HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03051996 - C49 T
C.48, C.49, and
C.50
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 5, 1996 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Bishop
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
C.48 LETTER dated February 16, 1996, from Lawrence D. Dahms, Executive Director,
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA 94607-4700,
relative to the MTC's recommendations to the Work Program Committee that the 2-Lane
State Route 4 Bypass Project be added to the 1996 Regional Transportation Plan; and
advising that any additional improvement to the roadway and associated effects on RTP
funding decisions will have to wait for subsequent revisions to the RTP.
**** REFERRED TO DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
C.49 LETTER dated February 19, 1996, from Kent Peterson, Secretary, and Jay Gunkelman,
Signatory of the Crockett Improvement Association, P.O. Box 132, Crockett, CA 94525,
citing areas of concern relating to compliance provisions with the Safety Audit Agreement
and the good Neighbor Agreement.
*'REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C.50 LETTER dated February 27, 1996, from Guillermo Rodriquez, Executive Director, Latino
Issue Forum, 785 Market Street, Third Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, on the composition
of certain commissions and governing bodies on Contra Costa County.
****REFERRED TO DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR RESPONSE
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are
approved.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
c.c. Correspondents Board of s tsors o tt / own.
Community Development Director ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR Cte k of the Board
County Administrator of Supervisors anp Uunty Administrator
B ,Deputy
¢. �•4
w 0
v n
y P® Box 132 Crockett CA 94525
RECEIVE D February 19, 1996
S�,nce 191
Board of Supervisors FEB 22 W
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street CLERK BOARD WF M"9VIMM
Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA
Dear County Supervisors:
RE: SAFETY PROGRAM AUDIT AGREEMENT, UNOCAL REFINERY
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Crockett
Improvement Association, we wish to express concern over Para-
graph 18 of the Safety Program Audit Agreement between the County
and Unocal.
The Good Neighbor Agreement (G.N.A. ) is a highly complex
contract which is far from completely fulfilled by Unocal. One
of the most potent factors which is helping to move the G.N.A.
along is the Land Use Permit, specifically conditions #77 & 78.
One area of specific concern is the final design of the
fenceline monitor system. The G.N.A. , Section VII, states that
design and testing will be done by Unocal. In a preceding
paragraph there is the statement that the system must be
"mutually agreeable to the signatories of this agreement and the
County" .
In an recent meeting with Unocal management, there was an
indication that they may design a system without remote sensing
technology. This was vigorously protested at the time, but no
resolution was forthcoming. Obviously, this is an area where the
leverage of COA #77 & 78 may be of significant benefit in
avoiding potential arbitration/litigation.
Another major area of concern is the continuing treatment of
Good Neighbor Clinic patients for catacarb-related symptoms.
There has been a protest of the follow-up procedures which has
not been conclusively settled.
Third, the C.I.A. questions the satisfactory completion of
the health risk assessment required by the G.N.A. , Section I.
The funding of the independent expert to represent the community
was terminated on December 15, 1995. The final health risk
assessment was not issued until almost a month later. Our expert
representative thus had no opportunity to properly assess .the
final report and has not been able to advise the community on
what the report means.
These are three of many areas of local concern. It is
unfortunate that the Safety Program Audit Agreement should give
sole discretion to the Zoning Administrator to determine whether
COA #77 & 78 have been satisfied by Unocal. Should the Zoning
Administrator prematurely remove the pressure to comply with the
G.N.A. , there will be an increased likelihood of contractual
dispute between G.N.A. signatories and Unocal.
We believe that the Board of Supervisors bears ultimate
responsibility for protecting the public interest in Crockett.
Although we look forward to working with the Zoning Administrator
in the upcoming public meetings, we would hope that any
potentially adverse decisions could be appealed to the Board of
Supervisors, who should not abrogate their responsibility.
Sincerely,
Kent G. Peterson J y Gunkelman
Secretary, C.I.A. Signatory, G.N.A.
787-1850 787-1216
cc: Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Dept.
Zoning Administrator