HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06032014 - D.14RECOMMENDATION(S):
ACCEPT the staff report regarding the issues raised in the environmental analysis prepared for the Phillips 66
proposed land use permit application, including the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
correspondence of January 14, 2014 calling for a cumulative community Health Risk Assessment to be
prepared and to be included in the environmental impact report;
1.
ACCEPT AND APPROVE the Department’s recommendation to recirculate portions of the draft EIR for
public review following completion of a cumulative analysis of toxic air contaminants and revisions to the
draft EIR;
2.
CONTINUE the public hearing on the appeals filed by Communities for a Better Environment and Shute,
Mihaly, and Weinberger, LLP (on behalf of the Rodeo Citizens Association) to October 28, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.
3.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the initial application deposit and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover expenses and
costs associated with the application processing.
BACKGROUND:
Summary
Phillips 66 Company is proposing to implement and construct the Propane Recovery Project, which includes propane
and additional amounts of butane for sale and a reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions from the refinery. On June 10,
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 06/03/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Contact: Lashun Cross,
925-674-7786
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: June 3, 2014
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc:
D.14
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director
Date:June 3, 2014
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Appeal of the County Planning Commission Approval of LP12-2073 (Phillips 66 Rodeo Refinery)
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
> 2013, the Draft EIR for the Project was released for a 45-day public review ending on July 25, 2013 and
extended to August 9, 2013. On November 6, 2013 the Final EIR was completed.
On November 19, 2013, a public hearing was held by the County Planning Commission. Oral testimony covered
a variety of topics, including the types and quality of crude oil, propane safety concerns, pollution, public health,
greenhouse emissions and refinery/community relations. There were also several speakers who testified in support
of the project. After evaluating the project, including all public testimony and evidence in the record, the
Commission voted unanimously to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approved the land
use permit.
Two appeals of the Planning Commission decision were filed. The appeals from Shute, Mihaly, & Weinberger
LLP on behalf of the Rodeo Citizens Association and Communities for a Better Environment were received on
November 25, 2013 and December 2, 2013. The Board of Supervisors hearing to consider the appeals was
scheduled for January 21, 2014. Prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing, the Department of Conservation and
Development staff received a letter from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) dated
January 14, 2014 (Exhibit #1).
On January 21, 2014, the Board opened the public hearing on the appeals of the County Planning Commission’s
decision to approve the Propane Recovery Project by Phillips 66 Company. During the hearing, the Board of
Supervisor’s received testimony from the appellants, applicants, and the general public. After hearing public
testimony, the Board continued this item as an open public hearing to allow staff to respond to specific testimony
and the letter received from the BAAQMD on January 14, 2014.
The January 14th, correspondence requested that the EIR include Public Health supplements that provide
calculations of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) emissions, modeling files, the assumptions used to estimate the
increase in health risks from the Project to the maximum exposed sensitive receptor, and a cumulative analysis of
health risks that includes other sources of air pollution. The Draft EIR does not include this information.
Communication between the BAAQMD and Department of Conservation and Development
Staff had the first meeting with BAAQMD on January 17, 2014 and discussed the specific items identified within
their January 14, 2014 letter.
Following the Board’s direction to work with the BAAQMD, a second meeting occurred on February 7, 2014 with
the BAAQMD to continue discussion related to their January 14th, correspondence. Additional questions were
raised by BAAQMD staff related to the EIR.
On March 12, 2014, staff received additional information from the BAAQMD detailing issues to be discussed
and/or resolved on the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project and Draft EIR. It included comments regarding a
methodology for cumulative analysis in which supplemental information was requested for review.
On April 2, 2014, staff met again with the BAAQMD staff and Phillips 66 representatives (including their
consultant) to discuss their comments. At the conclusion of this meeting, Department staff informed those in
attendance that the EIR may need to be revised and recirculated.
On May 7, 2014, County staff met with Phillips 66 staff and indicated the cumulative health risk assessment
would result in the recirculation of the DEIR. Phillips 66 requested a continuance of the Board hearing from May
13th, 2014 to June 3rd, 2014 to work with the BAAQMD regarding timing as well as the possibility of working
with the appellants regarding their appeals.
