Community News

Members Present: George Aboud, Darcy Becker, Cecilia Dirstine, Jeff Dixon, Mike Tatarakis, Anne Catherine Vinickas, Jeff Wade, Terry Bradford, Joe Cassisi, Art Gonzales, Margaret Leathers Sidener, Dan Stockton and Lorrie Landis

Members Absent: Troy Bunnell, Rebecca Elliot, Jackie Adams and Kaitilin Gaffney

A) Councilmember Charlotte Powers welcomed the community and thanked the committee for volunteering to serve on the Advisory Committee. She also apologized for not being able to attend the first Committee meeting due to her granddaughter graduation. Councilmember Powers reviewed the Committee purpose, role and goal. They include 1) To conduct a comprehensive study, review and analysis of the "proposed" Metcalf Energy Center. 2) Identify key topics, issues and concerns. 3) Have industry experts/professionals address key topic issues and concerns (e.g., air quality/pollution, land use/property values, public health and safety, water usage, facility infrastructure, design/layout and operations). 4) Develop recommendations to present to Councilmember Powers that will allow her to in turn present them to the community, California Energy Commission, Planning Commission and City Council.

B) Laural Prevetti of the City of San Jose presented an overview of the Planning Departments review process for the proposed General Plan Amendment to rezone the Tulare Hill parcel (from Light Campus Industrial to Heavy Industrial Private/Quasi Public). The process involves General Plan Public Hearings, a review and recommendation made by the Planning Commission, and then City Council reviews and cast its vote. Since environmental documents/data preparation, evaluation analysis will not be completed within the normal GP hearing date (October/November1999), the proposed GP rezoning process will take place in February/March 2000. Laural also stated, as a means for maximum public input and staff analysis, the City of San Jose would not be conducting its own Environmental Impact Report (EIR) but rather would be entering into a legal binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CEC to utilize CEC's Environmental Assessment Report/Study.

C) California Energy Commission (CEC) Project Manager, Lorraine White presented an update/status of the proposed project timeline. She anticipates that CEC staff will have their preliminary analysis prepared by December 7, 1999 and their staff report/findings by the end of January 2000. CEC's final report/analysis will then be presented to the CEC Commission March/April 2000. Public review and input will be an important part of this process (e.g., Public Workshops and Hearings).

D) The Advisory Committee had several remarks pertaining to the proposed project.
Comments: There seems to be a very small window in the analysis timeline for CEC Commission and CSJ (Planning Commission and City Council). There is a need for a detailed analysis of State benefits vs. CSJ.

Question: What is the difference between CEC's Environmental Assessment vs. Environmental Impact Report (EIR)?
Response: Lorraine White stated that CEC's Environment Assessment is similar in technical data and scope. Per the Environment Quality Act, CEC is required to conduct a comprehensive study on potential impacts, alternative sites etc. consistent with State and local laws/ordinances, standards, policy, data and regulations.

Q: What are CEC's staff qualifications and/or credentials?
R: Lorriane White stated that CEC are qualified professionals/experts in their given fields of research and work assignments. However, CEC staff responsibility is to conduct the preliminary and final analysis but will not be making the final decision. The CEC Commission is the State authoritative body for such proposed projects.

Q: Is CEC required to conduct model "actual" analysis and not just written (paper) analysis?
R: Per Lorriane White, CEC will be conducting "model" analysis (e.g., sound etc.) based on CSJ baseline requirements.

Q: Why can't the Advisory Committee become an Intervener?
R: Laurel Previtte, stated that some of the entitlements and benefits of non-Interveners is to be able to be a part of the "full public review process." Furthermore, the Committee will have complete access to the same information/data as an Intervener.

In addition to the questions raised, each Committee member had an opportunity to present their personal concerns/issues pertaining to the proposed project. In sum, the concerns presented included potential air pollution, proposed water usage vs. availability, decrease in property values, public health and safety, alternative sites and electricity providers/methods (e.g., private companies and/or City of San Jose), current and future (e.g., 20/20 General Plan) positive/negative impacts (economic, residential, schools, commercial, environmental and industrial), facility infrastructure, design/layout, gas pipeline layout/design and location, sewage system, operations, safety/emergency plan and adequate public notification.

E) Community residents had the opportunity to present their issues and concerns.
There were 60 plus in attendance and 21 plus residents made public comments. The concerns and comments presented were similar to the Advisory Committee in terms of air quality/pollution, land use/property values, alternative sites, current and future impacts (e.g., economy, residential, industrial, schools, quality of life and environment), public health and safety, water/sewage usage, facility infrastructure, design/layout and operations.
Some additional concerns that were presented by the community were. If current electrical generating plants are still meeting demand why is there a need for a new energy plant or why can't the existing electric plants be upgraded. If other electric plants are in "open space" areas (even some operated by Clapine Corp.), why not the same for San Jose? How will the proposed project affect the proposed Cisco Systems project? How will the proposed project fit into the Coyote Master Plan and General Plan 20/20 in terms of housing (potential 25,000 homes), industry, environment, schools etc.? The community fears the project has the potential if being another Fairchild. Since the proposed project is heavily regulated by the State, it is important that the CSJ submit a legal agreement/document to the CEC stating the CSJ concerns and issues.

F) Future Advisory Committee meetings will consist of neutral presenters and industry experts to provide information on the key issues, topics and concerns as listed by the Advisory Committee (Note: Item D). Dates for the next District Two Advisory Committee were agreed upon and were scheduled for September 29, October 14, and November 17. Meetings are tentatively schedule to take place at 7:00PM @ Martin Murphy Middle School (Library). The Committee agreed not meet in December due the holiday season but they plan to in January 2000.

* Note: This is not a legal or formal document and is not intended to present a word for word report but rather a brief meeting summary, highlights and overview. AAM - Dist. 2 Powers