary care medical facility. It is affiliated with the Stanford University School of Medicine and is a teaching institution. Specialty services at the hospital include: Regional Burn Center; Trauma Center; Rehabilitation Center; High Risk Maternity Program; and Neonatal Intensive Care Center. The Santa Clara Kaiser Permanente Medical Center is approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the MEC site. It is a full-service, 336-bed hospital with medical offices. More than 300 physicians and a staff of 2,000 provide care for 235,000 area members. The hospital is the Northern California Kaiser referral center for craniofacial and pediatric surgery, plasmapheresis (plasma exchange), and complex pelvic fractures. It also acts as the South Bay Kaiser referral center for neonatology, pediatric intensive care, and high-risk obstetrics.

8.8.1.8 Utilities8.8.1.8.1 Electricity and GasElectrical power and natural gas in the region are provided by PG&E. PG&E’s Metcalf Substation is located off Metcalf Road and is directly east of the MEC site. The following transmission lines serve the substation: Metcalf-Monta Vista #1 & 2 (230-kV); Metcalf-Monta Vista #3 & 4 (230-kV); Metcalf-El Patio #1 & 2 (115-kV); Metcalf-Edenvale #1 & 2, (115-kV); Metcalf-Green Valley #1 & 2 (115-kV); Metcalf–Newark # 1 & 2 (115-kV); Metcalf–Newark # 1 & 2 (230-kV); Metcalf-Tesla (500-kV); Metcalf-Moss Landing #1 & 2 (230-kV); Metcalf-Evergreen #1 & 2 (115-kV); and Metcalf-Moss Landing (500-kV).A major PG&E gas transmission line runs parallel to Highway 101, generally 100 to 200 feet east of the highway in the area of the desired interconnection.8.8.1.8.2 WaterWater sources for MEC will be: (1) the SBWR, which will provide a peak flow of 5.35 mgd of recycled water for use as cooling water (approximately 2.8 mgd average flow); and (2) onsite wells or San Jose MUNI, which will provide process makeup water (peak flow of 340 gpm; average flow of 85 gpm) and water for domestic use (average flow of 2 gpm). Private or MUNI wells will also serve as an emergency backup system to SBWR’s cooling water. San Jose MUNI will provide water from wells in the Coyote Valley. Currently, MUNI’s water is supplied from its Well #23, which has been tested at 3,000 gpm (but is rated at 2,000 gpm).

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-11REV. 6-4-99

However, it is currently equipped with a 300-gpm pump. From Well #23, an 18-inch water main runs south along Monterey Road to Bailey Avenue. The 18-inch water main then runs west along Bailey Avenue about 650 feet past Santa Teresa Boulevard. From Santa Teresa Boulevard, an 18-inch water main runs north on the eastern side of Santa Teresa Boulevard about 4,000 feet, while a 12-inch water main runs north the same distance on the western side of Santa Teresa Boulevard. For San Jose MUNI to provide service to MEC, additional pipelines and well pumping capacity will have to be installed. Onsite wells may be constructed to provide a more secure source of process makeup water and backup cooling water makeup (see Section 7). Recycled water provided by SBWR will come from the San Jose/Santa Clara WPCP, a regional plant owned by San Jose and the City of Santa Clara. The WPCP typically discharges approximately 120 mgd to the San Francisco Bay. To reduce discharges to the Bay, WPCP sends treated effluent to the SBWR facilities. SBWR acts as a water wholesaler and arranges connections to the recycled water system. SBWR is considering plans in its Phase 2 development to bring recycled water to the Coyote Valley area. Based upon current alignment routing, SBWR would provide water to Santa Teresa Boulevard along segments A and B (see Figures 2.1-a and -b). SBWR’s general schedule is to start construction in 2001, and to have water flowing to Coyote Valley in 2003. SBWR is considering accelerating its schedule to meet MEC’s needs. Since the Phase 2 expansion may not be operational in time to meet MEC’s schedule, the applicant proposes to meet MEC’s needs and SBWR’s short-term needs by bringing a 16- to 20-inch water line from the Senter Road and Capitol Expressway intersection along the UPRR route, a distance of approximately 7.3 miles (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of routes).8.8.1.8.3 SewerSan Jose provides sanitary sewer service in the Coyote Valley area. The sewer system conveys wastewater to the WPCP for treatment. Currently, a 48-inch sewer line runs along Santa Teresa Boulevard. The IBM facility on Bailey Avenue is the primary contributor to the line. The sewer line expands to 54 inches at the point where Fisher Creek crosses Santa Teresa Boulevard. In the past, infiltration into the sewer contributed 5 MGD. Recently, however, San Jose lined the pipe to control infiltration. MEC will include a package sewage treatment plant onsite. In the future, MEC may connect to the sewer system.Industrial wastewaters from the plant (approximately 2.2 mgd peak and 0.6 mgd average) will flow into a 12-inch diameter (maximum) force main from MEC to a sewer interconnect point downstream of any potential flow constrictions in the existing sewer system. The industrial wastewater main will be installed in the same trench as the recycled water line that will bring cooling water to the plant. The anticipated length of this 12-inch diameter pipeline is 6.3 miles from MEC to the Monterey Road Capitol Expressway intersection.8.8.1.8.4 TelephonePacific Bell provides telephone service to all of Santa Clara County. The main office is located in Sacramento.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-12REV. 6-4-99

