Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10121993 - H.4 SE •L •.o H. 4 - •:�" .i ='= • TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra = _ : Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON o; County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '•, a'_`� .�4 � oc oosrA _= �titi4 DATE: October 12 , 1993 covrii"t SUBJECT: Hearing on appeal of Certification of EIR and approval of Land Use Permit #2009-92 for the Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project; Diana Patrick (Appellant) Shell oil Company (Applicant and Owner) ,., SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete, and that the Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project; 2 . Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the Final EIR and Land Use Permit #2009-92; FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Procedural Background: This land use permit application was submitted on February 20, 1992 . A Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day review period on May 7, 1993 . The Zoning Administrator held public hearings to receive testimony on the adequacy of the document on May 26, 1993 and June 7, 1993 . A Response to Comments document was prepared and distributed on August 5, 1993 . On August 10, 1993 , the Zoning Administrator determined that the Final EIR was adequate and complete, and was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and County CEQA Guidelines. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON 0ctobeF71T October1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x See Addendum for Board action . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Catherine Kutsuris 646-2091 ATTESTED October 12, 1993 cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Shell Oil THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GMEDA COUN DMINISTRA.TCR BY DEPUTY CK:df h \ N Page Two The County Planning Commission held public hearings on August 24 and September 7, 1993 . Sixty-eight members of the public testified, of which only six stated their opposition. The Planning Commission unanimously certified the EIR, adopted findings and a mitigation monitoring program and approved the land use permit subject to the attached conditions of approval. Letter of Appeal• The Planning Commission's certification of the EIR and approval of the land use permit was appealed by Ms. Diana Patrick on October .l, 1993 . The letter of appeal dated October 1, 1993 is attached. The appeal focuses on the adequacy of the EIR. In general, the appellant is requesting that the EIR prepared for the proposed Clean Fuels Project evaluate changes and activities which have occurred between 1979 (the year when an EIR was prepared for a different project on the site) and the present. The appellant also raises comments which she previously submitted on the Draft EIR and which were adequately responded to in the Final EIR. Due to the length of the appeal letter, the staff analysis has been prepared as a separate memorandum dated October 7, 1993 . Based on this analysis of the issues raised by the appeal, staff recommends the appeal be denied and the County Planning Commission's decision certifying the EIR and approving Land Use Permit #2009-92 be upheld. a ADDENDUM TO ITEM HA OCTOBER 12, 1993 This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by Ms. Diana Patrick and any other appeals timely filed from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning commission on the request by Shell Oil Company (Applicant and owner) for approval of a land use permit for their proposed "Clean Fuels Project". (County File 42009-92) If approved, the project would involve the construction and operation of sixteen (16) processing units, support facilities including a cooling water tower, a steam and electric power generating plant, a boiler feedwater treatment unit, and oily wastewater treatment unit and an emergency relief flaring system. Approximately 20 storage tanks, a 115 KV high voltage substation, an office building and short and long term parking areas are also proposed. Additional facilities such as operator field stations and control rooms would also be constructed in the Martinez area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report and the history of the project and the appeal and he commented on a memorandum dated October 7, 1993, responding to each and every objection raised in the appeal and he presented the staff recommendation for certification of the environmental impact report for the project as being complete and adequate, that the Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project and that the Board deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the Final EIR and Land Use Permit 2009-92 and that the Board affirm the Planning Commission's findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the project Mitigation Monitoring Program. The public hearing was opened and the following persons presented testimony: Joel Harmon, 467 Panorama Drive, Benicia, representing Shell Oil Company, commented on a response to the appeal dated October 7, 1993; Diana Patrick, P.O. Box 1086, Martinez, appellant; Steve Roberti, 525 Green Street, Martinez, representing the Central Labor Council, in opposition to the appeal; Marvin Dutra, 1251 Escobar Street, Martinez; Stan Boren, 6450 Viewpoint court, Martinez, representing Millwright Union and Contra Costa Building Trades; Kerry Gleeson, 337 Christie, Martinez; Celinda Sattler, 1204 Ulfinian Way, Martinez, representing Communities for a Safe Environment; Jeff Dodge, P.O. Box 300, Martinez, representing OCAW Local 1-5; Richard Duncan, 1229 Escobar Street, Martinez; A.V. Ted Price, 3402 Sentinel Drive, Martinez; Keith Monckton, 825 Vine Avenue, Martinez; Marie Goodman, 3331 Brookside Drive, Martinez; Ms. Patrick spoke in rebuttal. Mr. Harmon spoke in rebuttal and responded to Board concerns. The public hearing was closed. r The Board discussed the matter and the conditions of approval. Supervisor Smith concurred with a suggestion for a modification to Condition 35b to say and shall be reported annually. Supervisor Powers recommended that Condition 73 add a sentence that Shell will cooperate with Contra Costa Water Agency in efforts to distribute reclaimed water to potential customers whether private or municipal; and on Condition 82, he expressed appreciation for what Shell is doing and he requested that Shell would work to establish a mobile clinic to deal with assessing the scene and working with people at the scene in the event of a disaster. Supervisor Smith expressed concerns with the proposal and changes to the Conditions of Approval including Condition 12, 13, 18, 19. 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 77 all refer to evaluations with some subjective input of the process of investigation of air, water, odor prevention, noise control and on-going monitoring of the risks involved with this project to have those decision on those conditions come back to the Board; and with regard to Conditions 18 and 19, an addition to the language for No. 18 to say after Nitrogen Oxide it should say Nitrogen Oxide Emissions below a level of significance and for Condition 19 after emissions it should say below a level of significance; and with regard to the issue of the new technology relating to transportation of coke, the monitoring would be through the air quality fugitive emissions and under Condition 21 before Condition 22 add a condition specifically requiring that monitoring on a yearly basis of fugitive emissions of coke dust be reported back to the Board of Supervisors; and on Condition 77 the overall monitoring process, that is to refer specifically to the subject of reclaimed water and make a clear policy that the Board of Supervisors would like to encourage the use of reclaimed water in this project. Supervisor Torlakson commented on the right to appeal from the Zoning Administrator's review of the conditions. Mr. Barry suggested wording to modify the condition that would indicate the Zoning Administrator would make the initial determination and would list the item on the Board's next immediate consent calendar. Supervisor Smith concurred. Supervisor Bishop suggested the need for a community based inspector for Shell. Supervisor Powers advised that the Air Quality Board had discussed this issue and he commented on their plans in this area. Supervisor Smith expressed support for looking into the idea of a community based inspector but not as a condition of approval. Supervisor Smith advised that he supported the automatic appeal idea for conditions except for Condition 77, the overall review, and with the condition of the coke monitoring and his other conditions, he moved to deny the appeal and to approve the project with those modifications of conditions and make the finding that the Final EIR is adequate and complete. Supervisor Powers seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the appeal of Diana Patrick from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on LUP 2009-92, Shell Oil Company, applicant and owner, is DENIED; and LUP 2009-92 is APPROVED with amended conditions in the Martinez area. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT #2009-92 (SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT) GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. Development shall be based on the following documents except as modified by the conditions herein: A. "Application for Land Use Permit - Volume 1" dated received by the County Community Development Department on February 2, 1993; B. "Response to Comments: Application for Land Use Permit Volume 2" dated received by the County Community Development Department on July 1, 1992. C. Project development and operation as further described in the Final EIR. 2. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a Site Development Plan. The Plan shall: A. Identify the phasing of project construction, and the expected construction start and completion dates for each phase; B. Identify the schedule for submittal of the Hazard and Operability Studies; C. Change the location of the Light Crude Tank (refer to Draft EIR: Figure 3-22, Location Z) from the southeastern portion of the site to the area designated for additional tankage located directly to the south of proposed Cooling Water Tower (Unit #12) and the Cracked Akylation Unit (Unit #17) as depicted in Figure 3-22 of the Draft EIR or provide evidence to the satisfaction of the County Zoning Administrator, that the relocation of the tank to a more central location of the refinery or to an area more distant from residential areas is not possible. (MM 4-4) 3. The approved Site Development Plan shall be updated every six months during the duration of the construction period. OFFICE BUILDINGS 4. The office building shall not exceed any of the following: 150,000 square feet, three stories in height and 40 feet in height. (MM 4-3) 5. At least thirty days prior to submitting an application for building permits for the office building, the applicant shall submit architectural and landscaping plans to the City of Martinez for review and to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval. (MM 15-11) The office building use is limited to administrative and professional office uses. Uses such as research and laboratories are prohibited. 2 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY: GRADING REQUIREMENTS 6. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project site, the applicant shall submit the County Zoning Administrator a site-specific geotechnical report detailing the site- specific grading concepts, stability analysis, stabilization procedures, and design criteria for cut-slopes and fill-slopes. The report shall be prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the structural engineers for the project. The report applies to all sites underlain by unconsolidated deposits and underlain or adjacent to Martinez Formation or Meganos Formation bedrock. The required report shall: (MM 5-la/5-2a): A. Document the analysis and findings of a site-specific stability analyses conducted for the area proposed for grading to establish the design criteria for proposed cut or fill slopes. B. Document that the recommended criteria have been incorporated in the design of cut.and/or fill slopes. C. Document before-grading and after-grading site elevations. 7. During grading activities, the registered geotechnical professional shall be on the site to (MM 5-1 b/5-2b): A. Supervise the implementation of slope stability designs. B. Observe areas of potential instability. C. Supervise slope repairs, as necessary. D. Supervise compaction testing. 8. It is crucial that the grading code be carefully implemented,that all grading procedures be accurately documented, and that the geotechnical engineer provide effective inspections to ensure the highest quality of performance. The grading completion report submitted to the Grading Division of the Building Inspection Department shall contain a detailed, as-graded geologic map signed by the engineering geologist for the project. This plan shall show details of observed conditions in all keyway excavations and cut areas, including geologic contacts, bedding, jointing, aquifers and seepage zones, and stratigraphic units. This map, or a separate map provided by civil engineers for the project shall show all subdrains and their connections, surveyed and mapped by the civil engineer, as well as foundations. The final grading report shall provide documentation that all grading and related site preparation conforms with the applicant's sponsored geotechnical report, the County Grading Ordinance, and Chapter 70 of the UBC. It should provide for settlement monitoring of thick fills, as well as compaction test results. Design modifications, where warranted by exposed conditions, must be reviewed by the Grading Section and documented in the final report. 3 The grading of the site shall comply with the following requirements: A. To avoid creating potentially unstable slopes in the construction site, the volume of earthwork shall be kept to a practical minimum. B. Cut slopes in alluvium, and fill-slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) unless the design-level geotechnical investigation can demonstrate the satisfactory stability of a steeper configuration; C. Berms or other fill embankments shall be stabilize by removing and replacing weak material with engineered fill, by providing surface and/or subsurface drainage, or by similar procedures recommended by the geotechnical profes- sional; and D. Side-hill fills, if used, shall be keyed, drained and compacted according to the design specifications of the slope stability analyses for the site provided by the geotechnical professional. (MM 5-1/5-2) GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY: BUILDING REOUIREMENTS 9. At least thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for foundations or structures, the applicant shall submit to the County Zoning Administrator a site-specific geotechnical report detailing seismic-restraint criteria to be incorporated into the designs of the foundations and structures. The .report shall be prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the structural engineers for the project. The report shall provide for the following: A. The minimum seismic-resistant design standards for all proposed facilities shall conform to the California Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4 Standards and Contra Costa County Building Regulations Division 716. B. Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design criteria shall be incorporated in the project as necessary, based on the site-specific recommen- dations of a California Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the California registered structural engineering professionals. C. Documentation that the requirements listed in Mitigation Measure 5-4D have been incorporated into the building plans as appropriate. (MM 5-4) 10. Building permit applications for foundations or structures shall include a report prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer which documents the following requirements: A. Engineering analyses shall demonstrate satisfactory performance of Bay Mud, alluvium, and fill where they form part or all of the support for structures; 4 B. Appropriate remediation(grouting, compaction,removal etc)shall be completed prior to using liquefaction-prone sediments for foundation support; C. Roads, foundations and underground utilities in fill or alluvium shall be designed to accommodate settlement or compaction estimated by the site-specific investigations of the geotechnical engineer. (MM 5-4) WATER QUALITY 11. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit to the County Community Development Department a Soil Management Control Plan which has been approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Plan shall: A. Describe soil screening protocol to determine suitability of soil for use as fill; B. Provide for segregation of surface runoff and accumulated contaminated soils; and C. Ensure compliance with the existing stormwater NPDES permits to ensure that pollutants are not transported off-site in concentrations which would adversely impact the environment. (MM 6-2) 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction of the Delayed Coker and the Distillate Hydrotreater, the applicant shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval which details the project's compliance with the Mitigation Measures addressing selenium in the Final EIR This includes conducting a pilot study, prior to completion of final design, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, the effectiveness of the chosen combination of recycling and treatment processes in achieving no net increase in selenium discharge. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the approved report. (MM 6-4). 13. Prior to the start-up of any Clean Fuels Project element, the applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence.to the County Zoning Administrator that the Spill Prevention Con- trol and Countermeasure Plan has been updated and implemented to include: A. Secondary containment providing 100 percent capacity for all tanks; B. Segregation of oily surfaces and surface runoff by physical•barriers; C. Operational controls such as limited access to gates at discharge locations, logging procedures for gate operation, maintenance and inspection procedures, and worker education; D. All new facilities within the operations of the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the approved report. (MM 6-5) 5 14. All hydrocarbon pipes shall be installed above ground as feasible to allow for inspection and maintenance. If no practical alternative to underground hydrocarbon piping exists, underground systems with double containment and leak detection systems will be required. (MM 8-1 b) 15. In areas with high groundwater where construction will occur, the applicant shall undertake dewatering as necessary. Any discharge of groundwater shall be in compliance with the stormwater NPDES permit. (MM 6-2) AIR QUALITY 16. During the construction phase, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions: A. Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to be maintained at 15 mph or less. B. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered and should maintain at least six inches of freeboard (i.e., minimum requires space between top of the load and top of the trailer). C. Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, 150 total daily trips for all vehicles. D. Pave all construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road. E. Water active sites at least twice daily. Active sites shall be watered more often if necessary during excessively hot or windy conditions to avoid any impact to adjacent properties. F. Suspend dust generating demolition activities when wind speeds (as instanta- neous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. G. Water site or suspend grading and/or excavating activities when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. H. Water or apply approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specifications to all inactive construction areas. I. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practical. J. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders, according to manufacturer's specifications to exposed stock piles, i.e., gravel, sand, dirt. K. Pave construction and access roads that will become part of the refinery long term operation early in the construction schedule. } 6 L. Establish a wheel washing station on the construction site exit to prevent entrance dust from leaving the site. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement to comply with one or more of the above measures based on the applicant's submittal of adequate evidence that compliance is infeasible because of associated safety hazards. 17. During the construction phase, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce construction equipment combustion by product emissions (MM 8-1 c): A. Use construction equipment that have catalytic converters (for gasoline powered equipment) to the extent feasible. B. Prevent trucks from idling longer than two minutes to the extent feasible. C. Use low emission on-site mobile equipment: on-road diesel engines, to the extent available. use turbochargers and aftercoolers, to the extent available. maximum fuel injection timing retard adjustment for equipment without on-road diesel engines. electric versions of equipment, to the extent available. D. Use electricity from power plants (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators to the extent feasible. E. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05% sulfur content) in diesel-powered construction equipment. 18. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the program to reduce nitrogen oxide through urea injection control technology has been implemented. (MM 8-4) 19. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the program to reduce sulfur oxide emissions has been approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and has been implemented. (MM 8-6) 20. Prior to the start-up of the proposed hydrogen plant, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that carbon monoxide oxidation catalyst technology has been applied to the hydrogen plant heater in order to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from that source by 90 percent; or that other measures have been applied which achieve the same level of reduction (97.5 tons per year reduction in carbon monoxide emissions). (MM 8-7) 7 21. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide confirmation to the Zoning Administrator that its proposed control measures leading to reduction of PM 10 formation in the atmosphere (i.e. nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide control) would be sufficient to reduce PM 10 emissions below a level of significance. (MM 8-8) RISK OF UPSET 22. At least sixty (60) days prior to the start-up of any element of the proposed project with the exception of control rooms, maintenance/warehouse buildings, and the office building, a Hazard and Operability study and accident consequence analysis shall be completed and submitted to the County Health Services Department for review and the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The study shall use methods established by the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 750 and significance criteria identified in the project Final EIR. If the Hazard and Operability Study finds significant impacts, the study shall include proposed engineering or operational controls to reduce the probability or severity of significant accidents. If additional engineering and operation controls are not adequate to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant, the applicant shall consult with the County Health Services Department to identify feasible changes in the proposed project necessary to further reduce the probability or severity of significant accidents. The changes may require moving project components. (MM 11-6a) 23. Prior to start-up, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Health Services Department, that the measures detailed in the approved Hazard and Operability studies have been implemented. (MM 11-6a) 24. Prior to the commencement of any construction to modify any portion of the proposed Clean Fuels project which has the potential to generate an off-site hazard from process upset, the applicant shall provide written notice to the County Health Services Department and to the County Zoning Administrator and obtain a determination as to whether the change requires an new Hazard and Operability Study and accident consequence analysis. If the Zoning Administrator determines that the analysis is required, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Conditions #22 and #23 above for the modification to the project. (MM 11-6b) ODOR PREVENTION 25. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for the Sour Water System, the Delayed Coking Unit, the Sulfur Recovery Unit, the Hydrogen Plan, the Flare System and the Distillate Hydrotreater, the applicant shall provide adequate evidence to the County Zoning Administrator that total hydrogen sulfide concentration (background plus project) will not exceed the odor threshold as defined in the project Final EIR. If the total hydrogen sulfide concentrations exceed the threshold, the applicant shall detail the revisions to the designs the above named units that will reduce emissions of odorous sulfur compounds, such that they will not con- tribute to concentrations (including background) above the significance threshold identified in the project Final EIR. (MM 8-12) 26. The applicant shall monitor concentrations of hydrogen sulfide using existing monitors sensitive to concentrations on the order of 0.001 ppm. The monitoring reports shall be submitted on a monthly basis to the BAAQMD. An annual summary of the monitoring reports shall be submitted to the County Community Development Department. (MM 8-12) 27. If excedances of the odor threshold occur after implementation of the project, the applicant shall implement the following measures (MM 8-12): A. Determine the source of odors and the nature of the odor-causing incident (e.g. maintenance process fluctuation, operator error, weather conditions); B. Implement improved operating procedures and/or controls for identified odor sources and odor-causing conditions, so as to reduce maximum concentrations to below the odor significance threshold identified in the project Final EIR. AIRPORT SAFETY 28. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administra- tion regarding the installation of lights on any equipment which exceeds 200 feet in height. The applicant shall install red strobe lights on any equipment which exceeds 200 feet in height unless prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE AND LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS 29. Noise generating construction activities(e.g. demolition, grading) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday, and shall be prohibited on State and federal holidays. Concrete pours begun during the allowed construction period may continue until completion. The unloading of equipment is allowed outside of the specified construction period. However, the Zoning Administrator may, after receipt of complaints from neighboring property owners, restrict this activity to the times listed in this condition. Noise generating construction activities may be allowed on Saturdays following written approval by the Zoning Administrator. 30. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons, with name,title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their areas of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. 31 . Noise-generating construction activities(e.g. demolition, grading) at the office building location, the Pacheco Boulevard parking tot, and the tank construction area in the southeast portion of the site shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, with no construction work allowed on State and federal holidays (MM 10-a/2a) 32. Construction noise sources, such as air compressors,for the construction activities on the office building site, the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot site, and the tank sites at the southeastern portion of the complex, be located as far north on the sites as possible to maximize the distance to sensitive noise receptors to the south. All construction equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained. (MM 10-1c/2c) 33. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the commencement of construction for the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot, a standard plywood construction fence noise barrier shall be erected along Pacheco Boulevard adjacent to the parking lot construction site. The fence shall be eight (8) feet high and constructed of solid 3/4-inch minimum thickness plywood. The fence shall be removed after the noise-generating paving and grading activities are concluded. (MM 10-2d) 34. Flood or area lighting needed for construction activities shall be placed and directed so as not to shine on residential or commercial properties. (MM 15-13) OPERATIONAL NOISE REQUIREMENTS 35. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for any element of the project which would generate noise, the applicant shall: A. Submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval, detailed noise level calculations delineating the noise control treatments included in the design and calculated noise levels demonstrating compliance with the following noise performance standard: 77 dBA when measured five (5) feet above the ground and 100 feet from the equipment. This analysis shall be performed by an individual who is a registered engineer or a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and who has at least five years experience is noise control engineering. (MM 10-4a/b). B. Submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval a noise monitoring Plan. The Plan shall specify noise monitoring requirements for certifying the project's compliance with the noise performance standard -specified in Condition #35.A., shall identify procedures for handling remedial noise control, if required, and shall specify reporting requirements (MM 10-4c) BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN 36. Submit to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, with a copy to the City of Martinez, a plan for improving bicycle use on Marina Vista during both the construction phase and the operational phase of the project. The plan may include participation with the City of Martinez in the improvement of an alternate bicycle route, 10 including a connection from Marina Vista to the planned bicycle lane on the proposed new Benicia Bridge span, subject to the review of the East Bay Regional Parks District and City of Martinez, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Construct the improvements as outlined in the plan from 1-680 to Shell Avenue, or contribute to the City of Martinez the equivalent construction cost for the improve- ments, subject to the review of the City, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified in writing of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-15) Shell Oil shall be obligated to provide a trail easement from the Bay Trail to Marina Vista. The location and alignment of the trail shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the East Bay Regional Park District and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez and the East Bay Regional Park District shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. GENERAL TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS 37. The requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements as detailed in Conditions #38 through #44 and Conditions #47 through #70 will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914(Drainage) and Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Unless otherwise noted in the Environmental Impact Report or in these conditions of approval, the improvements required herein shall be completed prior to commission (start-up) of the proposed facilities. 38. Coordinate with Southern Pacific and contribute the necessary funding for the modification or replacement of the existing automatic crossing protection to include crossing gates at Marina Vista in the vicinity of the Genstar Gate. The new or modified crossing protection shall be designed to accommodate the ultimate improvements on Marina Vista, or at the minimum, to accommodate the traffic identified in the 2010 cumulative scenario in the EIR, and will conform to CPUC standard No. 9A (Highway Crossing Signal Assembly Automatic Gate Type with Cantilever Arm), subject to the review of the CPUC and the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-12) 39. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this project. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division. 11 40. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. 41. An encroachment permit for construction within the State right of way shall be obtained from Caltrans through the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 42. Provide for adequate sight distance at the P-2, P-3, Genstar, and Fairview access gate and the Shell Avenue access to the proposed office facility, for a design speed of 40 miles per hour in accordance with Caltrans standards. 43. On all public roads with longitudinal slopes less than five percent, all public pedestrian access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access). This shall include all driveway depressions as well as handicap ramps. 44. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Martinez for any work within the City limits. 45. The applicant shall prohibit construction and material truck deliveries which originate within the State of California, with the exception of concrete delivery trucks, between the hours of 6:00 to 8:00 AM and 4:30 to 6:30 PM (MM 12-1d) 46. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Zoning Administrator of compliance with Mitigation Measure 8-1 a. The Measure requires that he applicant include in all contracts with companies involved in the construction of the project that daily average vehicle ridership equal not less than 1.15 (BAAQMD goal for Contra Costa County, 1194). The average daily ridership shall be calculated based upon the definition construction BAAQMD Regulation 13, Rule 2. To the extent that the average vehicle ridership can not be achieved, the applicant may propose alternative measurable pollution reducing alternatives for implementation. In the event that local commute rules also apply, the most stringent rules shall be followed. (MM 8-1a) FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS 47. A. Construct curb, six-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, signing and striping, and necessary pavement widening along the Pacheco Boulevard frontage between Wygal Drive and the easterly Shell property line. The face of the curb shall be 40 feet from the centerline of the road. The graded hinge point in the cut areas shall be a minimum of 8 feet from the face of the curb. Construct a 6-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face)from the above sidewalk at Wygal Drive to the P-3 Gate at Pacheco Boulevard. Standard curb returns with ramps shall be constructed at Wygal Drive. 12 The face of curb along the frontage of the ACE Hardware property at Wygal Drive shall be located 44 feet from the centerline of the road to provide for on street parking. The frontage improvements along the ACE property shall be constructed by the applicant only if the property owner dedicates the appropriate road widening to the County at no cost. If the property owner (ACE) refuses, in writing, to dedicate the area for the frontage improvements, then the applicant will not be required to construct the frontage improvements and will conform at each end of the ACE property. Level the depressed section of existing pavement along the curb at the creek crossing, east of Howe Road on Pacheco Road. B. Construct curb, six-foot six-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along the Shell Avenue frontage of the old County Corporation Yard (site of the proposed Shell office building) on the west side of the road. The face of the curb shall be 20 feet from the centerline of the road. 48. Construct four-foot rock shoulders along both sides of Shell Avenue subject to the review of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. This may require the installation of longitudinal and transverse drainage to replace the existing roadside ditches. The four-foot rock shoulders will not be required at the following locations: A. In areas where a new curb is to be constructed, such as the County Corpora- tion Yard frontage. B. In the vicinity of the utility bridge. C. In areas with curb adjacent to the travel lane, and D. In the vicinity of Pacheco Boulevard, if not feasible. Provide for a safe pedestrian access, along Shell Avenue or along an alternate alignment,from the proposed office site to the existing sidewalk at Pacheco Boulevard, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. This may be implemented by providing a 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the west side of Shell Avenue, an 8-foot parking lane and two 12-foot travel lanes from the County Corporation Yard to Pacheco Boulevard with an alignment subject to the review of the Public Works Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The widening of Shell Avenue south of the County Corporation Yard may require installation of a retaining wall, guard rail and relocation of a portion of the existing sidewalk on the east side of the street. All improvements along Shell Avenue shall be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed administrative offices. 13 49. Install a traffic signal at the Gate P-3/Pacheco Boulevard intersection, and interconnect the new signal with the existing signals on Pacheco Boulevard at Howe Road, Morello Avenue, and Shell Avenue. Installation of microwave connections between these signals is acceptable, if feasible. (EIR Chapter 12, Section II.A.3.b; page 12-34) 50. The applicant shall be required to repair damaged sections of curb and sidewalk along the Pacheco Boulevard and Marina Vista frontage of the Shell Oil property. 51. Execute a deferred improvement agreement to construct curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from the curb face) at the ultimate location, along with longitudinal and transverse drainage and necessary pavement widening along the Marina Vista frontage from the end of the existing curb gutter and sidewalk near Shell Avenue to the easterly property boundary. The improvements shall be constructed when the bicycle/pedestrian connection between Marina Vista and the proposed new Benicia Bridge span is constructed. The intent is to provide a pedestrian facility along the south side of Marina Vista to tie into the bicycle/pedestrian connection from the new Benicia Bridge. OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 52. Prior to project initiation submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan prepared by an independent traffic consultant, subject to the review of Caltrans and the review and approval of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. The following elements shall be included in the study: A. Transportation Demand Reduction Plan. B. Congestion Monitoring Program. C. Access Management Plan. Any operational or capacity problems created as a result of the Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be mitigated subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. This may entail construction of additional physical road improvements. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1a) 53. Construct a temporary traffic signal at the Fairview Gate that is consistent with Caltrans and County standards, and operate the signal during the construction period. At the completion of the construction period,the signal shall be dismantled. The signal design shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1b and 12-5) 54. Prior to project initiation, install a connecting roadway between the Fairview parking lot and the Genstar internal roadway. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1c) 14 55. Should the Construction Traffic Management Plan identify the need, widen Pacheco Boulevard in the vicinity of Morello Avenue to provide one additional westbound through lane at the Pacheco Boulevard/Morello Avenue intersection, and modify the existing signal to its ultimate location and configuration. This improvement will involve the adjustment of the Contra Costa Water District siphon manhole. The additional lane shall extend a minimum of 250 feet east of Morello Avenue. This improvement shall constitute the project's pro-rata share of the Pacheco Boulevard widening off-site. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-3 and 12-6). The design of the signal and the signing and striping on Morello Avenue shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. If the Traffic Management Plan does not identify the need to improve the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Morello Avenue, then the applicant shall contribute the project's pro-rata share of widening Pacheco Boulevard from Morello Avenue to Arthur Road. 56. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The fee will be based upon the number of new permanent shift employees impacting the PM peak hour, plus the square footage of the proposed office building, plus the number of new, permanent administrative employees which will not be stationed in the proposed office facility. The fee associated with the new office facility will be collected prior to issuance of building permits for the facility. Existing office buildings which are removed from the site shall be credited toward this fee subject to the review of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 57. Reconfigure the intersection of Marina Vista and Amorco Road to provide for adequate truck turning radii, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. If there are right of way conflicts with the railroad which cannot be resolved or acquired prior to completion of the improvements for this project, then the applicant shall contribute their fair share of the cost of the improvements to the City to be held 'in a trust fund for the construction of the intersection improvements. PAVEMENT DETERIORATION AND MAINTENANCE 58. Rebuild the pavement structural section of Marina Vista between the Fairview Gate and the Interstate Highway 680 northbound ramps, subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4, 12-8 and 13-6) 59. Contribute a fair share amount toward the reconstruction of the pavement structural section of the Interstate Highway 680 northbound and southbound on- and off-ramps at Marina Vista. The fair share amount shall be based upon the project-generated truck ADT on the ramps versus the total truck ADT on the ramps. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4, 12-8 and 13-6) 15 60. Prepare and implement a pavement monitoring program for Marina Vista,subject to the review of the City of Martinez, and for the Interstate 680 on- and off-ramps, subject to the review of Caltrans. These improvements shall also be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. The monitoring program shall require: A. Video evidence of the pavement conditions before and after the project. B. Posting of a pavement repair bond. C. The exclusion of specific County and City roads from truck delivery routes to the site, which for safety and maintenance reasons, cannot support additional truck traffic. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4) D. The applicant shall contract with the County to have a road rating and deflection analysis performed before and after project construction to determine the extent of remedial work to be performed. Remedial work shall consist of pavement repair and/or pavement overlay and reconstruction of portions of the road as deemed necessary to bring the road to at least its pre-construction condition. The scope of work for the contract shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. ROAD DEDICATIONS 61. Convey to the County and the City of Martinez, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Shell Avenue as required for the planned future half-width of 30 feet at the time improvements on Shell Avenue are needed. Convey to the City of Martinez, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Marina Vista as required for the planned future width of 60 feet at the time improvements on Marina Vista are needed. The applicant shall execute an agreement with the County and the City, wherein the applicant shall agree to dedicate the additional right of way when the improvements are needed and the County and City decides to construct the improvements. The applicant shall also agree to not construct any new facilities within the area to be dedicated and that any facilities currently within the area to be dedicated that are to be reconstructed or replaced, shall be relocated outside of the area to be dedicated at the time of replacement or reconstruction. The intent is that over time the area to be dedicated shall be cleared of all existing facilities through the routine maintenance and replacement of the facilities. At the time the road improvements are needed, any facilities that remain within the area to be dedicated shall be relocated and paid for as a part of the road improvement project. The applicant, however, shall be responsible for relocating any facilities that were reconstructed or replaced within the area to be 16 dedicated, in violation of the intent of this condition. In addition, for those facilities that are replaced rather than relocated, the applicant shall participate in the replace- ments costs of the facilities in relation to the benefit derived by replacing the old facility with a new facility. The agreement shall include a map, as an exhibit, which shall depict the areas to be dedicated. Upon execution of the agreement,the applicant shall show the area to be dedicated on their planning, engineering and maintenance drawings, maps, and documents to ensure implementation of the provisions of the agreement. The agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the Public Works Department and shall be reviewed by the City of Martinez and shall be reviewed and . approved by the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. The agreement shall be executed prior to completion of the project improvements. 62. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Pacheco Boulevard as required for the planned future half-width of 50 feet. 63. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Shell Avenue along the frontage of the administration building project (Helena Avenue to the utility bridge) for the planned future half width of 30 feet. 64. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Jefferson Street as required for the planned future width of 56 feet. 65. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way and necessary slope easements on Helena Avenue for the planned future half width on the north side of 28 feet. STREET LIGHTS 66. Install street lights along the Shell Avenue frontage of this property between Helena Avenue and the utility bridge (the County Corporation Yard). The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 67. Install additional safety street fighting (such as at intersections) along the Pacheco Boulevard frontage of the Shell Oil property. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 68. Install additional safety street lighting (such as at intersections) along the Marina Vista frontage, if deemed necessary by the City of Martinez subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The final number and location of the lights shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. 17 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 69. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires conveying of all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Since storm waters entering or originating within the property are discharged into the natural watercourse traversing the property, the applicant will be permitted an excep- tion from the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance Code providing it is shown that storm waters do not back up onto public or private property outside of the project boundaries. In addition, the applicant shall execute an agreement (drainage release) accepting the storm waters onto the applicant's property and holding the County harmless from any damage caused by the storm waters crossing the applicant's property. 70. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. FLARE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 71. The use of an alternate flare system which would include a number of smaller flare "stems" as described in the "Flare System Alternative" of the Final EIR (refer to page .20-18 of the Draft EIR) is allowed upon approval of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. LANDSCAPING PLANS 72. Within six (6) months of the effective date of the land use permit, the applicant shall submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval a Landscaping Plan for the project site. Prior to submittal to the County, the applicant shall submit the Plan to the City of Martinez for their review and comment. Any City comments or requests for changes which are not incorporated in the proposed Landscape Plan, shall be summarized and submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The purpose of the Landscaping Plan is to reduce the visual impact of the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible as visible from Highway 680 and from the Marina Vista "Gateway" to the City of Martinez. The Landscaping Plan shall be prepared by a Certified Landscape architect and shall improve the visual appearance of: A. The proposed project as viewed from Highway 680 and from the Marina Vista Interchange; and B. The area between the Light Crude Tank and residential areas if relocation of the tank is found to be infeasible (refer to Condition #2.C.). (MM 4-6) i 18 Since the proposed project would include structures that may be up to 300 feet in height, landscaping would have limited success as a screen. Thus, the focus of the Landscaping Plan shall be to improve the visual character of the area to the maximum extent feasible. The Landscaping Plan shall provide for: A. Increasing the height and length of the existing berm which runs along the northeastern boundary of the Complex; B. The use of berms throughout the landscaped areas to increase the height of the land and thus provide for greater visual screening; C. The use of evergreen trees with minimum mature heights consistent with the existing mature trees at the northeast portion of the complex; D. The landscaping of a sufficiently large area to achieve the goal of improving the visual character of the proposed project area. E. Consideration of placing trees adjacent to Highway 680; F. A schedule for Plan implementation; and G. Ongoing maintenance and replacement of landscaping that dies. (MM 13-8b(i)) The implementation of the Landscaping Plan shall be completed according to the schedule specified in the approved plan. The applicant shall provide evidence to the County Community Development Department that a landscape plan for the screening along Marina Vista has been approved by the City of Martinez. The Plan shall be consistent with Mitigation Measure 15-5 of the Final EIR. The applicant shall notify the County Community Development Department when the landscaping has been completed as provided for in the approved Plan. (MM 15-5) RECLAIMED WATER 73. The applicant shall complete a feasibility study for the use of reclaimed water for industrial use, The study, which shall be prepared in consultation with the Contra Costa Water District, shall identify water quality standards necessary for industrial use, and determine the mix of raw and reclaimed water which would meet these standards (MM 13-8b(i)) OTHER REQUIREMENTS 74. The maintenance, warehouses and control buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in height (MM 4-3) 19 If the applicant is responsible for the demolition of the facilities located at the County Yard on Shell Avenue, the applicant shall comply with Conditions #31 and #32 with respect to the demolition of the site. (MM 8-13) 75. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9,the applicant shall defend,indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Cosa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 76. A. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. B. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site,there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. C. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved,catalogued, analyzed,evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. 77. The Zoning Administrator shall hold public hearings at a frequency of one per year during the first five years and every three years thereafter for the sole purpose of determining the applicant's compliance with the land use permit conditions. 78. The applicant shall submit an annual report to the Director of Community Development on the facility's compliance with the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The report shall include supporting information from other 20 regulatory agencies as applicable. For each mitigation measure, the report shall identify the compliance with the measure, the procedures or standards used to judge the compliance as applicable, times and dates of the monitoring and whether further action is required. 79. Within 18 months of the effective date of this permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the facility's "Office Education Program" has been expanded. 80.. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the Emergency manual has been updated to include the project units. 81. Prior to the start-up for each project element which manages hazardous materials, the applicant shall update the Hazardous Materials Business Plan. 82. The applicant shall, upon the request of the County, participate with the County in community emergency response notification and education programs. 83. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the office building or prior to the start-up of the project units, the applicant shall comply with the County Childcare Ordinance. ADVISORY NOTES A. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. B. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within the development that may affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. C. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required. D. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. E. The applicant will be required to pay an environmental review fee of $850.00 for the Department of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal period.. Failure to do so will result in fines. A check for this fee shall be submitted to Contra Costa County for submittal with the final environmental documents. 21 G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construc- tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Region II or Central Valley - Region V). (EIR Mitigation Measure 5-3, 6-1 and 7-1) H. The applicant will be required to submit to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and comment fire prevention and protection system plans for the Clean Fuels project operating equipment and fire supply. CK/aa LUPXXXVII I/2009-92C.CK 9/2/93 ~ Agenda Item #1 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY. AUGUST 24. 1993 - 7:30 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION SHELL OIL COMPANY (Applicant & Owner), County File #2009-92: The applicant requests approval of a land use permit for their proposed "Clean Fuels Project". If approved, the project would involve the construction and operation of 16 processing units, support facilities including a cooling water tower, a steam and electric power generating plant, a boiler feedwater treatment unit, an oily wastewater treatment unit and an emergency relief flaring system. Approximately 20 storage tanks, a 115 KV high voltage substation, an office building and short and long term parking areas are also proposed. Additional facilities such as operator field stations and control rooms would also be constructed. The proposed project is located on numerous parcels which total approximately 80 acres of the 880 acre Martinez Manufacturing Complex located south of Marina Vista, west of Highway 680 and north of Pacheco Boulevard in the unincorporated area. (H-1) (ZA: H-1/N-3) (CT 3200.01) 11. RECOMMENDATION A. Accept the Zoning Administrator's recommendation to certify the Final EIR as adequate and complete; B. Certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete, and that the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project; C. Receive public testimony on the proposed Land Use Permit Application, and continue the public hearing to the Commission's September 7, 1993 hearing; The proposed Conditions of Approval are currently being prepared, and will be included in a supplemental staff report prepared for your September 7, 1993 hearing. Ill. GENERAL INFORMATION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY: The proposed project would be located within the 880 acre Martinez Manufacturing Complex and on the 5.6 acre parcel on Shell Avenue currently occupied by the County Fleet Maintenance Facilty. The Martinez Manufacturing Complex is located within the unincor- porated area and within the City of Martinez. The main portion of the Complex is bordered by Marina Vista Boulevard to the north, Interstate 680 to the east, Pacheco Boulevard to the south and Merrithew Avenue to the west. 2 The surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, industrial and open space (refer to Figure 1). B. SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would be located on approximately 80 acres of the 880 acre Martinez Manufacturing Complex and on a 5.6 acre parcel currently occupied by the County Fleet Maintenance Facility. The majority of the project improvements would be located at the northeastern portion of the site, the area which has been occupied by the Genstar Roofing and Trumbull Asphalt Companies (refer to Figure 2: Proposed Project Facilities). A number of other processing units and .support facilities such as the Lube Hydrotreater,the Distillate Saturation Unit and the Cogeneration Facility, would be located in the south central portion of the Complex. The project also involves the use of the 5.6 acre parcel on Shell Avenue which is currently occupied by the County Fleet Maintenance Building and the Agricultural Department's Weights and Measures Division. The project proposes to use this property to construct an office building. Prior to this construction, the property would be used for a parking and laydown area. Additional project components would be located within the City of Martinez. As shown on Figure 3, the pentane loading rack, truck scales and a dimate tank would be located within the incorporated area. The applicant has submitted a separate application to the City of Martinez for those components. C. GENERAL PLAN: The proposed project is predominately located within the unincorporated area, with portions located within the City of Martinez. 1. CountyGeneral Plan: The Martinez Manufacturing Complex is desig- nated "Heavy Industry" (H-1) which allows oil refining and other manufacturing uses. The proposed project's consistency with each of the General Plan elements is discussed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The recommended mitigation measures necessary to bring the project into compliance with the General Plan will be incorporated into the proposed Conditions of Approval. 2. City of Martinez General Plan: The consistency,of the proposed project with the City of Martinez General Plan is discussed in the EIR (refer to Chapter 4) The recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed Conditions of Approval as applicable to the requested land use permit. D. ZONING: The majority of the Martinez Manufacturing Complex is located within the Heavy Industrial Zoning District, as shown on Figure 4. There are no height or lot size/dimension requirements for this District. A small portion of the southeast corner of the site is zoned Controlled Heavy Industrial (W-3), General Agricultural (A-2) and General Commercial (C). However,the proposed project does not involve improvements within any of these other Zoning Districts. 4J / Mi le \ lira, • ��'^ i ck\� I' t� ,00 ^1177 •^ .�---".--.-. � M ;� rn 8 . - . �--��°®®moo .ob�g .-•�:; � 1. JL �yu � !i• a k I � IE11e Im Ivlo IaIZia Iial aI '9 �..J J1 Vl a lg l ♦ I wIN I a: %� a 1;•, \. -'tmc,is�� � 1 AN 116 r4 VJs o C ...,` 401/ . .. "�.,.Y• r �/ /. a•. —V Via, ® N,� + :�.'•_Y :��i �j �......__:.............._.' : • It.. ( 0 01 fiery > Al , _._.;;...._ _� 8 ; 1' 000o6' J _., � 0 ©� } I 7 11 QOC6 C { ' I - k.� O O O 0 ® F i A I ®0 it s 00 �' t %i. •'1 00 l _e 00 ge go a �+ 0 '4 ~Q ��©�` � •`• it .. ii 000 �! f !`•i r „ rr.',�� , 0 ®®O6eOO®®O® OOOOm OOmO ray �llijf �► @.� O 2 • — ,cam./J f f ®• �� � S � ��i C e � OL O ass*^ �` �;!" ��•w `.�'�' Vii. ' �� �,`` � � •`\.:._'"" �/ .rr// J�,.. f (�1`«:�lL,,, Epi _-�i" """'���„, �, � '•� 0061 ct O4 U FT g1r ..�•�-•'/ �. r r J:+.� },�YVp Q�� y , jOgp S1 j�' 'x • [moi ' i•.i "fit, z � � :-.��i ��.iaho �y •+ '..._..._; .. _ 1 - � s I O '� a�.i�.• • UUU � , - aaa( � G i` :. vo 4 a w f �.I . _ i e -- • - ...... :••E:EEt s; CA TIA Nil 90 11 0*O a� 6 I Ip2 `�` .may;♦• ��` 13 l r 1 1 I I 1 1 I . 1 . 1 • 1 , 1 1 i 1 , . • I • 1 { . t � • 8 / _ � �-,� � a 7� ' � :,:-•...f f7 0 R r \ 7=•tee� s �� �7���, 1 00 EF N 00 y • \\ 01' B. _ { It • , ,� �� iii io "k�!• s Cr .., LI' l 11 , -:-- � {rye `• �... u ai 00 © /`. , li E ir, ���Q ,7•' z. x 000 Q i , i o ; 1 I I 00 �f`1 p ! Ilk i N 3 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed "Clean Fuels Project" has three objectives: To modify the facility in order to produce gasoline which meets the federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and the State 1990 Clean Air Act while maintaining existing production volume; To upgrade high sulfur, heavy fuels to cleaner, more valuable products; and To allow other oxygenates and gasoline within Tank #s 12445 and 12446 which were constructed for the storage of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). A.' PROJECT OBJECTIVES: The 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments and the 1990 State Clean Air Act established a phased system for requiring significant changes to the gasoline that is produced. Phase I and Phase II of the 1990 federal,Clean Air Act amendments set requirements for raid vapor pressure and oxygenate levels. These Phases were implemented on January 1, 1992 and November 1, 1992 respectively. Phase III of the federal Clean Air Act amendments requires the most drastic changes in gasoline specifications and subsequently, changes to the refineries. The amendments require "reformulated" gasoline to be available at service stations pumps in the nation's nine worst ozone non-attainment areas, which includes the San Francisco Bay Area, and the California Central Valley. Reformulated gasoline is a fuel designed to produce cleaner combustion in motor vehicles than the gasoline presently available. Through cleaner combustion, improvements in air quality and public health can be realized. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments require reformulated to be available at gasoline pumps by January 1, 1995. Additional discussion of the regulatory requirements is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR (refer to "Objectives and Requirements" on page 3-12) and Chapter 8 (refer to "Applicable Rules and Standards on page 8-1). The California Air Resources Board Regulations require additional specifications (e.g. olefin content, oxygen content) be met by March 1, 1996. The discussion of the benefits of the regulations statewide and as a result of the proposed project is discussed in Chapter 18 of the EIR. B. PROJECT ELEMENTS: The proposed project would involve the demolition and relocation of existing facilities at the Complex, excavation and grading to prepare the construction sites, construction of new processing units and Y ancillary facilities, and the modification of existing facilities to integrate the Clean Fuels Project. In addition, a 100,000 square foot office building would be constructed on the current site of the County Fleet Maintenance Facility on Shell Avenue. 4 1. PROCESSING UNITS: The project involves the construction of 16 processing units as listed below. The list includes a brief description of the size and shape of the unit. The purpose of each unit is summarized in Figure 5, and is described in detail in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. The Unit numbers correspond to the location shown on Figure 2): #1: C5/C6 Isomerization Unit. including the Decvclohexanizer: This unit would include two prominent columns which are approxi- mately 200 feet in height by 14 feet in diameter, and 130 feet in height and 6 feet in.diameter. #2: Hydrogen Plant: This plant would include a stack approximately 300 feet in height and 13 feet in diameter. #3: Distillate Hydrotreater: This unit would have three prominent structures: two columns and the stack associated with the heater. The columns would be 120 feet by 6 feet and 110 feet by 11 feet. The stack would have a maximum height of 300 feet. #4: Delayed Coker with Coker Gasoline Splitter Column: This unit would be the most visible from Highway 680. The unit consists of six vertical drums in a row surrounded by a support structure 120 feet in height, with a combined length of 180 feet and a width of 30 feet. Drilling equipment located on the top of the drums would add 130 feet,resulting in a combined height of 250 feet. #5: Coke Barn: The coke barn would be the largest component of the proposed project. The barn would be similar to an A-frame structure with a rectangular base 400 feet in length and 200 feet wide. The height of the barn would be 100 feet at the roof's peak. #7: Lube Hydrotreater: The Lube Hydrotreater would include a stack and heater. the stack would be 300 feet in maximum height by 2 feet in diameter. The Hydrotreater would be similar in appear- ance to the existing Lube Hydrotreater (refer to Figure 15-5 on page 15-14 of the Draft EIR). #16 Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater: This unit would include a heater and stack. The stack would be a maximum of 300 feet in height . and 3 feet in diameter. #17 Alkylation Unit: This unit would include four prominent columns which are approximately 200 feet, 170 feet 155 feet and 135 feet in height. 5 #18 Butane Isomerization: This unit would include two prominent columns. The height and diameter of the columns would be approximately 200 feet by 13 feet and 100 feet by 6 feet. #19: Light Cracked Gasoline Treater: -This unit would include one prominent column which is approximately 180 feet in height and 9 feet in diameter. #23 Distillate Saturation Unit: This unit would have one prominent structure, a stack which would be approximately 150 feet in height. 2. ANCILLARY UNITS AND EQUIPMENT: To support new processing units, additional equipment and systems are proposed. A description of the function of each of these project elements is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. The numbers refer to the location as shown on Figure 2. They include: #9 Sulfur Recovery Unit and Sour Water System: This unit would include three columns with heights of 105 to 135 feet and a stack with a height of 300 feet. #10 Cogeneration Facility: This facility would include a stack with 15 foot diameter and a maximum height of 300 feet. #11 Boiler Feedwater Treater: This unit would be one of the smaller of the proposed improvements. It would include tanks (20 feet in height and 20 to 50 feet in diameter) #12 Cooling Water Tower: This unit would be a box-type structure approximately 75 feet in height, similar in appearance to the existing tower shown in Figure 15-7 of the Draft EIR. #15 Flare System: The Flare System would include two flares approximately 30 feet in height. Each flare would have a continual pilot flame but would flare only as necessary to dispose of flammable gases during emergencies and maintenance. 3. ADDITIONAL PROJECT COMPONENTS: The proposed project also involves the construction of control rooms, a maintenance building, 3 warehouse buildings, a 100,000 square foot office building, parking lots for construction and long-term use and nineteen storage tanks. The tanks would act a feed tanks, would provide process unit intermediate storage and would store products. A description of the size of the new tanks is provided in Figure 6. Further information on these components is provided in the Final EIR. nm . ro �• c rA s►+ n ~ " " d S x y ~ a CD ov• C � � Ul cr IL v 0 Q V IJP Op z rn o� F1 czu RE 6 PROPOSED NEW TANK DIMENSIONS Number of Maximum New Tanks Tanks Diameter Height Lube.Crude Tanks 2 150' 48' Dimate Tank 1 134' 30' Isomerization Feed 1 144' 34.5' Tank Heavy Naphtha Tank 1 87' 47' Sour Water Tank 1 110' 60' Declayed Coking 1 120' 48' Unit Recycle Oil Tank Delayed Coking Unit 1 150' 48' Feed Tank CS Tanks 3 90' 60' Lt. Crude Tank (#1) 1 110' 60' Lt. Crude Tank (#2) 1 230' 48' Olefin Sphere 1 50' --- Liquified Petroleum 1 42' --- Gases Sphere Alkylate Tank 1 123' 48' Butane Sphere 1 50' --- Effluent Holding 1 50' 48' Tank Sludge Thickener 1 60' 40' Tank 1 C, 6 C. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION/IMPLEMENTATION: The project would be constructed over a five year period, and would involve up to an estimated 1750 construction employees per day during peak periods. In order to prepare for construction of the proposed project, some existing equipment and facilities would require demolition. Areas and equipment to be demolished are listed in Figure 7 (Location of Demolition and Relocation Activities), and include old crude reservoirs, old tanks and concrete slabs. The project would also involve grading (approximately 308,000 cubic yards of cut and 408,000 cubic yards of fill) at the locations identified in Figure 8. Additional information regarding the grading is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR (refer to page 3-58). V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The EIR identified environmental impacts which would occur if the proposed project would be implemented. The EIR includes recommended mitigation measures which would reduce most of the impacts to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measures will be included in the proposed Conditions of Approval. The EIR also identified impacts which could not be reduced to a "less than significant" level, and impacts which were found to be beneficial. A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts: The EIR found that a number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of less than significant. These impacts are in the air quality, noise, risk of upset and visual quality topic areas. Mitigation measures have been identified for most of these impacts; however, the mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. The description and analysis of these "Significant and Unavoidable" Impacts is provided in the Final EIR. The discussions of these impacts are located in the Final EIR as follows: 1. AIR QUALITY: Five of the twenty-two air quality impacts were found to be "significant and unavoidable." Refer to Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR for Impacts 8-3, 8-5, 8-7 and 8-18. Refer to Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR and page 12-13 of the Response to Comments Document for discussion of Impact 8-1. 2. NOISE: All noise impacts were found to be mitigatable to a level of less than significant except the noise associated with the construction of the office building and the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot (refer to Chapter 10 of the Draft EIR for Impacts 10-2 and 10-11). 3. RISK OF UPSET: The risk of upset impact was determined to be "significant and unavoidable." Refer to Chapter 11 of the Draft EIR and page 12-19 in the Response to Comments Document for the discussion of Impact 11-6. '��.v,• - � .%►'�j•,� � � ..�� to +a:: 1 100 O JJ' fix' Y, P G y". I\ • .....• ....,. ,�;MIG 1 �,,,,-SY "Y:., '.. •T` ..s,1.Iw y i• � \ 00 • 1 ' �a © IO ,i'�jr .. .._ . ........ I - D .. .-'.:.:_.--�••� , (� j ` 0 .......... fl Q61 rq ti `r oQ ° lic) to ° " G}0®6iOf80© 00 p m000 0 %' 1 \ � R SS dS 8S ~;c•, ®0000000 v IL [ fig a �f • i 1 � � � . R /' \�: - '/ �tv';.� • �i ).!,����l/fit,,(• :i:_ •o /• a r Q �\1 �0.� •Vie` ° 'it ®'?/ � „' ��. x �;",.. Co JT%eh '�,�: �;�� 1•mss--_ � c.. � �. /,.� �� / •J 1f� �a�� O •'•'' ® ® � ` ; \\,' ,\=`••'fit,'•''..� • ti,•.. / _ 11 L^•_ � O 4 �� 1 / 8 l' C �IN\ 0 �, ©oo©oo©0000 00 t,; Jjyh;\• t.��,' © coo ®000©0000600 TI Ink 1 ® ®®®e®e®®®ee 00000 0000 t M� 7 4. VISUAL QUALITY: Visual quality was found be a significant and unavoidable impact from view areas along Highway 680 and at the "Gateway" to the City of Martinez. Refer to Chapter 15 of the Draft EIR for the discussion of Impact 15-6, 15-7 and 15-14. B. Beneficial Impacts: Motor vehicle emissions make up a major portion of total air emissions. Thus, reductions in motor vehicle emission would have a substantial beneficial effect on air quality. Both the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments and the California Clean Air Act include requirements that will improve vehicle emissions controls and phase in low-emission vehicles. The laws also require "reformulated" gasoline in order to reduce vehicle emissions. Reformulated gasoline is designed to reduce emissions of uncombusted hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which are major contributors to ground level ozone. Reformulated gasoline also reduces carbon monoxide emissions, which can reach non-attainment levels in over 24 California counties each winter. Reductions in sulfur will reduce sulfur oxide emissions and improve automotive catalytic converter performance. Reformulated gasoline substantially reduces the level of potentially carcinogenic air contaminants (benzene and 1,2-butadiene) in auto exhaust and evaporative emissions. The California Air Resources Board estimated that during the first year of reformulated gasoline use, volatile organic compounds will be reduced by 15 percent, nitrous oxide will be reduced by 6 percent, carbon monoxide by 17 percent and sulfur dioxide by 80 percent. These reductions translate to a reduction in adverse health effects. Health effects of air pollutants are commonly described in terms of the increase in cancer risk probability as a result of the pollutants. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District estimated that reduction in cancer risk in the Bay area as a result of reformulated gasoline requirements would be 129 in one million. This equates to 12 fewer cancer cases per year in the Bay area, of which 1.5 is attributable to this project. Based on the market share of Shell Oil's Martinez Complex, the proposed project would result in the following emission reductions: 1. San Francisco Bay Area: The proposed project would reduce Bay Area PM10 emission by 9 tons per year,volatile organic compound emissions by 4,226 tons per year, nitrous oxide by 541 tons per year, sulfur dioxide by 1064 tons per yea;and carbon monoxide by 19,736 tons per year. n^ 8 2. Martinez area: The proposed project would reduce Martinez PM10 emissions by 9 tons per year, volatile organic compound emissions by 266 tons per year, nitrous oxide by 195 tons per year and sulfur dioxide by 322 tons per year. V. CEQA STATUS The Draft EIR was distributed for the 45-day public review period on May 7, 1993. The Zoning Administrator held public hearings to receive testimony on the adequacy of the document on May 26, 1993 and June 7, 1993. A Response to Comments document was prepared and was distributed on August 5, 1993 to responsible agencies and to agencies that commented on the Draft EIR. The areas evaluated by the EIR include: Land Use and Planning Policies Geology, Soils and Seismicity Hydrology and Water Quality Vegetation and Wildlife Air Quality and Public Health Risk of Upset Transportation and Noise Public Services and Visual Quality On August 10, 1993, the Zoning Administrator determined that the Final EIR was adequate and complete, and was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with State and County CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator recommends that the Commission certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete. The Zoning Administrator's Resolution is attached as Exhibit A. The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will be incorporated into the proposed Conditions of Approval. VI. SUMMARY As noted in Section II of this report, a supplemental staff report will be prepared for your next meeting which will include proposed conditions of approval. Staff recommends that the Commission certify the EIR and open the hearing to begin accepting testimony. CK/aa LUPXXXVIII/2009-92.CK 8/20/93 r , 4.L/ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: October 7, 1993 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director by: Catherine Kutsuris, Sr. Planner SUBJECT: Staff Analysis of Appeal of the land Use Permit for the Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project (#2009-92) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This memorandum contains the staff analysis of the appeal of Land Use Permit#2009-92 filed by Ms. Diana Patrick,which has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 12, 1993 at 2:15 P.M. (Agenda Item #H-4). As summarized in the Board Order prepared for the appeal, our review has found that the appeal is without merit and should be denied. The numbers correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the attached appeal letter. 1 . Comment: The project name is inaccurate and must be amended to include expanded gasoline and jet fuel production. Response: The name of the project is not related to the adequacy of the EIR or the approval of the land use permit. The project was thoroughly and accurately described in the EIR (refer to Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR pages 3-1 through 3-72). 2. Comment: The initial study and project definition must separately consider the expanded gasoline and jet fuel production. The public was deceived into thinking the entire project was mandated by 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Response: The EIR clearly states that the project has three objectives: A. To modify the facility in order to produce gasoline which meets the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the State 1990 Clean Air Act while maintaining existing production volume; B. To upgrade high sulfur, heavy fuels to cleaner, more valuable products; and C. To allow other oxygenates and gasoline within Tanks #s 12445 and 12446 which were constructed for the storage of MTBE. Environmental impacts from the entire project were evaluated in the EIR. In addition, the EIR included a "Clean Fuels Only" alternative which clearly separated the portions of the project that are not required to comply with the Clean Air laws. 2 The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission's hearing restates that the project was designed to meet three objectives. 3. Comment: The appellant contends that the project will "worsen the environment". Response: This is a conclusory statement made without any supporting evidence. 4. Refer to Comment & Response #2. 5. Comment: The public did not have access to the EIR because of the cost. Response: Consistent with Board policy, our department charges a fee equal to the printing cost. The printing costs for the Draft EIR was $35.00 and the cost for the two volume Response to Comments document was $89.00. Copies of the EIR were available for review at libraries and at the Community Development Department. Approximately 170 copies were sold or distributed to the public and to responsible agencies. You should note that the appellant was given a courtesy copy for her use. 6. Comment: The Planning Commission hearing process was intimidating and avoided EIR dialogue; those speaking in favor of the project were allowed to speak first. Response: The Planning Commission's hearing process for this application was consistent with how all applications are heard. The majority of testimony received was by persons supporting the project. Only six of the approximately 68 persons who testified were opposed to the project. 7. Comment: "Because the project is so expansive and treads heavily on all sections of the environment", the County should have organized workshops on the EIR like the City of Hercules has done with the Pacific Refinery EIR. Response: The EIR and land use permit application were processed consistent with applicable laws and Department procedures. The Zoning Administrator held two public hearings to receive testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. These hearings were in addition to the Scoping Session held during the Notice of Preparation review period. The County Planning Commission held two separate hearings to accept public testimony. In addition, County staff has been answering questions from the public and from agencies throughout the review process. Shell Oil Company held separate community meetings to answer questions. The appellant did not provide any evidence supporting the statement that the "project treads heavily on all sections of the environment". The primary purpose of the proposed project is to produce gasoline which will meet the requirements of Clean Air laws. 3 8. Comment: The County cannot be impartial because of the "extensive fees and taxes". The purchase price and value of the County Maintenance Yard should be included in the analysis. Response: The statement that the County cannot be impartial is a conclusory statement made without supporting evidence. State CEQA Guidelines specify that "the Lead Agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole" (Section 15051 b). Consistent with this requirement, the County was the Lead Agency for the preparation of the EIR. The EIR included the relocation of the County Maintenance Yard and evaluated impacts consistent with CEQA requirements. The purchase price and value of the Maintenance facility is not relevant to the adequacy of the EIR. 9. Refer to Comment and Response #2. 10. Comment: The appellant cites a portion of the CEQA Guidelines which addresses an adequate cumulative analysis, and appears to use this section as justification that the EIR should include a comparison of the 1979 Shell EIR with the current refinery, along with the Air District's permits since 1980 to "shed some light on how this possible doubling of throughout occurred..." Response: The EIR evaluates adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The EIR does not evaluate impacts of other projects which have occurred since 1979. CEQA does not require that an EIR evaluate changes since the last EIR was prepared for a project on the site. Pursuant to CEQA and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assessed environmental impacts based on a comparison between the existing setting and the conditions should the project be constructed and operated. The inclusion of historical information, as suggested by the appellant, is irrelevant to an adequate and complete EIR. 11. Comment: The appellant states that Shell Oil had changes in their wharf activity beginning in 1982, which were not addressed in the 1979 EIR or the 1980 Air District permit. Resaonse: This comment is not relevant to the land use permit approval or to the adequacy and completeness of the EIR. 12. Comment: The appellant states that the EIR reports that Shell currently switches tank cars at the Martinez Ozol Station and that the project would substantially increase this activity. Response: The applicant misread the EIR. The switchers would come from Ozol Station to the siding adjacent to the refinery. ,4 4 13. Comment: The project description should be expanded to include the total complex, the wharf and the rail line to the SP Ozol switching station because the project expands refining of residuals, adds MTBE, and transfers the rail switching from Shell to the rail line through Martinez. Response: The appellant's statements regarding the project description are incorrect. Although the application does not address modifications to the wharf, the EIR did estimate a maximum of two additional ships would result from the proposed project. Impacts from the two additional ships were evaluated in the EIR. The project will not result in changes to the rail switching activities as suggested by the appellant. MTBE will not be added as a result of this project. MTBE is currently used at the refinery. The appellant's statement that the project description should be expanded to include the entire complex because the project would expand the refining of residuals is without basis. The project description clearly states the multiple objectives of the project which include upgrading heavy fuels to cleaner burning products. 14. Comment: The EIR does not describe the existing environment at the complex. Air monitoring data taken at the complex and at Martinez/Concord locations, consistency of the project with existing general plans, and train, vehicle and marine traffic must be included. Response: The EIR thoroughly evaluated air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project (refer to Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR). The use of emission data was further explained in the Response to Comments Document (Responses 14-19 and 14- 51). Contrary to the appellants statement's, vehicular, maritime, and rail impacts were analyzed in the EIR (refer to Chapter 12). 15. Comment: The documents do not mention the Martinez Complex increasing production to compensate for the loss of refining capacity from the Shell Willmington refinery. Response: This land use permit application does not include an increase in crude refining capacity. 16. Comment: An alternative to storing stormwater at the wastewater treatment facility must be examined. Response: The project does not include the storage of stormwater at the wastewater treatment facility (refer to Pages 3-66 and 3-67 of the Draft EIR). 5 17. Comment: Quantify the selenium discharge from each of the two project components. Response: The project as conditioned would ensure a no net increase in selenium discharges. The EIR includes a thorough discussion of selenium impacts and mitigation measures (refer to the discussion beginning on page 6-13 of the Draft EIR and page 11-1 of the Response Document). 18. Comment: Mitigation for selenium should be based on the 1980 refining capacity. Response: The 1980 refining capacity is not relevant to the assessment of impacts from the proposed project. 19. Comment: Contamination of the sea floor from crude spills during the 1980's must be included in the EIR. Response: Impacts from previous spills in the wharf area are not pertinent to this EIR since the project does not include any change in crude oil handling. Thus, testing the sea floor is not necessary for an analysis of impacts. 20. Comment: Large streams of ballast water are emitted from tankers at Shell's wharf. This problem must be addressed in the EIR. Response: Concerns about increased discharge of ballast water are unfounded as stated in Response to Comments 12A-2 and 13-12 of the Final EIR. 21. Comment: The EIR must describe how coke will be loaded onto railcars and whether the railcars which would be switched at Ozol would emit coke particles. Response: The air quality analysis of the EIR includes fugitive emissions of coke particles. Refer to Response #12 of this memorandum for discussion of the train switching. 22. Comment: Air monitoring statistics from 1980 through 1992 are required to establish a historical air profile. 1992 Concord air monitoring statistics should have been used. Response: Use of emission data was further explained in the Response to Comments Document pages 14-19 and 14-51. These responses also contain references to the Air Quality section of the DEIR (Chapter 8) which outlines data requirements by appropriate regulatory agencies. The EIR described the existing emissions. CEQA does not require a comparison between the existing conditions and those projected by a previous EIR. There should be no presumption that the "existing conditions" evaluated in a subsequent EIR should equal the "projected conditions" of a previous EIR. Response to Comment 16-32 addresses the choice of monitoring stations. 6 23. Comment: The environmental air quality setting is inadequate. Air testing is required to establish a baseline. The evaluation should include the impacts of the entire complex. Response: The requirements for documenting current emissions are discussed in the Draft EIR on pages 8-16 through 8-23. Subsequent pages document air quality of the area. and current emissions of the complex (without the Clean Fuels Project). In Response to Comment 13-8 of the Final EIR,the appellant was referred to pages 8-48 through 8-50 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the required modeling to obtain an operating permit. Additional discussion is also provided on page 16-32 of the Response to Comments Document. It is not necessary for the EIR to explain the historical evolution of the permits for the facility. Rather, the EIR must evaluate whether the project would exacerbate any existing non-compliance with air quality regulations and whether the emissions would exceed any of the standards of significance. 24. Refer to Response #10. 25. Refer to Response #22. 26. Comment: Accurate testing at the complex and in affected communities is necessary in order to model future emissions. Response: The Health Risk Assessment modeling was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the EPA. 27. Comment: This EIR has the opportunity to test and compare noise measurements between 1979 and the present. Response: Changes which may have occurred between 1979 and the present are not relevant to the assessment of environmental impacts from the proposed Clean Fuels project. 28. Comment: The risk of upset section is inaccurate because it does not define the level of production to determine risk. Response: The risk of upset analysis evaluated "worst-case" upset events that could occur as a result of the proposed project. A risk of upset analysis is driven by the hazard of the material, how it is managed, and the location where it is managed. 29. Comment: The EIR neglects to compare shipping activities as described in the 1979 EIR. Response: This information is not relevant to the preparation of an EIR for the proposed Clean Fuels project. Refer to Response #10 of this memorandum for additional discussion. 7 30. Comment: The EIR states that 13,000 additional train cars will be switched west of Martinez. The history of this activity since 1979 and the impacts must be addressed. Response: The appellant's statements regarding the project EIR are incorrect. The activity since 1979 is not relevant to an accurate and complete EIR for the proposed project. The EIR thoroughly evaluated air, noise, traffic and upset events resulting from the increase in rail traffic (refer to Chapter 8, Chapter 10, Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 of the Draft EIR). 31 . Refer to Response #12 and #13. 32. Comment: Impacts of the project on Marina Vista and impacts of truck and rail hazardous materials accidents must be analyzed. Response: The project's impacts on Marina Vista are thoroughly discussed in the Transportation Chapter of the Draft EIR (refer to Chapter 12) beginning with a discussion of the 1988 voter approved Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program and other federal, state and regional agencies involved in transportation planning for the area. Mitigation measures to reduce transportation impacts are presented on pages 12-29 through 12-83 of the Draft EIR. Evaluation of potential off-site transportation of hazardous material by truck and rail carriers is presented in the Risk of Upset Section of the Draft EIR (refer to page 11-45). Because the project will not increase the potential for off-site hazardous materials truck accidents, an alternative discussion is inappropriate. 33. Comment: The impacts of tank car storage must be evaluated. Response: The project will increase the number of rail cars accessing the facility. The impacts of this increase were evaluated in the EIR (refer to Transportation and Risk of Upset Chapters). The majority of the increase in rail cars will be for the purpose of transporting coke. Coke is a solid, non-combustible material which, if spilled, could be easily contained and removed. The rail switching activities adjacent to the refinery would not be changed as a result of the proposed project. 34. Comment: Table 12-2 of the EIR does not address PM peak hour traffic; peak hour traffic must differentiate between holiday and regular commute traffic. Response: P.M. peak hours are included in Table 12-2 of the Draft EIR. Page 12-8 of the Draft EIR explains that traffic counts are measured on typical work days, not holidays. 35. Comment: Specific mitigation for the visual blight of the Marina Vista corridor must be included in the EIR. Response: The EIR evaluated the visual impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures for significant visual impacts were included for a number of view locations, including Marina Vista (refer to Chapter 15 of the Draft EIR). ------------ 8 36. Comment: The water usage for each of the two projects should be described; the water storage history should be described. Response: The Draft EIR thoroughly discusses the increases in potable and non- potable water as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project (refer to Chapter 13 - Public Facilities and Chapter 18 - Cumulative Impacts). Water storage history is not relevant to the environmental analysis. The appellant is restating her contention that the EIR should have been separated into two projects. The staff response is provided in Response #2 of this memorandum. 37. Comment: The view of the Complex from the Benicia Bridge is a major focus at this entrance to the County and must be addressed. Response: The Draft EIR evaluates the visual impacts to the views from the gateway to the City of Martinez (from the Benicia Bridge on Interstate 680). The information is provided in Chapter 15 of the Draft EIR (refer to page 15-41). The EIR recommends mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts from this area. However, the EIR concludes that the impact remains "Significant and Unavoidable". 38. Comment: The mitigation measures must designate a landscaping plan. The landscaping plan should address the entire Shell Complex. A comprehensive maintenance program should also be included. Response: The mitigation measures require the submittal of a landscape plan (refer to discussion beginning on page 15-40 of the Draft EIR). The EIR does not provide mitigation for existing conditions at the complex. The purpose of the EIR is to evaluate impacts of the proposed Clean Fuels Project. The EIR cannot be used to require mitigation measures for the existing complex. 39. Comment: The proposed wastewater treatment tanks will create visual impacts; alternate locations or storage systems must be considered. Response:The proposed wastewater treatment tanks are not related to the Clean Fuels project. The tanks are part of a "Stipulated Conditional Order for Abatement" issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to eliminate six ponds at the Effluent Treatment Plan. The compliance with this Order is not related to the proposed project. The EIR appropriately considered potential impacts from the treatment tanks in the Cumulative Impact analysis (refer to Chapter 18 of the Draft EIR). 40. Comment: The appellant contents that the project is inconsistent with the City of Martinez General Plan policy regarding the "North Contra Costa Waterfront Zone." Response: This comment was responded to in the Final EIR (refer to page 2-1). The North Contra Costa Waterfront Zone allows for both industrial and open space uses. The proposed project would not conflict with this designation; the City of Martinez designated the Shell Complex as "Industrial." 41 . Refer to Response #38 of this memorandum. 9 42. Comment:The EIR does not adequately present environmental and economic problems affecting Martinez and how the proposed project will impact Martinez. Response: This is a conclusory statement submitted without supporting evidence. The EIR includes a thorough evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed Clean Fuels Project. 43. Comment: This document does not fully define the project, present air emissions, or evaluate worst case scenarios. Response: The Draft EIR included a detailed project description (refer to Chapter 3). The timing of CEQA review in the design process typically requires the preparation of the EIR before detailed engineering specifications have been completed. CEQA encourages Lead Agencies to prepare an EIR early in the project development stage in order to affect changes. In conducting the analysis, worst case assumptions were made in order to provide an analytical envelop in which any future refinement of the design would take place. The evaluation of "worst case" risk of upset scenarios is discussed in Chapter 11 of the Draft EIR (refer to pages 11-25, 11-32 and 11-33) and in the Response to Comments Document (refer to Response to Comments 14-43, 14-71, 14-72 and 14- 66). 44. Comment: A Mitigation Monitoring Program must be included. Response: The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigation Monitoring program for the project. 45. Comment: The impact analysis must be based on actual emission data. Response: Refer to Response #22 of this memorandum. 46. Comment: Air emission data obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would not meet CEQA requirements for accuracy. Response: Refer to Response #23 of this memorandum. 47. Comment: Consider locating the proposed project near Tosco refinery or joining the project with Tosco refinery. Response: This comment is inconsistent with state law which prohibits the inclusion of a "No Project" or an "Off Site" alternative for reformulated fuels projects. 48. Comment: The risk of upset analysis should consider worst-case potential, include impacts to Highway 680, and address impacts during start-up. 4 10 Response: The EIR contains a thorough evaluation of the risk of upset from the proposed project (refer to Chapter 11 of the Draft EIR). Sensitive receptors considered include traffic along Highway 680. The risk of upset scenarios selected for evaluation represent worst case credible accidents that could occur as a result of the proposed project. 49. Comment: The EIR fails to consider feasible alternatives such as reducing throughput and locating the activities in other areas such as the Acme Fill property. Response: The comment is inconsistent with state law which prohibits the evaluation of an off site alternative for reformulated fuels projects. Since the proposed project would not increase refining capacity, an alternative addressing a reduction in throughput is inappropriate. CK/aa LTRXIV/2002-92.CK Box 1086 "ON j; `;' . ;;; C UPI I i' Martinez 94553 . 