On May 27, 2014 the BAAQMD and Conservation and Development staff participated in a conference call in
which the BAAQMD staff indicated their support to continue to work with the County and its consultant on the
approach and methodology for conducting the cumulative health risk assessment and review of the outcome of
such a study. As of May 29, 2014, the BAAQMD has not yet approved the most recent methodology approach.
County staff will continue to work with the BAAQMD staff regarding methodology. The BAAQMD has been
readily available to assist the Department with this effort and expressed their commitment to continue with this
high level of assistance.
Once the cumulative community health risk assessment analysis is completed and approved by the BAAQMD
staff, specific sections of the Draft EIR would be revised. The revisions would evaluate and provide analysis for
assessing cumulative community risks and hazards and provide the potential impacts and informational analyses
as recommended by the 2011 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Guidelines. A Notice of Completion
with the opportunity to provide comments will be provided to each agency, person, or organization that
commented on the prior Draft Environmental Impact Report documents.
Effect on the EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 state that the lead agency is required to recirculate an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability
of the Draft EIR for public review, but before certification. “Information” can include changes in the project or
environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is
“significant” if the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon
a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.
Recirculation is required if “significant new information” discloses the following:
A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure
proposed to be implemented;
1.
A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures
are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
2.
A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed
would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt
it;
3.
The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful
public review and comment were precluded.
4.
Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes
insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. Furthermore, a decision not to recirculate an EIR must be
supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
Given the issues raised by the January 14th BAAQMD letter as well as subsequent information from their staff,
and the public testimony, it would be difficult to find that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record
supporting a determination not to recirculate the draft EIR. Furthermore, a decision not to recirculate the draft EIR
appears contrary to the stated purposes of CEQA as provided in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15002.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
See Above
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
None.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Larry Silva, Manager of Health, Safety and Environmental for Phillips 66 San Francisco; George
Smith, East Bay Leadership Council; Chris Pedroza, Capenter’s Local 152; Kristen Connelly, President of East
Bay Leadership Council; Aimee Durfee, on behalf of Nancy Reiser; Joey Porter, resident of Vallejo; Paul
Miller, Technical Services Manager, Phillips 66 refinery; Richard Black, United Steel Workers; Tim Carnes,
resident of Benicia; Alex Aliferis, Executive Director, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association; Keith Howard,
Outside Counsel for Phillips 66; Pamela Peck, resident of Rodeo; Jimmy Green, Senior Counsel for Health,
Safety and Environment, Phillips 66; Nancy Peacock, Martinez Environmental Group (MEG); Teagan Clive,
resident of Rodeo; Carmen Gray, resident of Rodeo; Janet Pygeorge, Rodeo Citizens Association; Jim Neu,
resident of Martinez; Charles Davidson, resident of Hercules; Roger Lin, Counsel for appellant Communities
for a Better Environment (CBE); Ann Punch, resident of Rodeo; Ralph Hoffmann, resident of Walnut Creek;
Eduardo Martinez, resident of Richmond; M.L. Mellander, resident of El Sobrante; Rick Alcarez, resident of
Richmond; Sam Parino, Operations Manager Phillips 66 and resident of Martinez; Mark Hughes, resident of
Rodeo; Dan Bristol, Environmental Superintendent Philips 66; Mike Miller, President United Steel Workers
Local 326; Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building Trades Council. Written materials and comments for the
Board’s consideration received are attached. ACCEPTED the staff report ; ACCEPTED AND APPROVED the
Department’s recommendation to recirculate portions of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
public review following completion of a cumulative analysis of toxic air contaminants and revisions to the draft
EIR; and CONTINUED the public hearing on the appeals filed by Communities for a Better Environment and
Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger, LLP (on behalf of the Rodeo Citizens Association) to September 23, 2014, at
9:00 a.m.
ATTACHMENTS
January 14, 2014 letter from BAAQMD
May 26, 2014 letter from Blue Star Gas