8.8.1.9 EducationThere are a total of 33 elementary, high school, and unified school districts in Santa Clara County. The MEC site is technically within the Morgan Hill Unified School District, though it borders the Oak Grove School District/East Side Union High School District. Current enrollment figures for all three school districts for the 1998-99 school year are presented in Table 8.8-12. The Morgan Hill Unified School District is still in the process of updating its enrollment projections; therefore, projected enrollment information is not yet available. Oak Grove School Districts’ enrollment projections are only available for the total number of school children in the district, not by grade level.

TABLE 8.8-12Current and Projected Enrollment By Grade

Morgan Hill Unified School District

Oak Grove School District

East Side Union High School District

Grade Level

Current Enrollment(1998-99)

Projected Enrollment1

(1999-00)

Current Enrollment(1998-99)

Projected Enrollment2

(1999-00)

Current Enrollment(1998-99)

Projected Enrollment(1999-00)

Kindergarten 697 1,242

First 709 1,327

Second 720 1,348

Third 718 1,307

Fourth 685 1,278

Fifth 655 1,222

Sixth 638 1,252

Seventh 704 1,245

Eighth 690 1,275

Ninth 713 6,286 6,246

Tenth 777 6,005 5,994

Eleventh 656 5,515 5,584

Twelfth 580 4,756 4,957

Special Ed. not specified 276 not specified not specified

TOTAL 8,942 11,772 11,687 22,562 22,781

1 Projected enrollment figures are not available at this time.2 Projected enrollment figures are only available for the entire district, not by grade level.Source: Morgan Hill Unified School District, Oak Grove School District, and East Side Union High School District, 1999.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-13REV. 6-4-99

8.8.2 Environmental Consequences8.8.2.1 Potential Environmental ImpactsLocal environmental impacts were determined by comparing project demands during construction and operation with the socioeconomic resources of the project area (i.e., the San Jose MSA). A proposed power generating facility could impact employment, population, housing, public services and utilities, and/or schools. Impacts could be felt locally and/or regionally, though most impacts would tend to be more regional than local. Regional consequences were determined by comparing project demands with the socioeconomic resources of Santa Clara County. It is anticipated that the project will not have any significant adverse impacts on the socioeconomic environment, but it will have some minor benefits to the local community.

8.8.2.2 Significance CriteriaThe criteria used in determining the significance of project-related socioeconomic impacts are presented in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Checklist. Project-related impacts are determined to be significant if they: Induce substantial growth or concentration of population Displace a large number of people or existing housing Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the

provision of utility services Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision

of public services Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established communityOther impacts may be significant if they cause substantial change in community interaction patterns, social organization, social structures, or social institutions; substantial conflict with community attitudes, values, or perceptions; or substantial inequities in the distribution of project cost and benefit.