93 OCT - 1 PFS 3' 53 September 30, 1993 ;r,,,•.,7 %' DEPT. TO: Tom Torlakson, Chair CCC Board of Supervisors FROM: Diana Patrick I appeal the Contra Costa County Planning Commissions acceptance of both the Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project (State Clearinghouse # 92093028) as complete: and approval of the land use permit for Project #2009-92 to the Board of Supervisors, under your category of adverse impact on my property value.' The public is ill served by the inaccurate project name of Shell I Oil Companu Clean Fuels Project and an EIR that does not address the major component of this project, that of expanding gasolineijetfuel production. The larger project, that of expanded gasoline and jet fuel production by increased crude distillation and other residual cracking activities must be.included in the project name, considered separately in the Initial Studu and Project Definition. The land use permit as approved, allows Shell to worsen the environment, add visual blight to the I-680 corridor, switch 3 15,000 hazardous material tank cars at night west of Martinez and increase risk of explosion due to the processes used to refine crude residuals. The public was deceived into thinking the entire project was 1 y mandated by 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The Draft J Environmental Impact Report and Response To Comment Documents were made inaccessible to the community. The public's choice was to pay about $120 for the DEIR and response document, or read 5- from the single copy issued to each area library. An effort must be made to make lengthy and expensive documents accessible to the affected community by issuing enough copies to libraries for the public to check them out to read at their leisure. Planning Commission Hearing Process: The Shell EIR/Project hearing process .used by the Planning Commission was intimidating and avoided EIR dialogue. At both hearings persons supporting the project were allowed to speak before those in opposition. Instead of speaking to the issue, (o many hours were filled with Shell's friends, employees and retirees offering support for the project without specific comment to the EIR or project components, delaying, and intimidating those present to raise issues_dntil very late. Need For Public Education: ' ----------------------------------------------------------------- ______ ----------------------- Because the project is so expansive and treads heavily on all sections of the environment, organized public workshops would provide focus on specific issues and avoid filibuster and intimidation. Hercules is providing public workshops to inform residents of various aspects of Pacific Refining's Improved Fuels Modification Project. (A notice is attached.) Conflict of Interest I raise concern with the County's ability to be non-partial in this process as the County will be receiving extens,iue fees and taxes. The County Maintenance Yard is to be sold fShell. The purchase price, appraised valuation and anticipated fees and taxes are pertinent to the public and must be revealed in this evaluation. Initial Studu and Project Definition: Again the two projects: Clean Fuels and Refining Expansion must be described separately. To leave them together as one Clean Fuels Project, deceiues the public into disregarding the separate product expansion, the larger and more environmentally damaging project. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project (projects) may affected outsiders and public decision makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs, considering mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (ie., the `no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. The Initial Study and Project Definition must describe increased production due to expanded refining capability from the additional manufacturing processes tie. isomerization, cracking and alkylation) and all the other process that increases production of gasoline, jet fuel and other products from residual: that part of the processed crude oil not currently refined into product. The initial study and project definition must be corrected and expanded to address this production increase omissions and their impacts. CEQA guidelines require that an EIR be adequate, complete and a good faith effort at full disclosure. "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are likely to produce, related or -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cumulative impact, or (b) The proposed project area for the expansion As expanded refining was not considered in the 1979 EIR, this EIR process to meet Substantive Requirements of CEQA described in CEQA Guidelines says, "If necessary, the lead agency must use "reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss" related past, present and future projects, even if under review by other agencies." A comparison of the 1979 EIR to the expanded activities existing today, along with a review of BAAQMD permits since 1980, would shed light on how this possible doubling of throughput occurred, without public notice. Inconsistencies in The Record: a substantiue requirement of CEQA provides that "if necessary the lead agency must use "reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss" related past, present and future projects, even if under review by other agencies." Shell has grown like topsy, in opposition to historic record and permits. I d Uerifu 1979 and 1993 EIR Statistics and BAAQMD Baseline Emission Components: The 1979 Shell `Modernization' project EIR reported no more than 128,000 barrels/day of crude oil would be brought to the refinery, and that gasoline production would increase from 51x to 60x. A respected trade journal reported that Shell's refining capacity was 20,000 barrels less, 108,000 barrels/day. 1992 statistics from that same trade jouurnal indicate that Shell's current capacity is 147.000 barrels/day. Describe the permit process allowing this expansion and what percent of the production gasoline/jetfuel manufacturing represents today and project what production leuels will occur after expansion? The probable 50x barrel/day refining expansion since 1977 and the resulting product and transportation increases meets the Substantive issue criteria of CEQA and accurate information must be obtained and considered. Ualid statistics from reliable providers, ie. US Army Corps of Engineers, tax records, Marine Exchange, must be used to determine barrel/day capacity in 1977 and 1982, wharf activity, ie. numbers of tankers/barge visits and type and quantity of materials loaded/unloaded. Marine Loading Inconsistencies: ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- - - - ------------------ The 1979 Shell EIR reports 194 tankers and 247 barges visited Shell's wharf in 1977. Marine Exchange records indicate 108 10 Con'4 tankers visited Shell's wharf in 1977. This EIR claims that 542 barges and 220 ships visited Shell's wharf in 1988. No source was given to this number. Wharf Activity Inconsistencies _ Y The 1979 EIR stated that Shell's wharf main use was unloading crude oil and loading residual fuel oil. Gasoline loading was mentioned as an ongoing activity. As no vapor recouery 'ujas considered (as was required for Tosco's gasoline loading activity around that time), loading gasoline at Shell's wharf was an insignificant activity. In 1982 Shell started loading large amounts of crude, a new activity not addressed in the 1979 EIR or 1980 BAAQMD permit. Shell now loads a large quantity of gasoline into tankers for delivery in Los Angeles. This expanded activity and the associated risk has never been described. Switching and Rail Trip Inconsistencies: The 1979 EIR appears to address switching activities within Shell's refinery and anticipates a total of 7 rail car trips per day after Modernization. The 1993 EIR states that Shell currently switches 1500 tank cars annually at the Martinez Ozol switching station and that 13,000 more cars, or a total of 14,500 will be switched there annually. The 1993 EIR infers that Ozol switching is an ongoing activity, please determine when did Shell start switching cars at Ozal? How many rail car trips per day exist now? Project Definition The project designation must be expanded to include the total MMC, wharf and rail line to the SP Ozal switching station west of Martinez as Shell is closing their own switching station and moving that activity to the rail line through Martinez. 13 CEQA defines project as the "whole of an action", including information specific to all agencies that issue permits, ie, the BAAQMD. The California courts have held that "an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (CH 3) Project impacts are listed in all CEQA categories indicating the seuerity of the proposed project's enuironmental presence. Expanded refining of residuals and the addition of MTBE, a corrosiue cause the entire MMC, wharf and rail line to be the "project". The affect of the project must be defined. t3 CEQA Guidelines also state: "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (i) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that haue produced ; or are likely to produce, related or cumulatiue impact, or (b) ' The proposed project area for the expansion project, must be amended to include the entire MMC, wharf and transportation routes including the Ozol switching station, Existing Environment This EIR fails to describe the existing environment at the MMC, wharf and rail line, ie. air monitoring data from Martinez, train, uehicular and marine traffic and a comparison to statistics in the 1979 EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(b) requires the enuironmental ky setting discussion to include analysis of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and existing general plans, regional plans and other relevant planning documents such as air quality management plans. A description of the existing enuironment at the MMC and the affected adjoining area is required. Broad spectrum air monitoring of equipment and fugitive emissions at the MMC and impacted locations in Martinez/Concord are required to prouide an accurate profile of existing air conditions and note any difference in Shell's emissions since their preuious project and BAAQMD permit in 1980. There is no mention of MMC meeting Southern California's refining capacity upon closure of Shell's Wilmington refinery, IS without documenting the worsened environmental impacts and added risks of this expansion) to the City of Martinez. 6. Water Qualitu: 6-2&3 Stormwater Runoff - MTBE (6-5) An alternatiue system to storing storm water runoff at the wastewater treatment facility must be examined. Consideration must be giuen to implement measures to assure that surface water is uncontaminated and does not mingle with waste water. Both systems should be addressed fully in the EIR. CEQA requires all elements of a project to be included in one document. The wastewater treatment project requires CEQA compliance within this document. 6-4 Increased Selenium Discharges. Quantify the selenium (7 discharge from each of the two project components. 7-6 Selenium Discharges and Oil Spills, mitigation should be described that would bring selenium discharge to a level consistent with 1980 refining capability. ------------------------------------------------ ----------- ------------ - - -- ---- - Testing sea floor below and around wharf: As Shell loaded crude oil in the 60's with numerous spills reported, an activity not �9 listed in the '79 EIR, contamination of the sea floor impacted by crude spills must be determined by testing and the condition reported in the EIR. Large streams of ballast watee are emitted from tankers -loading aO at Shell's wharf. This problem is inappropriate and must be addressed in the EIR. ;f 8. Air Quality: 1270 Cal.Rptr. 6501, reports "the need to support with rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence the conclusion that impacts will be insignificant: the requirement to analyze both "on-site" and "secondary" air pollution emissions in assessing the overall significance of air quality impacts: . . ." a' Coke Dust: This section applies to the expansion project and not the clean fuels project. The EIR is deficient. It fails to provide details of how coke will be loaded into railroad cars. The impact from this operation can not be adequately identified or mitigated without basic details. Coke particles are known to be light and are a health risk. Will coke particles be brought into the City on rail cars being switched at Ozol? The EIR must describe the method used to load coke into cars and anticipate worst case upset and adequate safeguards to avoid this material from being released in town. BAAQMD broad spectrum monitoring statistics from Concord and Pittsburg from 1980 through 1992 are required to establish an historic air profile for this region. The 1992 Concord statistics, missing from the EIR could indicate reductions from the marine vapor incinerator, which began operating in November, 1991. As stated before, the environmental air quality setting is inadequate. An accurate air quality setting must be included in the EIR. Air testing of the entire MMC and wharf as well as air quality testing in affected areas in Martinez/Concord and the regional are required to establish an adequate current air profile. Air testing must be accomplished to establish an accurate current baseline. Air modeling must address times of atmospheric stagnation. C23 All air emission referenced in tables in the text of Chapter B. Air Quality from the BAAQMD must be documented by testing. Are mathematically computed emission verifiable? Provide independent testing for those mathematically computed emissions supplied by the BAAQMD. For years that estimates are used, provide calculation record. As the project covers the entire MMC, reduction consideration for additional emissions should be offset bg emissions from the existing refinery. Include a discussion of methods to reduce, rather than increase emissions from the refinery. Currently, fugitive emissions are not counted in Shell's BAAQMD emission --------------------------------- ---- - - - ----- - - - • cap. The EIR must include testing and a profile of those emissions. There is a discrepancy in the marine loading element of Shell's BAAQMD Shell WOR Permit Conditions, dated November 5, 1984 and which sets an emission baseline for 1977 wharf loading, more than 700 tons are listed as existing emissions on Table 1, second page 11. The '80 permit allows 10,950,000 barrels of gasoline to be loaded annually at Shell's wharf. This amount of gasoline represents 142 days of annual gasoline production. The 1980 EIR d q anticipated continued crude unloading and fuel oil loading. Had a change of use to loading nearly half the annual throughput into tankers at the wharf been anticipated, it would -haue been addressed in the 1979 EIR. This discrepancy must be documented by reconstruction actual material loading records for 1977 from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Division, tax record or other documented verifiable source, and applying the BAAQMD, Shell loading emission factors. 9. Public Health: An accurate emission history must be 0?5 established before health forecasting can occur. Differentiate the health affects from both projects. This section forecasts health risks from estimations included in a study by Radian, 1991. Accurate broad spectrum testing must be a accomplished at MMC and in the affected communities ie. (Martinez and Concord), in order to accurately model future emissions and the associated health risk. 10. Noise: The 1979 EIR forecast that "The total noise after the completion of the proposed project would be unchanged if the recommended mitigation measures were included" probably addresses the existing refinery that is much larger than approved in 1980. By bringing BAAQMD permits into line, noise will likely be reduced. This EIR has an opportunity to test and compare noise measurements existing at the time of the last major project in 07 1979 and noise levels in existence today. Examination of noise information recorded at Shell's noise monitoring stations from. installation to present would present historic noise information. Consideration of locating noise monitors at other noise producing locations at MMC, the wharf, and in Martinez as a noise mitigation aide should be discussed. 11. Risk of Upset: This section is inaccurate as it does not define level of off$ production to determine risk. Gasoline loading at the wharf will ~crease and the risk in total must be addressed. misuortation: --------- -- - --- --- -- - .... Shipping statistics: The EIR neglects to include a comparison of shipping activities as described in the 1979 EIR. The inconsistency of reporting either wharf loading or unloading as the dominant wharf actiuity, between US Army Corps of Engineers, oZ 9 the 1979 EIR and 1980 BAAQMD permit must be explained. Wharf actiuities, risk to the community, conflict with recreational uses and increased shipping in Carquinez Strait meets the criteria for a cumulatiue impacts studu. Switching Coke Cars West of Martinez: The EIR (11-47) states that 13,000 additional train cars containing hazardous material will be switched west of Martinez, and that the total cars switched will be 14,500. The present switching activity appears to have commenced after 1979, as it is not mentioned in the 1979 EIR. Describe how this switching actiuity came to be 30 established, along with a history of switching and exact numbers of trains and cars to the numbers included in the 1979 EIR, plus material contained must be included. Noise and risk from switching is not and must also be addressed. Outline alternatives that would auoid Shell's use of right of way through the City of Martinez for switching actiuities. Is this a new use or expanded use? Martinez Shoreline Park: The EIR mentions increased rail use, but does not address the cumulatiue impacts of increased switching and rail use on the use of the Martinez Shoreline Park and deuelopment of a parking structure at the `cannery' site. SP is reported to be considering adding an additional siding through Martinez to 31 accommodate the expanded switching need presented by Shell. Would building an ouerpass to develop the `cannery' as parking, become a `liability' issue due to the number of train cars Shell plans to switch at the Ozol switching yard? There are adequate negatiue impact indicators to discuss the cumulative impacts of switching and increased use of the rail lines through Martinez Marina Vista Corridor This corridor meets the CEQA Cumulative Impacts and the many problems must be analyzed it total. Euen without this project Marina Vista's many uses are in 3 conflict. Grade crossings for trains and trucks, tank car a storage on tracks alongside the road, lack of a bicycle Ione, flooding near the I-680 entrance, causing the road to be impassable and motorists using the road as a short-cut to avoid backups on the approach to the Benicia Bridge create cumulatiue problem and risk which must be addressed in total. ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Is the expanded manufacturing component of the proposed projects responsible for the projected increased use of Marina Vista roadway and railway tracks? The EIR would serve the community well to examine the cumulative increased use by rail and truck traffic and consider alternatives to these cumulative problems. Marina Vista narrows to one lane heading West to accommodate trucks turning onto Mococo 'slowing traffic and creating risk as slow trucks make wide turns. Traffic entering Mococo must cross railroad tracks and occasionally turn into the oncoming traffic lane. The EIR does not address this problem. Alternatives to grade crossing for trucks and train/tank car traffic must be explored, along with alternate methods of transporting materials besides uehicularitrain. Tank car storage drains is unsightly now. Will it worsen if the .33 expansion project goes through? What risk does tank car storage present. Are there existing ordinances that disallow storage on sidings? If not, can such an ordinance be drafted? Is there risk of damage from a leak to the adjacent wetlands? Can the cars be tampered with? Marina Vista connects I-680 to downtown Martinez. Table 12-2 does not accurately address reflect PM peak hour traffic at the Marina Vista I-680 M and S bound on-ramps are not included. PM peak hours must be included, differentiating between three day 3� holiday traffic and regular Benicia bridge traffic that exits I- 680 at Pacheco to Shell and right on Marina Vista. Entry to that traffic from downtown Martinez and Shell construction traffic must be addressed. Specific mitigation for the Visual blight of the Marina Vista corridor must be included in the EIR. 35 14. Public Utilities Water Use: Describe what percent increase water usage Shell J 3` will require for each of the two projects. Explain their water J storage history. 15. Visual Quality: Visual corridors and Visual impact are not complete. The Vista 3 of MMC from the Benicia bridge is the major focus at this entrance to the County and must be addressed. Proposed mitigation must designate a landscaping and surfaces plan. The rusting tanks in need of paint and redundant and 3�r discolored equipment detract from this major gateway to Contra Costa County. (4-4) Landscaping will not screen the shabby equipment visible from 3� much of Martinez. Again surface treatment to equipment and removal of redundant equipment would significantly reduce the visual blight viewed from peoples homes. (4-6) (4-7) The proposed tanks at the wastewater treatment plant, 148 feet in diameter by 56 feet high would adversely impact the visual 39 corridor from the Martinez marina, Benicia and homes in Martinez overlooking the waterfront. Alternate locations or stbrage systems must be considered. The EIR preparers accepting "Incompatibility" with the City General Plan policy which states that the "Horth Contra Costa Waterfront Zone should remain essentially unimproved �O and devoted to open space. This impact would be less significant." is unacceptable. Mitigation must be offered to at least soften the existing equipment by natural looking landscaping and coordinate the equipment surfaces and structures to blend with the environment. (4-4) As the project incorporates the entire MMC site, Landscaping plans for the site are required as mitigation. Shell must maintain their property as well as most Martinez residents do: The EIR would serve the community well by including a comprehensive maintenance program that includes cleaning and painting equipment and landscaping those areas visible from roadways and peoples homes to be included in the land use permit. 18. Cumulative and Beneficial Impacts: Economic Impact Upon Martinez The EIR as approved does not adequately present environmental and economic problems affecting Martinez at this time, or how the two projects individually will impact Martinez. An accurate EIR is required to obtain a project that. will benefit the community, the environment and Shell's employees. Martinez lies in the shadow of Shell. The City's economic viability already is encumbered by Shell's presence. How will worsened air, more noise, increased rail and roadway and marine traffic as weII as construction related problems affect Martinez property values and business? The EIR must address this. California Courts have held than an agency cannot simply release a draft report that hedges on important environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to the final EIR that is insulated from public review. This document does less than that. It does not even present the size of the project (throughput), document present emissions to forecast future emissions in the affected community, nor is the project fully defined. Many significant components (ie, wastewater, process units, piping and loading facilities) are not, but must be reviewed as their design is incomplete. There is not an adequate review of how the new sections will go on line and worst case risk must also be �3 addressed. Shell continues to build in what was their buffer zone, development beyond that allowed in the 1980 BAAQMD permit must be described. f Mitigation Monitoring Program Because of the vastness of the project, the EIR must consider adequate mitigation monitoring programs. 8-52 D. Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, must be based on an actual emission data Response 13 - 1 "The accuracy and history of BAAQMD's regulation and permitting is not relevant to the environmental analysis of the proposed project." CEQA Guidelines state: "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are �(o likely to produce, related or cumulative impacts. or (b Response to comments 13-3 - Marine Loading emission data must be accomplished by verifiable testing. Factors supplied by the BAAQMD operating permit, are likely mathematically computed and do not meet CEQA requirements for accuracy. Alternatives To The Project Consider locating expansion and clean fuels modifications east of the existing MMC in an area near Tosco. Y 7 Consider joining Shell and Tosco's clean fuel modifications into one state of the art plant. Risk Since "upsets" are prone to occur with start-up this document must describe the start-up of new components. Location of piping and volumes of materials used and stored are needed along with an analysis of accident potential . Explore exposure of risk Marina Vista and I-680 traffic back-up during pm peak hours in case of a release at Shell. Worst case disaster potential must be described and the affected area projected. ---------------- Alternatives -- ----------Alternatives �- , The EIR fails to adequately consider feasible alternatives which could mitigate the project's significant impacts, such as reducing throughput and locating refining activities in other areas such as the Acme Fill property. 21 EIR Report Preparers This EIR is seriously flawed as well as deficient and must be redrafted. Please list qualifications of individual preparers and their refining expertise. Consider developing a conflict of interest criteria to ensure that preparers are not biased to industry. I look forward to development of an EIR that will lead to a positive project for all concerned. I have no objection to Shell refining more gasoline if the quality of life for the community is improved. This project provides an opportunity to require Shell to become a regulated, state of the art non-polluting refinery, that could be an asset to the community. This potential benefit will slip by if the project goes forward as approved. cc: City of Martinez EPA APPEAL CERTIFICATION OF EIR AND APPROVAL OF COUNTY FILE #2009-92 SHELL OIL (Applicant & Owner) Martinez area BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OCTOBER 12, 1993 - 2:15 P.M. �E s L •�� Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS } • ei Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON S County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o 4 DATE: October 12, 1993 �ds�q couri[t ~~ SUBJECT: Hearing on appeal of Certification of EIR and approval of Land Use Permit ,#2009-92 for the Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project; Diana Patrick (Appellant) Shell Oil Company (Applicant and Owner), i SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND. JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete, and that the Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project; 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the Final EIR and Land Use Permit #2009-92; FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Procedural Background: This land use permit application was submitted on February 20, 1992. A Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day review period on May 7, 1993. The Zoning Administrator held public hearings to receive testimony on the adequacy of the document on May 26, 1993 and June 7, 1993. A Response to Comments document was prepared and distributed on August 5, 1993. On August 10, 1993, the Zoning Administrator determined that the Final EIR was adequate and , complete, and was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and County CEQA Guidelines. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: % YES SIGNATURE ,v` RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ! RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Catherine Kutsuris 646-2091 ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Shell Oil THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GMEDA AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY CK:df Page Two The County Planning Commission held public hearings on August 24 and September 7, 1993. Sixty-eight members of the public testified, of which only six stated their opposition. The Planning Commission unanimously certified the EIR, adopted findings and a mitigation monitoring program and approved the land use permit subject to the attached conditions of approval. i Letter of Appeal: The Planning Commission's certification of the EIR and approval of the land use permit was appealed by Ms. Diana Patrick on October 1, 1993. The letter of appeal dated October 1, 1993 is attached. The appeal focuses on the adequacy of the EIR. In general, the appellant is requesting that the EIR prepared for the proposed Clean Fuels Project evaluate changes and activities which have occurred between 1979 (the year when an EIR was prepared for a different project on the site) and the present. The appellant also raises comments which she previously submitted on the Draft EIR and which were adequately responded to in the Final EIR. Due to the length of the appeal letter, the staff analysis has been prepared as a separate memorandum dated October 7, 1993. Based on this analysis of the issues raised by the appeal, staff recommends the appeal be denied and the County Planning Commission's decision certifying the EIR and approving Land Use Permit #2009-92 be upheld. Robert (Bob) Andrews Paul Masta Refinery Manager Major Projects Superintender Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company P. 0. Box 711 P. 0. Box 711 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 :)t Kerry Gleeson Doyle Williams l 337 Christie Drive 1030 Shary Court 49 Martinez, CA 94553 Concord CA 94520 An-Julian Frazer Diane Berg 3 2415 Alhambra Avenue 724 Marina Vista 01� Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 toto .2 Nathalie Jones Winton Jones 1949 Arnold Industrial Way 1949 Arnold Industrial Way ra Concord, CA 94520 Concord, CA 94520 -1 Julia May Greg Streblow A 501 Second Street #305 P. 0. Box 208 1 San Francisco, CA 94107 Martinez, CA 94553 3 Joseph Mancino Tom Butterfield ret. 147 Village Place 1221 Cape Cod Court Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94521 01 00 John Jolley John Brenkman 5712 Drakes Drive 26515 Sunbird Court a. Byron, CA 94514 Valencia, CA 9135 d. Ray Trujillo Carol Youngman 1785 Landana Drive 5534 Likins Avenue Concord, CA 94519 Martinez, CA 94553 6 W Carmelo Carone Bob Gotelli n 1 160 Harbor View Drive 2471 Olive Street 37 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 .je # Tina Van Arsdale Carl Lembke 1303 Roseann Drive Sprinkler Filters 483 Martinez, CA 94553 23314 Cabot Boulevard Hayward, CA 94545 Ralph Sattler Brian S. Burrow Cathy Ivers 1204 Ulfinian Way 2335 21 st Street c 321 "G" Street Martinez, CA 94553-1995 San Pablo, CA 94806 Martinez, CA 94553 Cynthia McPeak Fred Barry 3140 Ricks Avenue 211 MacAlvey Drive Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 J3 Greg Feere Gary Miles CC Bldg Trades Council 865 Howe Road 2727 Alhambra Avenue #2 Martinez, CA 94553 45 Martinez, CA 94553 Michael A. Leedie Maxine Goodmacher e 919 Chanslor Avenue 1721 Alhambra Avenue 3 Richmond, CA 94801 Martinez, CA 94553 ,r 3 Michael M. Levine A. B. McNabney 1721 Alhambra Avenue 1161 Leisure Lane #7 r Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Dean Simeroth A. V. Ted Price Weldon Theobald 2020 L Street 3402 Sentinel Drive 2475 Holly Oak Drive Sacramento, CA 95812 Martinez, CA 94553 Danville, CA 94506 Greg Karras, CBE Bill Drury Bruce Batinich 501 Second Street, #305 825 Escobar Street 1550 Gladding Court San Francisco, CA 94109 Martinez, CA 94553 Milpitas, CA 95035 Dave Olund Judith Snider Dorothy Sakazaki 2305 Lafayette Drive 1255 Paradise Drive 737 Central Avenue Antioch, CA 94509 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 John Sparacino Jeff Teather Elmer Wong 314 Escobar Street 50 Beale Street 400 Soto Street, #E-5 Martinez, CA 94553 San Francisco, CA 94119 Martinez, CA 94553 Mitchell Babcock Marlin L. Swofford Russell J. Miller 146 Fig Tree Lane #3-A 1703 St. Norbert 23 St Julie Court Martinez, CA 94553 Danville, CA 94526' Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Jeffrey R. Dodge Scott Beckwith P. 0. Box 308 402 Dale Road Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Timothy J. Holz Gary Canepa P. 0. Box 3727 3431 Brookside Drive Danville, CA 94526 Martinez, CA 94553 u Rick Jones Clyde Williams 1865 Pacheco Boulevard P. 0. Box 1206 Martinez, CA 94553-1940 Richmond, CA 94802 Don Stover Gary Bobker 2605 Francis Drive Bay Institute of San Francisco Pinole, CA 94564 10 Liberty Ship Way #120 Sausalito, CA 94965 Ron Espinoza Tom Seymour Marshall J. Bone 305 Sunnyslopes Drive 2818 Kay Avenue P. 0. Box 511 Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94520 Clayton, CA 94517 Keith Monckton Mary Raftery Diana Patrick 825 Vine Avenue 926 J Street #713 Box 1086 Martinez, CA 94553 Sacramento, CA 95812 Martinez, CA 94553 Lloyd Ferris Keith Howard 4010 Via Estrella 1333 North California Blvd #450 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 374 024 001 374 024 002 374 024 003 Evelyn Mae & John DeVito Jodie Elizabeth Huff Jose Preciado 2720 Marion Ter 2329 Scenic Ave 1431 Elm St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 024 004 374 024 005 374 024 006 Nancy Hansen Leon & Jean Knopoff Frank Villasenor 2325 Scenic Ave Po Box 37 2221 Scenic Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Cloverdale, CA 95425 Martinez, CA 94553 374 024 007 374 024 008 374 024 .009 Thomas & Mary Barrett Henrietta Strauch Joan Osborne 3685 Bon Homme Way 2217 Scenic Ave 2215 Scenic Ave Concord, CA 94518 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 024 010 374 024 011 374 024 012 Phillip & Joyce Bach Richard Green Misako Duhame 1295 Paradise Dr 2054 Bonifacio St #A 2135 Scenic Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94520 Martinez, CA 94553 374 024 013 374 024 014 374 024 015 James Davis & Harbaugh Raymond Swearengin Jr. Thomas & Laurie Delaney 1475 Date St 2125 Scenic Ave 75 Alberta Ter Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 374 024 016 374 024 017 374 024 018 John & Ruth Talisman Ronald & Elaine Quigley Janice Bombardier 2045 Scenic Ave 940 Bush St Sandra Bombardier Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 2023 Scenic Ave Martinez, CA 94553 374 024 019 374 024 020 374 024 021 Edward & Wanda Makoveck Bruce Fulks Grayson Myers 2011 Scenic Ave 2005 Scenic Ave Ann Shirley Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 1132 Wine Country Ave Napa, CA 94558 374 024 022 374 024 023 374 024 024 Steven Woodall David Mark Van Buren Robert LaFleur Robbie Speller 1975 Scenic Ave 777 Shell Ave 1985 Scenic Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 024 025 374 031 001 374 031 002 Thomas & Maureen Mercure Shell Oil Company Brian & Amy McMahon 4330 Cabrillo Dr Po Box 2099 1565 Brown St Martinez, CA 94553 Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 374 031 003 374 031 004 374 031 005 Graham Kinsman Mark & Annette Winrod Raymond Harper 1555 Brown St 1545 Brown St 1527 Brown St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez , CA 94553 374 031 006 374 031 007 374 031 008 Opal Semon Opal Semon Dolf & Dorothy Degger Po Box 430 Po Box 430 1632 Sunhill Ct Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 031 012 374 032 005 374 032 006 Shell Oil Company John & Debra Cotter R Gregory Suverkrup Po Box 2099 1506 Brown St 1516 Brown St Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 032 007 374 032 008 374 032 009 Bonnie Dubois Dwain Bussey Richard Coultas Janice Hallman Rev Phyllis 1556 Brown St 2318 Panoramic Dr 1546 Brown St Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94520 Martinez, CA 94553 374 032 010 374 041 001 374 041 002 Shell Oil Company John & Sandra Robb William Baldwin Po Box 2099 Po Box 45483 1602 Grandview Dr Houston, TX 77252 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Martinez, CA 94553 374 041 003 374 041 004 374 041 005 Charles & Gloria Souders Judy Kay Schnabel Marvin & Louise Cambra 1962 Redwood Dr 1374 Warren St 1364 Warren St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA . 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 041 006 374 041 012 374 041 013 Wilbur Koehler Gregory & Mary Sparacino Patrick & Lori Derksen 1354 Warren St 1607 Grandview Dr 1601 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 041 014 374 041 015 374 041 019 Brian & Joan Stockinger Leonard Pollick Richard & Leanne Odom 1531 Grandview Dr 1525 Grandview Dr 1509 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 041 020 374 041 025 374 041 026 Unknown Owners Robert & Bambi Barker John Vanderbout Grandview Ave 1419 Grandview Dr 1415 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 041 027 374 041 028 374 041 029 Edith Curzi Donald & Beverly Brown Leopold Ortiz 1411 Grandview Dr 1331 Grandview Dr 725 Ulfinian Way Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 041 030 374 041 031 374 041 033 Laura Titus Unknown Owners Terry Anderson 1229 Grandview Dr Grandview Ave 1505 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 041 034 374 041 035 374 041 036 Robert & Betty Manning Edward & Marie Hahn Unknown Owners 4520 Blum Rd 1519 Grandview Dr 1519 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 041 039 374 041 040 374 042 001 Linda Sawyer Richard & Jolene Foley Lawrence Harboldt 1515 Grandview Dr 1425 Grandview Dr 1414 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 042 002 374 042 003 374 042 004 Albert Van Loon William Hirt Carl & Clariece Rush 1362 Grandview Dr 1360 Grandview Dr 1356 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 042 007 374 042 008 374 042 009 Joseph Welch Marie Goodman Harry Reynolds Po Box 606 1149 Arlington Way 3119 Colyar Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Chattanooga, TN 37404 374 042 010 374 042 011 374 042 012 Glenn McFarland Virginia Bently Judy Russell 1330 Grandview Dr 1340 Grandview Dr 1354 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 043 001 374 043 002 374 043 003 Cecille Rose Stoddard Christopher Tierney Bartsch Herbert Family T 661 Center Ave 1515 Azalea Ave 1525 Azalea Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 043 004 374 043 005 374 043 006 Iloa Belloni George & Kathy Poppleton Loren Bollinger 1535 Azalea Ave 1549 Azalea Ave 5652 Likins Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 051 001 374 051 002 374 051 003 Ethel Joba William King V Mackie Pease 1125 Willow St Kathryn Dupler-King 1150 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 1133 Willow St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 051 004 >Jame 1 374 052 002 H G & Norma Riepling e ra Morphy Joan Facemire 1221 Henrietta St e Helen Pardi Martinez, CA 94553 CA 9455 34 Yellowwood Way Irvine, CA 92715 374 052 003 374 052 004 374 052 005 Richard Bruno Paul & Cheryl Harbaugh Martin Freedon Po Box 630 1210 Grandview Dr, 1218 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 t 374 052 006 374 052 012 374 053 001 John Londeree Robert George Joseph & Joan Barron 1244 Grandview Dr 1255 Susana St 1225 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 053 002 374 053 003 374 053 004 Roger Lamb Jacque Pierre Ellis Nancy Castillo 1219 Grandview Dr 1215 Grandview Dr Joseph Castillo Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 1211 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 374 053 005 374 053 006 374 053 .007 Donna Irwin Kathy Anderson Michael Levine 1201 Grandview Dr 1145 Grandview Dr Ma Goodmacher-Levine Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 1139 Grandview Dr Martinez, CA 94553 374 053 008 374 053 009 375 011 001 William & Judith Rooney Thomas & Millie Murray Lippow Development Co Po Box 42 1121 Grandview Dr Po Box 469 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 011 002 375 011 003 375 011 004 W A Thomas Company Inc Ray Stetler Peter Chi Liu & Tang May Po Box 2799 2368 Pacheco Blvd 1130 Skyline Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Vallejo, CA 94591 375 011 012 375 012 003 375 012 010 Edward & Mary Madrid Richard Pierce-Sather Contra Costa County 4084 Via De Flores 2411 Orchard Ln 1220 Morello Ave #100 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 012 011 375 012 012 375 012 013 John & Eloise McHugh John & Eloise. McHugh John & Eloise McHugh Arlene McHugh Arlene McHugh Po Box 661 Po Box 661 Po Box 661 Clayton, CA 94517 Clayton, CA 94517 Clayton, CA 94517 375 012 014 375 201 001 375 201 002 Nishizawa Family Trust John Jacquemart Aaron & Michelle West 88 Rutherford Ln Katherine Jacquemart 1385 Palm Ave Martinez, CA 94553 1440 Pear Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94518 375 201 018 375 201 019 375 211 001 N J & Emma Marlar Robert Bartolomei Joseph & Lynda Deschenes John Roush Laurence Bartolomei 5589 Morningside Dr 1360 Peach St 3309 Fir Ave Clayton, CA 94517 Martinez, CA 94553 Alameda, CA 94501 375 211 002 375 211 003 375 211 004 Ellen Brasiel Gary & Charlotte -Truex Bruce Trost 353 Conifer Ct 2614 Pacheco Blvd Ricki Trost Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Martinez, CA 94553 2620 Pacheco Blvd Martinez, CA 94553 375 211 005 375 211 006 375 211 007 William Stiles Howard & Lynn Malone Frank Joseph Billecci 3254 Vera Cruz Dr 1361 Vine St 301 Escobar St San Ramon, CA 94583 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 211 008 375 211 018 375 211 019 Laurence Costanza V Zuniga Eustacia Bettie Lou Carver 9005 Alcosta Blvd #193 1336 Palm Ave 375 Montecello Dr San Ramon, CA 94583 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 375 211 020 375 212 001 375 212 .003 Cecil Fern Austin Willard Cole John Zuniga 1356 Palm Ave 212 Christie Dr 301 Paloma Ct Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 212 004 375 212 005 375 212 006 Keith & Cabrini Bowe Alton & Ruth Wilcox Alton & Ruth Wilcox 2726 Pacheco Blvd 225 Green Acres Ln 225 Green Acres Ln Martinez, CA 94553 Whitethorn, CA 95589 Whitethorn, CA 95589 375 212 016 375 212 017 375 212 018 Thomas Roy Bohannon Thomas Bohannon John Zuniga 1340 Vine St 1340 Vine St 301 Paloma Ct Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 221 001 375 221 002 375 221 005 Joseph & Joyce Bruno Joseph & Joyce Bruno Lyndel Tiner 1010 Andrews Dr 1010 Andrews Dr 2840 Pacheco Blvd Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 221 006 375 221 007 375 221 008 M Frank Smith olen Skinner Charley Dorothea Elmore Ann Karen Paula D'Atri 1331 Delacy Ave 1351 Delacy Ave 1339 Delacy Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 221 016 375 221 017 375 221 018 Clifford & Joan Shea Larry & Loretta Degan Ronald Latteri 1330 Veale St 1340 Veale St B Ashley Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 1631 Latteri Ct Concord, CA 94519 375 221 022 375 221 023 375 221 024 Ronald Latteri Ronald Latteri Ronald Latteri B Ashley B Ashley B Ashley 1631 Latteri Ct 1631 Latteri Ct 1631 Latteri Ct Concord, CA 94519 Concord, CA 94519 Concord, CA 94519 375 221 025 375 222 001 375 222 002 Ronald Latteri Alfonso Perez Mark & Gloria Leggett B Ashley Chloe Mary 1350 Delacy Ave 1631 Latteri Ct 3134 Pine St Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94519 Martinez, CA 94553 375 222 003 375 241 001 375 241 002 Donald & Madeleine White Cabral Family Trust Mary Cabral 1340 Delacy Ave 2934 Pacheco Blvd 2934 Pacheco Blvd Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 241 003 375 241 004 - - 375 241 005 Edward Tilton Larry & Denise Woods Jay Ifshin 1355 Plaza Dr 1341 Plaza Dr 2031 University Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Berkeley, CA 94704 375 242 001 375 242 002 375 242 ,003 Martin DeVenutaMartin DeVenuta Edwin Hutton 3010 Pacheco Blvd 3010 Pacheco Blvd 3014 Pacheco Blvd Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 242 004 375 242 005 375 242 006 Harold Robinson Alan Murray Posey Deanne Fredericks Anne Jo 1327 Santa Fe St Donald Fredericks 360 Diablo Rd Martinez, CA 94553 1325 Santa Fe St Danville, CA 94526 Martinez, CA 94553 375 242 007 375 242 008 375 242 015 Roger & Janet Brown Claudia Mae Light Delia Estrada 923 Snow Dr 1321 Santa Fe St 1330 Plaza Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 375 242 016 375 242 017 375 243 003 Stephen Chandler Teresa Henrietta Romo Ronald Tre Lindgren 3113 Todd Way Po Box 1893 Po Box 2119 San Ramon, CA 94583 Martinez, CA 94553 Antioch, CA 94531 375 243 004 375 243 005 375 243 006 Ronald Tre Lindrgen Al & Reba Rodriquez Al & Reba Rodriquez Po Box 2119 2841 Goularte Dr 2841 Goularte Dr Antioch, CA 94531 Pinole, CA 94564 Pinole, CA 94564 375 243 007 375 243 008 375 243 009 Al & Reba Rodriquez Al & Reba Rodriquez Kenneth Woodford 2841 Goularte Dr 2841 Goularte Dr Robert Woodford Pinole, CA 94564 Pinole, CA 94564 1835 Pine St Martinez, CA 94553 375 243 010 375 243 011 375 243 012 Samuel Bort III Leonard Atkinson M L Ries Paul Lavegren 125 Gilger Ave 2204 Highcliff Ct 2730 Oak Rd #8 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 377 010 001 377 010 002 377 010 009 James & Georgena Rickey Lippow Development Co James & Georgena Rickey Carl Taliaferro Po Box 469 Carl Taliaferro 13965 San Pablo Ave Martinez, CA 94553 13965 San Pablo Ave San Pablo, CA 94806 San Pablo, CA 94806 377 010 015 377 010 029 377 010 030 John & Vicki Galletti John & Vicki Galetti John & Vicki Galletti Robert Galletti George Galetti 150 Las Quebradas Ln 55 Howe Rd 55 Howe Rd Alamo, CA 94507 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 377 020 048 377 190 001 377 190 002 United States Of America Robert & Marion Murdoch George & Kathy Poppleton Howe Rd Murdoch Dba j 3350 Pacheco Blvd Martinez, CA 94553 100 Ivy Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Orinda, CA 94563- 377 190 003 377 190 004 377 190 006 Jose & Graciela Fraga United States Of America Donald Lucas 3250 Elvia St 450 Golden Gate Ave Po Box 267 Lafayette, CA 94549 #20005 Martinez, CA 94553 San Francisco, CA 94102 377 190 007 377 190 008 377 190 009 Della Rosa Bros Trucking W D & Elva Wygal Borise & Sylvia Larson Po Box 470 Paul Meadors Dueray Stewart Martinez, CA 94553 3503 Pacheco Blvd 1156 Ridgewood Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94518 378 010 008 378 010 010 378 010 011 Shell Oil Company California State Of California State Of Po Box 2099 NO STREET NAME or NUMBER NO STREET NAME or NUMBER Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 010 013 378 010 015 378 010 016 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Tosco Corporation Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 2300 Clayton Rd #1100 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 Concord, CA 94520 378 010 017 378 010 018 378 021 003 California State Of California State Of Peggy Hughes NO STREET NAME or NUMBER Po Box 7791 1312 Marina Vista Ave Martinez, CA 94553 San Francisco, CA 94120 Martinez, CA 94553 378 021 004 378 021 018 378 031 002 Diana Patrick Enrique & Maria Arana Shell Oil Company 1310 Marina Vista Ave 1390 Market St #201 Po Box 2099 Martinez, CA 94553 San Francisco, CA 94102 Houston, TX 77252 378 033 001 378 033 002 378 033 007 Bill Gerlach Paul Andrew & Ellen Eddy Michael Cuddy Cheryl Hamilton 765 Miller Ave 1850 Dineen St 775 Miller Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 033 008 378 033 009 378 033 010 Raymond & Bernice Carter Mildred Myers William Evans 19180 Gearbee Ln 1446 Dineen St 1243 Main St Cottonwood, CA 96022 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 r 378 033 011 378 033 012 378 033 013 Richard & Loretta Hess J P & Mary Ladensack Douglas & Lauren Barnett Joseph Willard 3019 Shetland Dr 1430 Dineen St - 2463 Alamo Glen Dr Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Martinez, CA 94553 Danville, CA 94526 378 033 014 378 033 017 378 033 018 Christopher Croft Edward Lagomarsino Everett & Rossana Riggs Denton Croft Marie DeCarlo 715 Miller Ave 1424 Dineen St 1740 Palm Ave Martinez, CA 94553 - Martinez, 4553Martinez, CA 94553 San Mateo, CA 94402 378 033 019 378 033 020 378 033 .021 Redwood Mrtg Investors V Michael Davis Arline Farley Po Box 5096 745 Miller Ave 604 Camino Amigo Redwood City, CA 94063 Martinez, CA 94553 Danville, CA 94526 378 033 022 378 033 024 378 034 003 Leonard Atkinson David &' Nancy Delepine Arthur Chandler Jr. 125 Gilger Ave 3905 Clayton Rd #23 3666 Magnolia Bnd Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94521 Conroe, TX 77302 378 034 004 378 034 005 378 035 001 Arthur Chandler Jr. Estelle Springsteen Kenneth & Edith Whipple 3666 Magnolia Bnd Rodger Springsteen 209 Smith Rd Conroe, TX 77302 9774 Calvine Rd Danville, CA 94526 Sacramento, CA 95829 378 035 002 378 035 003 378 036 002 Doren & Marjorie Parr Darryl & Vicki Bodhaine William Stedman 1225 Kaseberg Cir 1414 Front St 1471 Front St Roseville, CA 95678 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 036 003 378 040 001 378 040 002 Jennifer Price Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company 1471 Front St Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Martinez, CA 94553 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 378 040 004 378 061 017 378 061 018 Shell Oil Company Central Ccc Sanitary Dis Shell Oil Company Po Box 2099 5019 Imhoff Pl Po Box 2099 Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 Houston, TX 77252 378 071 001 378 072 003 378 072 009 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 378 072 010 378 072 011 378 072 012 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 - Po Box 2099 Houston, TX !