AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 7.c
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
Request to AMEND THE PAYMENT APPROVAL
I will be reading the highlighted text only. Please scroll.
Please amend this seemingly flawed EIR process by making the following requirements added to the payment approval for RINCON ASSOC. evaluation of the response EIR letters:
1) Require Rincon to review the California Coastal
Commission letter of August 2, 2024 on the 20 acre BESS Site, including the possibility that it is “ESHA”. Why? Because: As with the Sewer,there are other locations that would allow a Lithium Battery BESS outside populated areas or outside the Coastal Zone, Tsunami zone, Flood zone, and Sea Rise zone that would be preferable to the Coastal
Commission.
Please read this conclusion by Sara MacGregor.
2) Require Rincon perform an EPA carbon footprint
comparison for several BESS storage systems, not just
lithium based batteries. Why?
Because: RINCON ASSOC. makes no attempt to include the
EPA’s Scope 1,2,3, EPA Carbon footprint Standards into their EIR. A comparative analysis should be included for optimal CO2 recovery. This flaws the EIR in its entirety by its omission.
Hyperlink to EPA Protocol is supplied:
https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Corporate-Value-Chain-Accounting-Reporing-Standard 041613 2.pdf More here:
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership
3) Finally, you should require Rincon Assoc. evaluate life cycle carbon footprint for different non-lithium bess systems included in the CEC long term BESS storage economic
assistance program using EPA standard methods hyperlinked above. WHY?
Because
THE LIFE CYCLE OF LITHIUM BESS PROJECTS HAVE A MAJOR CO2 OFFSET FLAW THEY REQUIRE 100 PERCENT REPLACEMENT AT 15 YEARS
IN SUMMARY,
Giving Rincon Assoc. Money to respond to the EIR without recognizing these three major flaws would be a social injustice. EPA life cycle energy analysis is crucial to energy related Social Justice. Thank you for your time.
I amend this pdf with my letter to Jeanne Rizzo Board of Environmental Safety on the issue of the Deed Restriction by the DTSC on this site.
Board Chair Appointee Jeanne Rizzo
Board of Environmental Safety
P.O. Box 806
1001 “I” Street, 25th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. Rizzo,
My name is Steve Paige. I am a low income handicapped senior living in Morro Bay California. I congratulate you on your appointment to the DTSC oversight board. I want to be helpful in identifying a social disservice the DTSC has in burdening a 20 acre property in Morro Bay with a Deed Restriction. This property location needs your attention.
It is a glaring example of what is wrong with the DTSC deed restriction process. This 20 acre property is zoned as a tourist destination. The DTSC deed restriction is incompatible with its potential use. The California Coastal Commission claims that this property if restored , would become ESHA (see attached letter). There is at present, a DEIR for a BESS site that assumes an LUP change from visitor serving commercial to industrial. Because of the deed restriction, this property cannot be enjoyed as a low and middle income tourist destination against its rightful zoning. (Visitor serving commercial in brown).
The DTSC has used Deed Restrictions in lieu of cleanup on 47 PGE properties throughout California along with hundreds of other sites. (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/deed_restrictions) The tank farm 20 acres site should be cleaned up and restored to ESHA standards by requiring complete cleanup and restoration to native habitat. This is compatible with the Coastal Commission's findings. Here is what it looks like now:
The total issue of site restoration here needs your scrutiny to "reduce risks of toxic exposure with a particular focus on
disproportionately burdened and vulnerable communities". The DTSC would benefit from this site being a cleanup project. Cleanup on 1 of 47 PGE sites is not asking too much. Myself and my contemporaries cannot afford to file a formal complaint against the DTSC, thus this letter. The cost is prohibitive for the persons in my income category, health and age. Please help represent my interests.
The PG&E and its successors assumed that they could treat the Morro Bay tank farm site like the Moss Landing site. But Moss Landing has had three Lithium-ion battery fires already. If any such fire were to occur in Morro Bay it would cost 1.7 million dollars a day in lost tourism revenue during the peak tourist season. The social consequences of a lithium battery fire at Moss Landing are not the same as Morro Bay.
Here are two pages from the August 2 Coastal Commission letter describing the high standards for the site up to and including ESHA designation. You see how the deed restriction is contrary to other California Law and clouds its potential and final use. The 47 deed restrictions give the appearance of regulatory capture related to PG&E.
This site is a glaring example.
Sincerely,
Steve Paige, retired Morro Bay resident.
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 7.f
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 7.g
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 7.i
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 9.b
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2024