8.8.2.3 Local Workforce during ConstructionAccording to the CEDD and local unions (Tables 8.8-9 and 8.8-10), the workforce in the Bay Area will adequately fulfill the labor requirements for MEC construction. Therefore, MEC construction will not place an undue burden on the local workforce. MEC construction will have a small, positive benefit on the local unemployment rate. In 1997, employment in the San Jose MSA was 924,900 persons, and the unemployment rate was 3.4 percent. The addition of up to 399 temporary jobs will help maintain the low unemployment rate. The project could also create the need for additional jobs in other service areas, providing further temporary employment. Although the increased employment will be beneficial, it will not be significant.The anticipated payroll for employees, as well as the purchase of materials and supplies during the construction period, will have a slight beneficial impact on SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-13REV. 6-4-99

the area. The total construction payroll is estimated at $40.8 million. Assuming, conservatively, that 60 percent of the construction workforce will reside in the San Jose MSA, it is expected that approximately $24.5 million will stay in the local area. This additional injection of funds will cause a temporary beneficial impact by creating the potential for other employment opportunities for local workers in other service areas, such as transportation and retail. In addition to the estimated construction payroll, the project could create additional employment opportunities in the region as a result of the estimated $5 to $10 million spent locally for materials and services. However, overall, the temporary socioeconomic impacts on the local economy during construction will not be significant.

8.8.2.4 Local Workforce during OperationMEC is expected to employ at least 20 full-time employees. Facility employees will be drawn from the local workforce and from existing Calpine staff. Consequently, no increase in population is anticipated as a result of this project. There will not be a significant impact on local employment. The plant operation workforce will likely reside within the MSA.

8.8.2.5 Population It is not anticipated that the construction or operation of MEC will contribute to a significant increase in the population of the area, even if workers have to relocate. It is anticipated that most of the construction workforce will be drawn from the San Jose MSA and that the remainder will come from surrounding Bay Area cities and suburbs.

8.8.2.6 Housing The construction workforce will most likely commute to the project site daily; however, if needed, there are 10,000 to 12,000 hotel/motel rooms in Santa Clara County (6,329 hotel/motel rooms in San Jose alone) available to accommodate workers who may choose to commute to the project site on a workweek basis (Bradley, 1999). As a result, construction of the proposed project is not expected to increase the demand for housing. Although there is a housing shortage in Santa Clara County, operation of the project, with at least 20 full-time employees, will not have a significant impact on housing.

8.8.2.7 Local EconomyThe cost of materials and supplies (excluding the CTGs, HRSGs, and most other large equipment) required by the project is estimated at $175 million. The estimated value of materials and supplies that will be purchased locally is $5 to $10 million. The anticipated payroll for employees and cost of materials and supplies during construction will have a slight beneficial impact on the area. An average hourly wage of approximately $60.00 per hour (including benefits) is assumed for each construction worker. This will result in an estimated construction payroll of $40.8 million (2,000 hr/year * 340.4 person-years * $60/hr). Assuming, conservatively, that 60 percent of the construction workforce will live in Santa Clara County, approximately $24.5 million can be anticipated to stay in the county. This additional expenditure in the community will generate a temporary beneficial

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-14REV. 6-4-99

impact by creating the potential for other employment opportunities for local workers within Santa Clara County in other areas of service (i.e., transportation, wholesale and retail trades, amusement, and other business services). In addition to the estimated payroll, the project could also create additional employment opportunities in the region through local expenditures on construction materials and services.MEC operation will generate a small, permanent beneficial impact by creating employment opportunities for local workers through local expenditures for materials, such as office supplies and services. The average salary per operations employee is expected to be $50,000 a year. For the 20 full-time employees, this will result in an average operation payroll of $1 million annually. There will be an annual operations budget of $2 to $4 million, all of which is local. In addition, there will be an annual maintenance budget of $10 to $15 million. These additional jobs and spending will generate other employment opportunities and spending in the Santa Clara County area.