- -77252 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, CA 77252 378 072 013 378 072 014 378 072 015 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 378 080 002 378 091 002 378 091 003 Contra Costa County David & Carrie Sherring Cecil Seay 651 Pine St 1521 Donald Ave i 1214 Center Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 091 004 378 091 005 378 091 006 Dennis & Janice Speck Ed & Carol Paulsen Ronald Bailey 1501 Donald Ave 1445 Donald Ave 1441 Donald Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 091 007 378 091 008 378 091 009 Lloyd & Joyce Raines Raines Electric Inc Contra Costa County 4874 John Muir Rd 2385 Pacheco Blvd 651 Pine St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 091 010 378 091 011 378 092 001 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Olen Tisdale Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 1551 Shell Ave Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 378 092 002 378 092 003 378 092 004 Jack Lucido Michael & Beverly Dauber Volkert Todd Vanderstar 1541 Shell Ave 1531 Shell Ave 415 Green St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 092 005 378 092 006 378 092 007 Roberta Kayser Mac Alderette Mac Alderette 1511 Shell Ave 1445 Shell Ave 1425 Shell Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 092 008 378 092 010 378 092 011 Mac Alderette Robert Jones Patrick & Patricia Moran 1425 Shell Ave 2425 Pacheco Blvd 2415 Pacheco Blvd Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 092 012 378 092 013 378 092 014 Ronna Dunning Mac Alderette Mac Alderette Ronald Clark 1425 Shell Ave 1445 Shell Ave 175 Jackson Way Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 378 092 015 378 092 016 378 092 017 Dorothy Wright Mike & Parnell Rdbio Winston Bearchild 1510 Donald Ave 1520 Donald Ave Carmencita Bearchild Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 1530 Donald Ave Martinez, CA 94553 378 092 018 378 092 019 378 101 001 William & Claire Peel Marie Cecile Aznoe Robin Macias 1540 Donald Ave 1550 Donald Ave 41 Glen Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Oakland, CA 94611 378 101 002 378 101 003 378 101 004 Clyde & Betty Baird Maxine Carter Shell Oil Company 1514 Shell Ave 2501 Jefferson St Po Box 2463 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Houston, TX 77001 378 101 005 378 101 006 378 102001 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Po Box 2463 Po Box 2463 Po Box 2463 Houston, TX 77001 Houston, TX 77001 Houston, TX 77001 378 102 002 378 103 001 378 103 011 Shell Oil Company Ultramar Inc J Kalsbeek Po Box 2463 525 W 3rd St 1011 Andrews Dr Houston, TX 77252 Hanford, CA 93230 Martinez, CA 94553 378 103 013 378 103 015 378 103 016 Claude & Agnes Lindsay J Kalsbeek J Kalsbeek 601 Terra California Dr George Ledger 1011 Andrews Dr #2 1011 Andrews Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Martinez, CA 94553 378 110 003 378 110 009 378 110 010 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Timothy & Gayle Cusick Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Po Box- 2183 Houston, TX 772.52 Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 378 110 011 378 110 012 378 121 001 Shell Oil Company Martinez City Of Shell Oil Company Po Box 2099 525 Henrietta St Po Box 2099 ' Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 Houston, TX 77252 378 121 003 378 123 005 378 123 007 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 378 123 008 378 130 001 378 130 003 Shell Oil Company Rosa Eugene Della Emile & Helen Carles Po Box 2099 Rosa Della 246 Oyster Pond Rd Houston, TX 77252 3555 Pacheco Blvd Alameda, CA 94501 Martinez, CA 94553 378 130 004 378 130 005 378 130 006 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Rosa Eugene Della Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Rosa Della -- - Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 22 Wygal Dr Martinez, CA 94553 378 130 012 378 130 013 378 130 014 Shell Oil Company Brudaden Properties William Wygal Po Box 2099 3503 Pacheco Blvd 4 Wygal Dr Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 378 130 017 378 130 018 378 140 003 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 } Po Box 2099 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 378 140 006 378 140 007 378 140 008 Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Mt View Sanitary Distric Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 NO STREET NAME or NUMBER Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 378 140 009 378 140 010 378 140 011 Shell Oil Company Independent Public Fac C Shell Oil Company Po Box 2099 View Mt Po Box 2099 Houston, TX 77252 Po Box 2757 Houston, TX 77252 Martinez, CA 94553 378 140 012 380 010 003 380 010 019 Shell Oil Company Roy Coats Mt View Sanitary Distric Po Box 2099 37 Willotta Dr Po Box 2366 Houston, TX 77252 Suisun, CA 94585 Martinez, CA 94553 380 010 021 380 010 022 380 030 011 Mt View Sanitary Distric East Bay Regional Park D Acme Fill Corporation Po Box 2366 2950 Peralta Oaks Ct Po Box 1108 Martinez, CA 94553 Oakland, CA 94605 Martinez, CA 94553 380 030 017 380 030 019 380 030 025 Acme Fill Corporation Acme Fill Corporation Martinez Gun Club Po Box 1108 Po Box 1108 Po Box 910 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 131 001 380 131 002 380 131 003 Anthony Hornberger Sandra Johnson Michael Gilbert White 4095 Cabrillo Dr 4103 Cabrillo Dr Mya Thompson Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 4109 Cabrillo Dr Martinez, CA 94553 380 131. 004 380 131 005 380 131 006 John & Jean O'Neill Lou Cabrido Jeannie Peterson 52 Lariat Ct Alma Evangelista John Peterson Walnut Creek, CA 94596 4119 Cabrillo Dr 4121 Cabrillo Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA '94553 380 131 007 380 131 008 380 131 009 Edie Ellis R Kevin Turner Ernest & Betty Rogers 4125 Cabrillo Dr Laurie Misko-Turner 4133 Cabrillo Dr Martinez , CA 94553 4129 Cabrillo Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 r 380 131 010 380 131 011 380 131 012 Frederick Bowles Jose Puente Frederick Bowles John Artoux 4141 Cabrillo Dr John Artoux Po Box 87131 Martinez, CA 94553 Po Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138 San Diego, CA 92138 380 131 013 380 131 014 380 131 015 Frank Neith James Bravos & Lee Linda Thomas & Linda Delea 12540 Marsh Creek Rd 4169 Cabrillo Dr 480 Rodriques Ave Clayton, CA 94517 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 131 016 380 131 017 380 131t018 Tommy & Karen Kennedy Allen Wagner Fred & Teresa Holland Marilyn Hertz 2736 Bliss Ct 4180 Arthur Rd 1335 San Reliez Ct Antioch, CA 94509 Martinez, CA 94553 Lafayette, CA 94549 380 131 019 380 131 020 380 132 001 Sharon Ogden Jose Lopez Larry Clayton Hines Harold Davis 4160 Arthur Rd Debra Fliehmann 4170 Arthur Rd Martinez, CA 94553 4090 Cabrillo Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 132 002 380 132 003 380 132 004 Leonard & Sandy Guitelli Robert Kennedy Ricardo Gonzalez 4096 Cabrillo Dr Ann Cynthia 4108 Cabrillo. Dr Martinez, CA 94553. 4102 Cabrillo Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 132 005 380 132 006 380 132 007 Catherine Osterlund Linda Sue Archuleta John & Bernita Kennedy 4114 Cabrillo Dr 4120 Cabrillo Dr 4126 Cabrillo Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 132 008 380 132 009 380 132 010 Judy Lyman Alice Wright Thomas O'Loughlin 513 Idylberry Rd 4134 Cabrillo Dr 4138 Cabrillo Dr San Rafael, CA 94903 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 132 011 380 132 012 380 132 013 Hyrum McInelly Matthew & Cheri Schiller Jose & Josephine Murella 4142 Cabrillo Dr 4146 Cabrillo Dr 4160 Cabrillo Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 132 014 380 210 002 380 210 004 . Loraine Darrah Shell Oil Company Shell Oil Company Po Box 142 Po Box 2099 Po Box 2099 Martinez, CA 94553 Houston, TX 77252 Houston, TX 77252 380 210 005 380 210 006 380 210 007 Walter & Pauline Lewis Stephen Robertson David Sagianw II 3 Corte Cielo 7 Corte Cielo 11 Corte Cielo Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez , CA 94553 380 210 008 380 210 009 380 210 010 Michael McNamara Bobby & Diane Boyd Raymond Williams 10 Corte Cielo 6 Corte Cielo 3972 Via Estrella Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 210 011 380 210 012 380 210 013 Barbara Lee Alma Hoyer Jeffrey McLain 5 Corte Lado #5 9 Corte Lado 15 Corte Lado Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 210 014 380 210 015 380 210 016 Lynn DeMerritt Patrick & Pamela Harrill Caroline Brockway 14 Corte Lado 8 Corte Lado 3954 Via Estrella Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 210 017 380 210 018 380 210 019 Rosa Diane Della Stephen Bauman Stanley & Betty Hayes Rosa Della 207 Via Planeta 212 Via Planeta 215 Via Planeta Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 210 020 380 210 021 380 210 022 William Lovi Francis & Denise Dodd Laurence Warshaw Cosette Lovi 3289 Sweet Dr Cathy Innis 3938 Via Estrella Lafayette, CA 94549 3051-1/2 Market St Martinez, CA 94553 San Francisco, CA 94114 380 210 024 380 210 025 380 210 026 Leonard & Linda Aikens Gregory Eason Patricia Drew 142 Camino Del Sol Ann Teresa 134 Camino Del Sol Martinez, CA 94553 138 Camino Del Sol Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 210 027 380 210 028 380 211 001 Sharon Darlene Floyd Larry & Barbara Kohlruss Donald & Sherie Morrison 130 Camino Del Sol 136 Camino Del Sol 12475 Conquistador Way Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 San Diego, CA 92128 380 211 002 380 211 003 380 211 004 Laurence Warshaw Ricky & Tracey Broughton Evelyn Ferrill Cathy Innis 3949 Via Estrella 3973 Via Estrella 3051-1/2 Market St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 San Francisco, CA 94114 380 211 005 380 211 006 380 211 007 Frank & Margarette White Timothy & Paula Morley Rick & Vickie Frame 25209 NE Landon Rd 3961 Via Estrella 3965 Via Estrella Yacort, WA 98675 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 211 008 380 211 009 380 211 010 Kenneth Cambra Roy Snelson David & Naomi Little 3969 Via Estrella 3973 Via Estrella 3977 Via Estrella Martinez-, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 380 211 011 380 211 012 380 231 003 Ronald & Deborah Staal Don Wayne Harvey Alva Coday 3981 Via Estrella 3985 Via Estrella 446 Vista Ct Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Benicia, CA 94510 380 231 004 380 231 005 380 231 006 Ernest Delton Pasley David Schelhorn James Thomas Jr. 4520 Blum Rd 6 Goree Ct Ann Jo Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 8 Goree Ct Martinez, CA 94553 380 231 009 380 231 010 380 231 011 Louetta Lara Frank Scarpulla Robert Leach & Kay Myra Robert Lara 1670 Wilson Ct 16 Goree Ct 10 Goree Ct Concord, CA 94521 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 ELAN FZO:%E1JQ13 t`Jl . AoAMS �,$rZpAb4.=+ELI. P,o, 8oX 509 tsku 1,AA'fCO3 CA 9g�02 ♦y May 17, 1993 375-242-015 Delia Estrada 705 E Street Martinez, CA 94553 159-200-010 Charles Palin 3749 Sundale Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 Current Resident 10 Rutherford Lane Martinez , CA 94553 Elizabeth Martin 4879 Starflower Dr Martinez , CA 94553 Anthony Hornberger 188 Damascus Loop Pacheco, CA 94553 Cdeirhear.s ] t�dVyy�, May 21, 1993 League of Women Voters 500 St. Mary' s Rd. Lafayette, CA 94549 241-020-018 Raymond and Angelina Leal PO Box 2308 Martinez, CA 94553 Urban Creeks Council 1250 Addison, Suite 107 Berkeley, CA 94702 373-073-004 Richard and Jill Tarantino, Jr. 1650 Denkinger Rd. Concord, CA 94521-1150 380-210-024 Linda and Leonard Aikens 142 Camino Del Sol Martinez, CA 94553 112-131-008 Richard Green 2054 Bonifacio Street, #A Concord, CA 94520 John and Sandra Robb PO Box 45483 Los Angeles, CA 90045-0483 Emile and Helen Carles 246 Oyster Pond Rd. Alameda, CA 94501-6460 378-033-021 Arline Farley 604 Camino Amlgo Danville, CA 94536 373-050-004 Melendy and Andrew Acker 17999 Tregoning Ln Ft. Bragg, CA 95437 378-033-024 David and Nancy Delepine 3905 Clayton Rd. #23 Concord, CA 94521 M 159 320 007 162 110 002 373 040 003 Mococo Hill Partners Floyd & Gloria Higby Martinez City Of 3079 Stonegate Dr 749 Vine Hill Way 525 Henrietta St Alamo, CA 94507 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 373 040 004 - 373 040 005 373 050 001 Martinez City Of Martinez City Of Contra Costa County 525 Henrietta St 525 Henrietta St 651 Pine St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 ' Martinez, - CA 94553 373 050 002 373 050 003 373 050 .004 Contra Costa County Dunstan Granshaw Andrew & Melendy Acker 651 Pine St Po Box 788 17999 Tregoning Ln Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Fort Bragg, CA 95437 373 050 005 373 050 006 373 050 007 Marvin & Beverly Dutra Roberta May Stair Ronald Latteri 1251 Escobar St 1257 Escobar St 1631 Latteri Ct Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94519 373 050 008 373 061 031 373 061 032 Ronald Latteri Joseph & Diane Patrick Joseph & Diane Patrick B Ashley Po Box 1086 Po Box 1086 1631 Latteri Ct Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94519 373 061 033 373 061 034 373 061 035 Martinez City Of Paul Craig Rochelle Lipman 525 Henrietta St Kathleen Cox 629 Lafayette St Martinez, CA 94553 623 Lafayette St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 373 061 036 373 061 037 373 061 038 Mary Davi Michael & Joan McNamara Stephen Armstrong 703 Lafayette St 709 Lafayette St 715 Lafayette St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 373 061 039 373 061 040 373 061 041 Bobby Lauderdale James Jones Thomas Peters 721 Lafayette St Suez Pauline 1280 Escobar St Martinez, CA 94553 727 Lafayette St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 373 073 001 373 073 002 373 073 003 Gretchen Ann Lucas James & Jerel Caroompas Bruno & Lillian Duca 805 Lafayette St 815 Lafayette St 825 Lafayette St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 373 073 004 373 073 005 373 073 006 Richard Tarantino Jr. Richard Scott Kelly William Richards 1650 Denkinger Rd Billy Glenn 849 Lafayette St Concord, CA 94521 845 Lafayette St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 , 373 073 007 373 073 008 373 081 016 Norman Kimes & Ann Rae Nann Ruddell Gilbert & Estella Dorame 2261 Mt Baker Hwy 1425 Highland St 1033 Grandview Dr Bellingham, WA 98226 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 373081 017 373 082 001 373 082 002 Ermestine Martin Leona Walker Coombs Ronald & Murietta Cox 1001 Macdonald Ave 1025 Merrithew St r 1021 Merrithew St Richmond, CA 94801 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 082 00 373 083 002 373 083 003 Jos sby Ernest & Patricia D'Atri Ernest & Patricia D'Atri Robe sby 1101 Grandview Dr 1101 Grandview Dr 13 Kibbi Rd Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 n Diego, CA 130 374 011 001 374 011 002 374 011 003 James Davis Claudine Thomas Jon Lowry Jean Harbaugh 1463 Date St 230 Sydney Dr 1475 Date St Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Martinez, CA 94553 374 011 012 374 011 013 374 011 014 Irma Marlar George Friend Daniel Buffington 1456 Cedar St John McNeil 2108 Scenic Ave Martinez, CA 94553 1460 Cedar St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 012 001 374 012 002 374 012 003 Bernice Paskett E Patrice Jensen Jose & Ana Preciado 3420 Switzer Ave Po Box 307 1431 Elm St Modesto, CA 95350 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Martinez, CA 94553 374 012 013 374 012 014 374 012 015 Helen Zentner Kathryn Skinner Steven Cloutier 1452 Date St 1464 Date St 1474 Date St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 014 002 374 014 003 374 014 004 John Willson Mary Jane Donelson John Willson Ginger Ogden 1444 Elm St Edward Wensel 1154 Hillside Dr Martinez, CA 94553 1154 Hillside Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 014 005 374 014 006 374 014 007 May Alexander Filomeo Gilford & Evelyn Wilson Alfred Schlichtmann III 2340 Scenic Ave 3400 Joshua Woods P1 2346 Scenic Ave Martinez, CA 94553 Concord, CA 94518 Martinez, CA 94553 374 014 008 374 014 009 374 021 001 Joseph Sodaro Built-Right Construction James Willson 2356 Scenic Ave Ralph Swanson 1461 Ash St Martinez , CA 94553 4825 Pleasant Hill Rd E Martinez , CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 021 002 374 022 001 374 022 002 Daniel Koledin Margaret Shelton William Donelson 1440 Ash St 1475 Beech St 1465 Beech St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 022 003 374 022 013 374 022 014 Michael & Melody Todd Edna Briner Mickie Mc Cown Reynolds 1455 Beech St Po Box 484 1444 Ash St Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 022 015 374 023 001 374 023 002 Elinor Bonin Lippow Development Co Lippow Development Co 1900 Scenic Ave Po Box 469 Po Box 469 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 Martinez, CA 94553 374 023 003 374 023 015 374 023 018 David & Kathleen LeGrand Karen Biber Scott Campbell 1455 Cedar St Thomas Holdford 3435 Martin Luther King Martinez, CA 94553 1456 Beech St Jr Way Martinez, CA 94553 Oakland, CA 94609 i May 17 , 1993 375-242-015 Delia Estrada 705 E Street Martinez, CA 94553 159-200-010 Charles Palin 3749 Sundale Rd Lafayette, CA 94549 Current Resident A 10 Rutherford Lane Martinez, CA 94553 Elizabeth Martin 4879 Starflower Dr Martinez, CA 94553 Anthony Hornberger or 188 Damascus Loop Pacheco, CA 94553 deirhear.she f�� f 378-033-010 Current Resident 1243 Main Street Martinez, CA 94553 374-053-009 Brad Gacobazzi 1121 Grandview Avenue Martinez , CA 94553 ,��2 � c►4 q�55'3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: October 7, 1993 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director / ,. by: Catherine Kutsuris, Sr. Planned'` SUBJECT: Staff Analysis of Appeal of the land Use Permit for the Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project (#2009-92) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This memorandum contains the staff analysis of the appea[of Land Use Permit#2009-92 filed by Ms. Diana Patrick,which has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 12, 1993 at 2:15 P.M. (Agenda Item #H-4). As summarized in the Board Order prepared for the appeal, our review has found that the appeal is without merit and should be denied. The numbers correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the attached appeal letter. 1. Comment: The project name is inaccurate and must be amended to include expanded gasoline and jet fuel production. Response: The name of the project is not related to the adequacy of the EIR or the approval of the land use permit. The project was thoroughly and accurately described in the EIR (refer to Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR pages 3-1 through 3-72). 2. Comment: The initial study and project definition must separately consider the expanded gasoline and jet fuel production. The public was deceived into thinking the entire project was mandated by 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Response: The EIR clearly states that the project has three objectives: A. To modify the facility in order to produce gasoline which meets the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the State 1990 Clean Air Act while maintaining existing production volume; B. To upgrade high sulfur, heavy fuels to cleaner, more valuable products; and C. To allow other oxygenates and gasoline within Tanks #s 12445 and 12446 which were constructed for the storage of MTBE. Environmental impacts from the entire project were evaluated in the EIR. In addition, the EIR included a "Clean Fuels Only" alternative which clearly separated the portions of the project that are not requ4red to comply with the Clean Air laws. 2 The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission's hearing restates that the project was designed to meet three objectives. 3. Comment: The appellant contends that the project will "worsen the environment". Response: This is a conclusory statement made without any supporting evidence. 4. Refer to Comment & Response #2. 5. Comment: The public did not have access to the EIR because of the cost. Response: Consistent with Board policy, our department charges a fee equal to the printing cost. The printing costs for the Draft EIR was $35.00 and the cost for the two volume Response to Comments document was $89.00. Copies of the EIR were available for review at libraries and at the Community Development Department. Approximately 170 copies were sold or distributed to the public and to responsible agencies. You should note that the appellant was given a courtesy copy for her use. 6. Comment: The Planning Commission hearing process was intimidating and avoided EIR dialogue; those speaking in favor of the project were allowed to speak first. Response: The Planning Commission's hearing process for this application was consistent with how all applications are heard. The majority of testimony received was by persons supporting the project. Only six of the approximately 68 persons who testified were opposed to the project. 7. Comment: "Because the project is so expansive and treads heavily on all sections of the environment", the County should have organized workshops on the EIR like the City of Hercules has done with the Pacific Refinery EIR. Response: The EIR and land use permit application were processed consistent with applicable laws and Department procedures. The Zoning Administrator held two public hearings to receive testimony on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. These hearings were in addition to the Scoping Session held during the Notice of Preparation review period. The County. Planning Commission held two separate hearings to accept public testimony. In addition, County staff has been answering questions from the public and from agencies throughout the review process. Shell Oil Company held separate community meetings to answer questions. The appellant did not provide any evidence supporting the statement that the "project treads heavily on all sections of the environment". The primary purpose of the proposed project is to produce gasoline which will meet the requirements of Clean Air laws. 3 8. Comment: The County cannot be impartial because of the "extensive fees and taxes". The purchase price and value of the County Maintenance Yard should be included in the analysis. Response: The statement that the County cannot be impartial is a conclusory statement made without supporting evidence. State CEQA Guidelines specify that "the Lead Agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole" (Section 15051 b). Consistent with this requirement, the County was the Lead Agency for the preparation of the EIR. The EIR included the relocation of the County Maintenance Yardand evaluated impacts consistent with CEQA requirements. The purchase price and value of the Maintenance facility is not relevant to the adequacy of the EIR. 9. Refer to Comment and Response #2. 10. Comment: The appellant cites a portion of the CEQA Guidelines which addresses an adequate cumulative analysis, and appears to use this section as justification that the EIR should include a comparison of the 1979 Shell EIR with the current refinery, along with the Air District's permits since 1980 to "shed some light on how this possible doubling of throughout occurred..." Response: The EIR evaluates adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. The EIR does not evaluate impacts of other projects which have occurred since 1979. CEQA does not require that an EIR evaluate changes since the last EIR was prepared for a project on the site. Pursuant to CEQA and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assessed environmental impacts based on a comparison between the existing setting and the conditions should the project be constructed and operated. The inclusion of historical information, as suggested by the appellant, is irrelevant to an adequate and complete EIR. 11. Comment: The appellant states that Shell Oil had changes in their wharf activity beginning in 1982, which were not addressed in the 1979 EIR or the 1980 Air District permit. Response: This comment is not relevant to the land use permit approval or to the adequacy and completeness of the EIR. 12. Comment: The appellant states that the EIR reports that Shell currently switches tank cars at the Martinez Ozol Station and that the project would substantially increase this activity. Response: The applicant misread the EIR. The switchers would come from Ozol Station to the siding adjacent to the refinery. 4 13. Comment: The project description should be expanded to include the total complex, the wharf and the rail line to the SP Ozol switching station because the project expands refining of residuals, adds MTBE, and transfers the rail switching from Shell to the rail line through Martinez. Response: The appellant's statements regarding the project description are incorrect. Although the application does not address modifications to the wharf, the EIR did, estimate a maximum of two additional ships would result from the proposed project. Impacts from the two additional ships were evaluated in the EIR. The project will not result in changes to the rail switching activities as suggested by the appellant. MTBE will not be added as a result of this project. MTBE is currently used at the refinery. The appellant's statement that the project description should be expanded to include the entire complex because the project would expand the refining of residuals is without basis. The project description clearly states the multiple objectives of the project which include upgrading heavy fuels to cleaner burning products. 