Poseidon report is brought back to the table

Jenny Marder

Planning Commissioner Ron Davis convinced a slim majority of his

colleagues on Tuesday night to reopen discussion on the proposed

desalination plant after learning that Poseidon scientists provided

the commission wrong information.

Davis, who voted with the narrow majority on July 8 to approve the

plants’ environmental report, has since come to believe information

given by a scientist representing Poseidon Resources Corp. was

“remarkably wrong or false.”

Scott Jenkins, a oceanographer representing Poseidon, provided

information about the salinity of the ocean and the operation of the

AES power plant that he was unable to support, Davis said.

“There’s a difference between buyers remorse and what I’m doing,”

Davis said Tuesday night when he asked the commission to reconsider

its approval of the proposed plant’s environmental report.

Before voting on July 8, Davis asked scientists how the salinity

in the plant’s discharge compared to that of the ocean and how it

would affect marine life.

Jenkins said that the range in ocean salinity is so broad, the

ocean has salt concentration levels that come close to those in the

plant’s discharge. Jenkins then told commissioners the range, which

turned out to be wrong.”In my mind, I’ve been given information, upon

which I made a decision, that is demonstrably wrong,” Davis said,

adding that it made him question the credibility of Jenkin’s entire

analysis. “I don’t know when somebody is making something up or when

somebody is speculating to me.”

Billy Owens, senior vice president of development at Poseidon,

said Jenkins had made a technical mistake in his statement about

salinity, but that the discrepancy in no way changes the significance

of the findings in the report.

“We did not have the intent to misrepresent, we did not bring up

the subject and we did not lead the discussion,” Owens said. “I

wouldn’t have thought that this would be the pivotal moment in his

thinking.”

The report was also reviewed by city analysts, who never

questioned the report’s conclusions, Owens said.

Four days before Davis’ written request to reopen the discussion,

Mayor Connie Boardman appealed the approval of the report to give the

City Council an opportunity to review it, as well.

The project’s coastal development permit and conditional use

permit would automatically go to the council for approval, but the

environmental report would not.

“I wanted to give the council the opportunity to discuss the

report,” Boardman said. “And I don’t think it addresses the growth

inducing impact.”

Boardman said she supports Davis’s right to reconsider the issue,

but added “it’s pretty clear that if they approve the EIR, it’s still

going to be considered by the Council.”

The commission’s decision to reopen discussions will nullify

Boardman’s appeal; she can, however, make another appeal once the

commission decides again.

Commissioners, as well as the residents in the audience, were

split on whether reconsideration was warranted.

Some felt that after three nights of in-depth discussion, it was

time to move forward, while others applauded Davis for bringing the

item back.

Planning Commissioner Don Stanton felt they “should respect the

mayor’s appeal and let the wisdom of the City Council decide.”

After the initial 15 hours of deliberation, Commissioner John

Scandura said he was comfortable with the numbers presented in the

report.

“Ultimately, the City Council is accountable and we should allow

them to consider the [environmental report],” Scandura said.

But Commissioners Steve Ray, Robert Dingwall and Randy Kokal,

proponents of revisiting the report, said they felt they had a

responsibility to pass a reliable and accurate report on to the

council without letting unchecked facts slip through.

“The basic foundation of the project is the EIR,” Ray said. “If

the foundation is not secure, than the project will fail. I think

that if we have a chance to look at it again and get it right this

time, we should do it.”

Commissioners voted 4 to 3 to reconsider the report. The

commission will reconsider the vote at its next meeting, at 7 p.m.

Aug. 12.