8.8.2.8 Fiscal ResourcesThe effect on fiscal resources during construction will be from sales taxes realized on equipment and materials purchased in the county and from sales taxes from expenditures. The sales tax rate in Santa Clara County is 8.25 percent. Of this, 6 percent goes to the state; 1 percent goes to the place of sale; 0.25 percent goes to the county transportation authority; 0.5 percent goes to the county transit district; and 0.5 percent goes to the county general fund (Nelson, 1999). Assuming the local expenditure of $5 to $10 million annually, the estimated sales taxes will be between $412,000 and $825,000. Of this amount, the state will receive between $300,000 and $600,000; the place of sale (city or county) will receive $50,000 to $100,000; and the county general fund will receive $25,000 to $50,000. The sales tax revenue realized during construction will have a positive benefit for the county, but because of its relatively small size, the impact will not be significant.The county will not realize the $3 to $5.2 million in annual property tax revenue until construction is completed. Collected property taxes go to the state, where they are reallocated back to the cities, counties, and special districts. In Santa Clara County, 61.8 percent of the tax revenues are paid to state-supported schools in the county, 12.7 percent are paid into the county general fund, 11.1 percent are paid to local redevelopment agencies, 9.2 percent are paid to cities, and 5.2 percent are paid to special districts (Beetle, 1999). Therefore, approximately $381,000 to $660,400 would be paid to the county general fund annually.During operations, additional sales tax revenues will be obtained by the county and surrounding cities. Increased payroll will be $1 million annually, and additional O&M expenses will be $12 to $19 million annually ($2 to 4 million operations budget + $10 to $15 million maintenance budget). This will generate increased sales tax revenues of $990,000 to $1.5 million annually; of this amount, 1 percent of the 8.25 percent sales tax, or $120,000 to $190,000, will return to the county. The overall anticipated increase in sales and property tax revenue of $500,000 to $850,000 will constitute less than 1 percent of total county revenues.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-15REV. 6-4-99

8.8.2.9 Public Services and UtilitiesProject construction and operation will not make significant demands on public services or facilities. In addition, the construction and operation phases of MEC will not impact police, and fire, or hazardous materials handling resources. Such impacts could include potential responses to emergency calls, routine site visits, and site plan approval from the fire department. However, these impacts are not considered significant, and existing resources are adequate to sustain them (Zubillaga, 1999; Dalaison, 1999; Hirokawa, 1999, Smith, 1999). Copies of the records of conversation with the Sheriff, Police, Hazardous Material Handling, and Fire departments are included in Appendix 8.8.MEC construction and operation will not make significant adverse demands on local water, sanitary sewer, telephone, electricity, or natural gas. Impacts will involve the extension of existing utility lines and an increased demand on the sewer system from the discharge of industrial wastewaters. However, the project’s use of recycled water will reduce San Jose’s discharge into San Francisco Bay on a daily basis, year-round, by an average of approximately 2.2 mgd net (2.8 mgd minus discharge of 0.6 MGD) and a peak of 3.5 mgd (5.4 mgd minus discharge of 1.9 MGD). MEC operation and construction is also not expected to create significant adverse impacts on medical resources in the area. Communication Specialist, Mike Schenone, is currently responding to a request for information regarding the potential for impacts to Santa Clara Valley Medical Center that may result from construction and/or operation of MEC. A copy of the correspondence with Mr. Schenone is included in Appendix 8.8.

8.8.2.10 EducationAs mentioned in Section 8.8.1.9, The Morgan Hill Unified School District currently exceeds the District’s planned capacity (Shuyler, 1999). However, MEC construction and operation will not cause significant population changes or housing impacts on the region. Most employees will commute to the site from areas within Santa Clara County, as opposed to relocating to the area. As a result, MEC construction and operation will not create any significant adverse impacts on the local school system (Schuyler, 1999). Although no adverse impacts are expected, industrial development within the Morgan Hill Unified School District is currently charged a one-time assessment fee of $0.31 per square foot of principal building area. At this rate, the assessment fee for MEC will be about $8,587.

