The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 08041992 - H.6 H. 6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 4, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Powers, Torlakson ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Status Report of the Crockett Advisory Committee IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of the Status Report from the Crockett Cogeneration Advisory Committee is acknowledged. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the cc: County Administrator Board of Supervle rs th on e date shown. Director, Community Development ATTESTED: PHIL BATC LOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By —0- �, 0 ��.-R7 � Deputy Advisory Committee Progress Report to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The purpose for establishing the Crockett Advisory Committee was to develop a forum for communicating Crockett's needs and views regarding equitable mitigation to the decision making body, the California Energy Commission (CEC) . Mitigation measures required by the CEC will most likely be based on impacts caused by the Power Plant. Therefore, we must know what the impacts of the plant will be before we know what mitigation measures are required. The CEC has a consistent format that it uses in it's investigation of all siting cases. It is necessary to conform to the CEC schedule to facilitate our participation and to best be able to utilize their expertise. They are very helpful to the public and encourage public participation. The CEC staff does a very thorough investigation of all matters regarding a siting case to determine what- impacts a power plant will have on a community. Most public participants in a power plant siting case rely heavily on the CEC investigation. In the past, the citizens of Crockett have found their information invaluable. Therefore, it is necessary for the Advisory Committee to conform to and follow the CEC schedule in our determination of mitigation. The CEC has a tentative schedule. It is subject to change because of the nature of a siting investigation. They expect to release their Preliminary Staff Assessment on approximately September, 15, 1992. Workshops will then be held for several weeks to review that document and the Final Staff Assessment is expected to be issued November, 15, 1992. The CEC will publish it's conditions of mitigation at this time. The Commissioners will hold hearings and review all documents and recommendations for 45 to 60 days and release the Presiding Members Report (PMR) after that. The PMR is a proposed decision and is subject to public comment before a final decision is rendered. The advisory committee should be prepared to make it's recommendations to the County November 20, 1992. Immediately after the Advisory Committee was approved by the Board of Supervisors, Scott Tandy, John Miller of Energy National, committee members Salli Spoon, Ruth Blakeney, and Francis Dahl met to work out the details of a budget. A budget of $3000 for 60 days was established, after which time the involved parties will meet again to determine the need for continuing funds. The committee sends it's bills to the county who bills ENI in turn. An accounting of our expenses to date is attached to this report. The first action of the committee was to mail a letter to the -w community informing them of the appointment by the Board of Supervisors and announcing the first public meeting. (Copy attached) . The first meeting was held on June 27,, 1992. The committee, Scott Tandy, representing the County, and approximately fifty members of the community attended. The committee explained it's mission and sought public input. Some community members in attendance requested a fact sheet about the cogeneration plant and recommended changes in a questionnaire the committee had developed seeking community opinions regarding mitigation. A regular meeting schedule was set for the second Wednesday and fourth Tuesday of each month. A second public meeting was held on July 8. Subcommittees were developed to investigate the impacts of the plant. These committees were comprised of both Advisory Committee members and other Crockett citizens. The subcommittees will make their first reports at the next scheduled advisory committee meeting, July 28. On July 13, the committee sent a second community mailer which consisted of the fact sheet and revised questionnaire. We have included a preliminary analysis of the questionnaires that have been returned to date. The committee and subcommittees, with CEC assistance should be prepared to make a final recommendation to the County by November 20, 1992. A recommendation may be delayed if the CEC process is delayed for any reason. It is imperative that the Advisory Committee trail the CEC in order to do a thorough job. The Advisory Committee formed a subcommittee to discuss direct impacts with Energy National and to explore possible areas of agreement regarding mitigation. The first meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 3. If an agreement is reached, the subcommittee will report the agreement to the full committee. The full committee will then decide whether to accept the recommendation of the subcommittee. If the recommendation is accepted it will be reviewed by the CEC staff. Then the recommendations will be submitted to California Energy Commission. Energy National has agreed to extend funding through September 16, including an additional $1,500.00, if needed. We have included a financial statement and have given a copy to Energy National. Respectfully submitted by The Crockett Advisory Committee Salli Spoon, Pam Pagni, Ruth James, Ruth Blakeney, Ron Wilson Frances Dahl, Dirk Lawson, Jay Gunkelman, Vera Minkner, Angelo Tacconi July 30, 1992 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CROCKETT QUESTIONNAIRE The community questionnaire was mailed on Monday, July 13. We have received 59 responses and continue to received three or four daily. This is in no way a scientific poll but is a serious attempt to allow the citizens of Crockett to voice their views and concerns. All but three of the respondents view the plant as having a negative impact on the quality of life in Crockett. The responses expressed concern about negative impacts regarding real estate values, the level of noise, toxics, health hazards, disruption of normal town life during construction, the concern of committing Crockett to dense industrialization, and living with the psychological impact of a power plant. Thirteen of the responses did not want the plant in town under any circumstances. As one respondent, in this position, states, "There are no benefits at all that could possibly offset the potential danger to the health of the people in town. " Forty-three community members responded to the issue of benefits and expressed their view of an equitable solution to offset the impact of the plant. Thirty-nine respondents were in favor of a stream of revenue. Recommendations on how to determine the source of a stream of revenue were varied. various suggestions included the town owning a portion of the plant, receiving a percentage of the net income, or a direct annual payment to the town. Many respondents addressed the issue of how the funds should be administered. Two suggested community groups, and the balance of the respondents, want local elected administrators. The suggestions regarding direct benefits were varied and covered a wide range. Two respondents thought the town should have free power. There is a concern about the shrinking of business in town and one person suggested a business development loan project. There is also a concern about the financial condition of the school district and suggestions were put forth about ENI developing a program to help the schools. Other suggestions included a Crockett Club, a donation for building the train station, a tree planting program, underground wiring on Pomona and Loring streets, road improvements, shoreline access and parks, and downtown revitalization.. Four people responded that Crockett citizens should be given priority for any jobs that are created. Overall, the questionnaires reflected a serious concern and fear about negative impacts and the long term stigma of a 240 megawatt power plant. The respondents also emphasize the need for continuing revenue for Crockett and local control of funds. BUDGET AND EXPENSE STATEMENT as of July 15, 1992 for the CROCKETT COGENERATION MITIGATION AND NEGOTIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Budget Item Expense A. Staff Costs $1, 600 .00 Committee Secretary $ 220 .50 B. Services and Supplies $ 800 . 00 Community Mailings $ 675 . 65 $ 100 . 00 Copier Costs $ 405 . 72 $ 150 . 00 Phone $ 0 . 00 $ 150 . 00 Incidental Travel $ 0 . 00 $ 200 . 00 Supplies $ 17 .54 $3, 000 . 00 Total $1, 319 .41 This unaudited statement was prepared and submitted by: Nancy A. Harwood Secretary July 30, 1992