8.8.3 Cumulative ImpactsSince both construction and operations personnel will reside primarily in the county, or live within commuting distance, no adverse impact to local schools or housing is anticipated. In addition, the use of recycled water will result in a benefit to the WPCP. The wastewater treatment plant has sufficient capacity for the sewer discharge, and other public services will not be significantly impacted. No adverse cumulative socioeconomic impacts are anticipated from either the construction or operation of MEC. In addition, the local community will enjoy a beneficial (but not significant) impact from short-term construction and operations employment and the long-term payment of taxes and fees.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-16REV. 6-4-99

8.8.4 Mitigation MeasuresNo significant impacts on socioeconomic resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.

8.8.5 LORSA summary of the LORS, including the project’s conformance to them, is presented in Table 8.8-13.

TABLE 8.8-13Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards for Socioeconomics for the MEC Project

LORS Purpose ApplicabilityConformance

(Section)

Federal

Executive Order 12898

Avoid disproportionate impacts to minority and low-income members of the community

Not applicable since majority of the population in the project vicinity are not minorities or low-income members of the communityy.

Sections 8.8.5.1 and 8.8.1.1

State

Government Code Section 65996

Establishes that the levy of a fee for construction of an industrial facility be considered mitigating impacts on school facilities

Morgan Hill Unified School District may charge a one-time assessment fee to mitigate potential school impacts.

8.8.2.10

Government Code Section 65302 et seq.

Requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan.

General Plan includes housing and open space elements.

8.8.1.2 addresses housing

Local

Government Code Section 65996

Establishes that the levy of a fee for construction of an industrial facility be considered mitigating impacts on school facilities

State law described above is implemented at the local level.

8.8.2.10

Government Code Section 65302 et seq.

Requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan.

State law described above is implemented at the local level.

8.8.1.2 addresses housing

8.8.5.1 FederalExecutive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations.” The purpose of this Executive Order is to identify and address whether environmental impacts are likely to fall disproportionately on minority and/or low-income members of the community. The federal guidelines set forth a two-step screening process:1) Whether the potentially affected community includes minority and /or low-

income populations; and

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-17REV. 6-4-99

2) Whether the environmental impacts are likely to fall disproportionately on minority and/or low-income members of the community.

According to the guidelines established by USEPA to assist Federal and state agencies to develop strategies to address this circumstance, a minority population exists if the minority population percentage of the affected area is 50 percent or more of the area’s general population. As stated in the demographics information (Section 8.8.1.1), the 1990 US Census data indicate that the minority population both in the project vicinity and in Santa Clara County as a whole does not exceed 50 percent. Therefore, there is not disproportionate impact on minority populations.In 1990, the poverty threshold for a family of four was $12,674. According to the 1990 Census Data, the median household income for the Coyote Valley area (zip code 95013) was $59,087. There were no households with income less than $25,000 per year. Therefore, there is not a disproportionate impact on low-income populations.

8.8.5.2 StateCalifornia Government Code Section 65996, through reference to Section 17620 of the Education Code, states that assessing an impact fee to construction within the school district’s boundaries meets all mitigation requirements. The California State Planning Law, Government Code Sections 65302 et seq., will be considered (refer to the Section 8.8.5.3, Local). In addition, an environmental document will be prepared to comply with CEQA. CEQA is invoked as a result of the land-use impacts generated from this project (refer to Section 8.4, Land Use). In addition, the preparation of this AFC complies with CEQA requirements.

8.8.5.3 LocalCalifornia State Planning Law, Government Code Sections 65302 et seq., requires that each city and county adopt a General Plan consisting of seven mandatory elements to guide its physical development. Section 65302(c) requires that a housing element be included in the General Plan, and Section 56302(e) requires an open space element. In addition, Section 65303(a) provides that optional elements also may be included in the General Plan. Most communities do not have LORs specifically affecting the socioeconomic aspects of a project. However, some communities assess impact fees (e.g., school impact fees) as part of the building permit process.

8.8.5.4 CodesNone are applicable.

8.8.6 Involved Agencies and Agency ContactsTable 8.8-14 provides a list of agencies and contact persons.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-18REV. 6-4-99

TABLE 8.8-14Involved Agencies and Agency Contacts

Agency Contact Title Phone Number

California State Board of Equalization

Don Jackson Senior Property Auditor Appraiser

916/323-6940

Morgan Hill Unified School District

Joan Shuyler Executive Secretary to the Superintendent

408/779-5272

San Jose Police Department Ruben Dalaison Crime Prevention Officer 408/277-5339Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department

John Hirokawa Sergeant/Public Relations Officer

408/299-2101

San Jose Fire Department Jim McCloreJim Zubillaga

Facilities CaptainField Operations Captain

408/277-4447408/277-4444

South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District

Dave Watchel Fire Captain 408/779-2121

San Jose Department of City Planning and Building

Laurel Prevetti Planner 408/277-4576

County of Santa Clara Planning Office

Michael Lopez Planner 408/299-2521

Santa Clara Valley Medical Center

Matt Schenone Communications Specialist 408/885-5000

8.8.7 Permits and Permitting ScheduleNo permits are required for this section. Permits dealing with the affects on public services are addressed as part of the building permit process. These permits are addressed in Tables 8.4-3 and 8.4-4 in the Land Use section.

8.8.8 ReferencesAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 1995. Projections 96: Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area to the Year 2015. December.Beetle, Wendy. 1999. Tax Assessor, Santa Clara County Tax Collector’s Office. Personal Communication. February 25.Bradley, Sonia. 1999. Public Relations Officer, San Jose Convention and Visitors Bureau. Personal Communication. March 16.California Employment Development Department (CEDD). 1999. Internet site: http://www.calmis.cahwnet.govCalifornia Department of Finance (DOF). 1998. County Population Projections with Race/Ethnic Detail Estimated July 1, 1990-1996, Projections for 1997 through 2040. Internet site: http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograph/Proj_race.htmCalifornia Department of Finance (DOF). 1999. Internet site: http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/Demograp/E-5.xlsCD USA. 1998. Census USA on CD-ROM (1990 Census). Omaha, Nebraska.City of San Jose. 1999. “1999-2000 Proposed Budget Summaries.” Facsimile transmission from Liz Zavala, secretary to Larry Lisenbee, Budget Director. June 3.SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-19REV. 6-4-99

County of Santa Clara. 1999. “FY 2000 Recommended Budget, Countywide Budget Summary.” Facsimile transmission from Gary Graves, Deputy County Executive for the Office of Budget and Analysis. June 3.Dalaison, Ruben. 1999. Crime Prevention Officer, San Jose Police Department. Personal Communication. February 25.Dunlap, Dan. 1999. District Chief, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District. Personal Communication. February 18.Hirokawa, John. 1999. Public Relations Officer, Santa Clara County Police Department. Personal Communication. February 17.Jackson, Don. 1999. Senior Property Auditor Appraiser, California State Board of Equalization. Personal Communication. February 18.McClore, Jim. 1999. Facilities Captain with the San Jose Fire Department. Personal Communication. February 18.Nelson, Debbie. 1999. Statistician, California State Board of Equalization. Personal Communication. February 25.San Jose Chamber of Commerce. 1999. Internet site: http://www.sjchamber.com/ABOUT/FAQS/econo.htmlSanta Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE). 1999. Internet site: http://www.sccoe.k12.ca.usSchuyler, Joan. 1999. Executive Secretary to the Superintendent, Morgan Hill Unified School District. Personal Communication. February 25.Smith, Steve. 1999. Captain, San Jose Fire Department. Personal Communication. February 22.Talor, Martell. 1999. Director of Facilities, Morgan Hill Unified School District. Personal Communication. March 1.U.S. Bureau of the Census (Census). 1990 Census. Internet sites: http://www/census.gov; and http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup/928295186Zubillaga, Jim. 1999. Field Operations Captain, San Jose Fire Department. Personal Communication. March 1.

SAC/150038/002R.DOC 8.8-20REV. 6-4-99