14. Comment: The EIR does not describe the existing environment at the complex. Air monitoring data taken at the complex and at Martinez/Concord locations, consistency of the project with existing general plans, and train, vehicle and marine traffic must be included. Response: The EIR thoroughly evaluated air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project (refer to Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR). The use of emission data was further explained in the Response to Comments Document (Responses 14-19 and 14- 51). Contrary to the appellants statement's, vehicular, maritime, and rail impacts were analyzed in the EIR (refer to Chapter 12). 15. Comment: The documents do not mention the Martinez Complex increasing production to compensate for the loss of refining capacity from the Shell Willmington refinery. Response: This land use permit application does not include an increase in crude refining capacity. 16. Comment: An alternative to storing stormwater at the wastewater treatment facility must be examined. Response: The project does not include the storage of stormwater at the wastewater treatment facility (refer to Pages 3-66 and 3-67 of the Draft EIR). 5 17. Comment: Quantify the selenium discharge from each of the two project components. Response: The project as conditioned would ensure a no net increase in selenium discharges. The EIR includes a thorough discussion of selenium impacts and mitigation measures (refer.to the discussion beginning on page 6-13 of the Draft EIR and page II-1 of the Response Document). 18. Comment: Mitigation for selenium should be based on the 1980 refining capacity. Response: The 1980 refining capacity is not relevant to the assessment of impacts from the proposed project. 19. Comment: Contamination of the sea floor from crude spills during the 1980's must be included in the EIR. Response: Impacts from previous spills in the wharf area are not pertinent to this EIR since the project does not include any change in crude oil handling. Thus, testing the sea floor is not necessary for an analysis of impacts. 20. Comment: Large streams of ballast water are emitted from tankers at Shell's wharf. This problem must be addressed in the EIR. Response: Concerns about increased discharge of ballast water are unfounded as stated in Response to Comments 12A-2 and 13-12 of the Final EIR. 21 . Comment: The EIR must describe how coke will be loaded onto railcars and whether the railcars which would be switched at Ozol would emit coke particles. Response: The air quality analysis of the EIR includes fugitive emissions of coke particles. Refer to Response #12 of this memorandum for discussion of the train switching. 22. Comment: Air monitoring statistics from 1980 through 1992 are required to establish a historical air profile. 1992 Concord air monitoring statistics should have been used. Response: Use of emission data was further explained in the Response to Comments Document pages 14-19 and 14-51 . These responses also contain references to the Air Quality section of the DEIR (Chapter 8) which outlines data requirements by appropriate regulatory agencies. The EIR described the existing emissions. CEQA does not require a comparison between the existing conditions and those projected by a previous EIR. There should be no presumption that the "existing conditions" evaluated in a subsequent EIR should equal the "projected conditions" of a previous EIR. Response to Comment 16-32 addresses the choice of monitoring stations. 6 23. Comment: The environmental air quality setting is inadequate. Air testing is required to establish a baseline. The evaluation should include the impacts of the entire complex. Response: The requirements for documenting current emissions are discussed in the Draft EIR on pages 8-16 through 8-23. Subsequent pages document air quality of the area and current emissions of the complex (without the Clean Fuels Project). In Response to Comment 13-8 of the Final EIR,the appellant was referred to pages 8-48 through 8-50 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the required modeling to obtain an operating permit. Additional discussion is also provided on page 16-32 of the Response to Comments Document. It is not necessary for the EIR to explain the historical evolution of the permits for the facility. Rather, the EIR must evaluate whether the project would exacerbate any existing non-compliance with air quality regulations and whether the emissions would exceed any of the standards of significance. 24. Refer to Response #10. 25. Refer to Response #22. 26. Comment: Accurate testing at the complex and in affected communities is necessary in order to model future emissions. Response: The Health Risk Assessment modeling was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the EPA. 27. Comment: This EIR has the opportunity to test and compare noise measurements between 1979 and the present. Response: Changes which may have occurred between 1979 and the present are not relevant to the assessment of environmental impacts from the proposed Clean Fuels project. 28. Comment: The risk of upset section is inaccurate because it does not define the level of production to determine risk. Response: The risk of upset analysis evaluated "worst-case" upset events that could occur as a result of the proposed project. A risk of upset analysis is driven by the hazard of the material, how it is managed, and the location where it is managed. 29. Comment: The EIR neglects to compare shipping activities as described in the 1979 EIR. Response: This information is not relevant to the preparation of an EIR for the proposed Clean Fuels project. Refer to Response #10 of this memorandum for additional discussion. — - --- ------------ 7 -- --7 30. Comment: The EIR states that 13,000 additional train cars will be switched west of Martinez. The history of this activity since 1979 and the impacts must be addressed. Response: The appellant's statements regarding the project EIR are incorrect. The activity since 1979 is not relevant to an accurate and complete EIR for the proposed project. The EIR thoroughly evaluated air, noise, traffic and upset events resulting from the increase in rail traffic (refer to Chapter 8, Chapter 10, Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 of the Draft EIR). 31 . Refer to Response #12 and #13. 32. Comment: Impacts of the project on Marina Vista and impacts of truck ,and rail hazardous materials accidents must be analyzed. R sponse: The project's impacts on Marina Vista are thoroughly discussed in the Transportation Chapter of the Draft EIR (refer to Chapter 12) beginning with a discussion of the 1988 voter approved Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program and other federal, state and regional agencies involved in transportation planning for the area. Mitigation measures to reduce transportation impacts are presented on pages 12-29 through 12-83 of the Draft EIR. Evaluation of potential off-site transportation of hazardous material by truck and rail carriers is presented in the Risk of Upset Section of the Draft OR (refer to page 11-45). Because the project will not increase the potential for off-site hazardous materials truck accidents, an alternative discussion is inappropriate. 33. Comment: The impacts of tank car storage must be evaluated. Response: The project will increase the number of rail cars accessing the facility. The impacts of this increase were evaluated in the EIR (refer to Transportation and Risk of Upset Chapters). The majority of the increase in rail cars will be for the purpose of transporting coke. Coke is a solid, non-combustible material which, if spilled, could be easily contained and removed. The rail switching activities adjacent to the refinery would not be changed as a result of the proposed project. 34. Comment: Table 12-2 of the EIR does not address PM peak hour traffic; peak hour traffic must differentiate between holiday and regular commute traffic. Response: P.M. peak hours are included in Table 12-2 of the Draft EIR. Page 12-8 of the Draft EIR explains that traffic counts are measured on typical work days, not holidays. 35. Comment: Specific mitigation for the visual blight of the Marina Vista corridor must be included in the EIR. Response: The EIR evaluated the visual impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation measures for significant visual impacts were included for a number of view locations, including Marina Vista (refer to Chapter 15 of the Draft EIR). 8 36. Comment: The water usage for each of the two projects should be described; the water storage history should be described. Response: The Draft EIR thoroughly discusses the increases in potable and non- potable water as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project (refer to Chapter 13 - Public Facilities and Chapter 18 - Cumulative Impacts). Water storage history is not relevant to the environmental analysis. The appellant is restating her contention that the EIR should have been separated into two projects. The staff response is provided in Response #2 of this memorandum. 37. Comment: The view of the Complex from the Benicia Bridge is a major focus at this entrance to the County and must be addressed. Response: The Draft EIR evaluates the visual impacts to the views from the gateway to the City of Martinez (from the Benicia Bridge on Interstate 680). The information is provided in Chapter 15 of the Draft EIR (refer to page 15-41). The EIR recommends mitigation measures to reduce visual impacts from this area. However, the EIR concludes that the impact remains "Significant and Unavoidable". 38. Comment: The mitigation measures must designate a landscaping plan. The landscaping plan should address the entire Shell Complex. A comprehensive maintenance program should also be included. Response: The mitigation measures require the submittal of a landscape plan (refer to discussion beginning on page 15-40 of the Draft EIR). The EIR does not provide mitigation for existing conditions at the complex. The purpose of the EIR is to evaluate impacts of the proposed Clean Fuels Project. The EIR cannot be used to require mitigation measures for the existing complex. 39. Comment: The proposed wastewater treatment tanks will create visual impacts; alternate locations or storage systems must be considered. Response: The proposed wastewater treatment tanks are not related to the Clean Fuels project. The tanks are part of a "Stipulated Conditional Order for Abatement" issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to eliminate six ponds at the Effluent Treatment Plan. The compliance with this Order is not related.to the proposed project. The EIR appropriately considered potential impacts from the treatment tanks in the Cumulative Impact analysis (refer to Chapter 18 of the Draft EIR). 40. Comment: The appellant contents that the project is inconsistent with the City of Martinez General Plan policy regarding the "North Contra Costa Waterfront Zone." Response: This comment was responded to in the Final EIR (refer to page 2-1). The North Contra Costa Waterfront Zone allows for both industrial and open space uses. The proposed project would not conflict with this designation; the City of Martinez designated the Shell Complex as "Industrial." 41 . Refer to Response #38 of this memorandum. 9 42. Comment: The EIR does not adequately present environmental and economic problems affecting Martinez and how the proposed project will impact Martinez. Response: This is a conclusory statement submitted without supporting evidence. The EIR includes a thorough evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed Clean Fuels Project. 43. Comment: This document does not fully define the project, present air emissions, or evaluate worst case scenarios. Response: The Draft EIR included a detailed project description (refer to Chapter 3). The timing of CEQA review in the design process typically requires the preparation of the EIR before detailed engineering specifications have been completed. CEQA encourages Lead Agencies to prepare an EIR early in the project development stage in order to affect changes. In conducting the analysis, worst case assumptions were made in order to provide an analytical envelop in which any future refinement of the design would take place. The evaluation of "worst case" risk of upset scenarios is discussed in Chapter 11 of the Draft EIR (refer to pages 11-25, 11-32 and 11-33) and in the Response to Comments Document (refer to Response to Comments 14-43, 14-71, 14-72 and 14- 66). 44. Comment: A Mitigation Monitoring Program must be included. Response: The Planning Commission adopted a Mitigation Monitoring program for the project. 45. Comment: The impact analysis must be based on actual emission data. Response: Refer to Response #22 of this memorandum. 46. Comment: Air emission data obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would not meet CEQA requirements for accuracy. Response: Refer to Response #23 of this memorandum. 47. Comment: Consider locating the proposed project near Tosco refinery or joining the project with Tosco refinery. Response: This comment is inconsistent with state law which prohibits the inclusion of a "No Project" or an "Off Site" alternative for reformulated fuels projects. 48. Comment: The risk of upset analysis should consider worst-case potential, include impacts to Highway 680, and address impacts during start-up. 10 Response: The EIR contains a thorough evaluation of the risk of upset from the proposed project(refer to Chapter 11 of the Draft EIR). Sensitive receptors considered include traffic along Highway 680. The risk of upset scenarios selected for evaluation represent worst case credible accidents that could occur as a result of the proposed project. 49. Comment: The EIR fails to consider feasible alternatives such as reducing throughput and Locating the activities in other areas such as the Acme Fill property. Response: The comment is inconsistent with state law which prohibits the evaluation of an off site alternative for reformulated fuels projects. Since the proposed project would not increase refining capacity, an alternative addressing a reduction in throughput is inappropriate. CK/aa LTRXIV/2002-92.CK ------------------ Box 1086 Martinez 94553 g3 OCT - I PFS 3. 53 September 30, 1993 T4: Tom Torlakson, Chair CCC Board of Supervisors FROM: Diana Patrick I appeal the Contra Costa County Planning Commissions acceptance of both the Shell Oil Companu Clean Fuels Project (State Clearinghouse # 92093028) as complete: and approval of the land use permit for Project #2009-92 to the Board of Supervisors, under your category of adverse impact on my property value.' The public is ill served by the inaccurate project name of Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project and an EIR that does not address the major component of this project, that of expanding gasolineijetfuel production. The larger project, that of expanded gasoline and jet fuel production by increased crude distillation and other residual a cracking activities must be.included in the project name, considered separately in the Initial Studyand Project Definition. The land use permit as approved, allows Shell to worsen the environment, add visual blight to the I-680 corridor, switch 3 15,000 hazardous material tank cars at night west of Martinez and increase risk of explosion due to the processes used to refine crude residuals. The public was deceived into thinking the entire project was l y mandated by 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The Draft J Enuironmental Impact Report and Response To Comment Documents were made inaccessible to the community. The public's choice was to pay about $120 for the DEIR and response document, or read 5 from the single copy issued to each area library. An effort must be made to make lengthy and expensive documents accessible to the affected community by issuing enough copies to libraries for the public to check them out to read at their leisure. Planning Commission Hearing Process: The Shell EIR/Project hearing process used by the Planning Commission was intimidating and avoided EIR dialogue. At both hearings persons supporting the project were allowed to speak before those in opposition. Instead of speaking to the issue, (p many hours were filled with Shell's friends, employees and retirees offering support for the project without specific comment to the EIR or project components, delaying and intimidating those present to raise issues. Lintil very late. Need For Public Education: Because the project is so expansive and treads heavily on all sections of the environment, organized public workshops would -7 ' provide focus on specific issues and avoid filibuster and intimidation. Hercules is providing public workshops to inform residents of various aspects of Pacific Refining's Improved Fuels Modification Project. (A notice is attached.) Conflict of Interest I raise concern with the County's ability to be non-partial in this process as the County will be receiving extensive fees and taxes. The County Maintenance Yard is to be sold to Shell . The purchase price, appraised valuation and anticipated fees and taxes are pertinent to the public and must be revealed in this evaluation. Initial Studu and Project Definition: Again the two projects: Clean Fuels and Refining Expansion must be described separately. To leave them together as one Clean Fuels Project, deceives the public into disregarding the separate product expansion, the larger and more environmentally damaging project. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project (projects) may affected outsiders and public decision makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs, considering mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (ie., the `no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. The Initial Study and Project Definition must describe increased production due to expanded refining capability from the additional manufacturing processes (ie. isomerization, cracking and alkylation) and all the other process that increases production of gasoline, jet fuel and other products from residual; that part of the processed crude oil not currently refined into product. The initial study and project definition must be corrected and expanded to address this production increase omissions and their impacts. CEQA guidelines require that an EIR be adequate, complete and a good faith effort at full disclosure. "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following (O elements; (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are likely to produce, related or -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cumulative impact, or (b) The proposed project area for the -expansion As expanded refining was not considered in the 1979 EIR, this EIR process to meet Substantive Requirements of CEQA described in CEQA Guidelines says, "If necessary, the lead agency must use "reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss"-related past, present and future projects, even if under reuiew by other agencies." A camparison of the 1979 EIR to the expanded activities existing today, along with a review of BAAQMD permits since 1980, would shed light on how this possible doubling of throughput occurred, without public notice. Inconsistencies in The Record: a substantive requirement of CEQA provides that "if necessary the lead agency must use "reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss" related past, present and future projects, even if under review by other agencies." Shell has grown like topsy, in opposition to historic record and permits. �Q Verify 1979 and 1993 EIR Statistics and BAAQMD Baseline Emission Components: The 1979 Shell `Modernization' project EIR reported no more than 128,000 barrels/day of crude oil would be brought to the refinery, and that gasoline production would increase from 51x to 60x. A respected trade journal reported that Shell's refining; capacity was 20:,000 barrels less, 108,000 barrels/day. 1992 statistics from that same trade jouurnal indicate that Shell's current capacity is 147.000 barrels/day. Describe the permit process allowing this expansion and what percent of the production gasoline/jetfuel manufacturing represents today and project what production levels will occur after expansion? The probable 50x barrel/day refining expansion since 1977 and the resulting product and transportation increases meets the Substantive issue criteria of CEQA and accurate information must be obtained and considered. Valid statistics from reliable providers, ie. US Army Corps of Engineers, tax records, Marine Exchange, must be used to determine barrel/day capacity in 1977 and 1982, wharf activity, ie. numbers of tankers/barge visits and type and quantity of materials loaded/unloaded. Marine Loading Inconsistencies: ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- - - The 1979 Shell EIR reports 194 tankers and 247 barges visited Shell's wharf in 1977. Marine Exchange records indicate 108 10 Con'4 tankers visited Shell's wharf in 1977. This EIR claims that 542 barges and 220 ships visited Shell's wharf in 1988. No source was given to this number. Wharf Activity Inconsistencies _ Y _ The 1979 EIR stated that Shell's wharf main use was unloading crude oil and loading residual fuel oil. Gasoline loading was mentioned as an ongoing activity. As no vapor recovery 'Was considered (as was required for Tosco's gasoline loading activity around that time), loading gasoline at Shell's wharf was an Q insignificant activity. In 1982 Shell started loading large amounts of crude, a new activity not addressed in the 1979 EIR or 1980 BAAQMD permit. Shell now loads a large quantity of gasoline into tankers for delivery in Los Angeles. This expanded activity and the associated risk has never been described. Switching and Rail Trip Inconsistencies: The 1979 EIR appears to address switching activities within Shell's refinery and anticipates a total of 7 rail car trips per day after Modernization. The 1993 EIR states that Shell currently switches 1500 tank cars annually at the Martinez Ozol �oZ switching station and that 13,000 more cars, or a total of 14,500 will be switched there annually. The 1993 EIR infers that Ozol switching is an ongoing activity, please determine when did Shell start switching cars at Ozol? How many rail car trips per day exist now? Project Definition The project designation must be expanded to include the total MMC, wharf and rail line to the SP Ozol switching station west of Martinez as Shell is closing their own switching station and moving that activity to the rail line through Martinez. (3 CEQA defines project as the "whole of an action", including information specific to all agencies that issue permits, ie. the BAAQMD. The California courts have held that "an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (CH 3) Project impacts -------- ----------------- ----=----=------------------------------------------------------------------ are listed in all CEQA categories indicating the seuerity of the proposed project's environmental presence. Expanded refining of residuals and the addition of MTBE, a corrosiue cause the entire MMC, wharf and rail line to be the "project". The affect of the project must be defined. 13 CEQA Guidelines also state: "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced,; or are likely to produce, related or cumulatiue impact, or (b) The proposed project area for the expansion project, must be amended to include the entire MMC, wharf and transportation routes including the Ozal switching station, Existing Environment This EIR fails to describe the existing enuironment at the MMC, wharf and, rail line, ie. air monitoring data from Martinez, train, vehicular and marine traffic and a comparison to statistics in the 1979 EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(b) requires the environmental IY setting discussion to include analysis of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and existing general plans, regional plans and other relevant planning documents such as air quality management plans. A description of the existing enuironment at the MMC and the affected adjoining area is required. Broad spectrum air monitoring of equipment and fugitive emissions at the MMC and impacted locations in Martinez/Concord are required to provide an accurate profile of existing air conditions and note any difference in Shell's emissions since their previous project and BAAQMD permit in 1989. There is no mention of MMC meeting Southern California's refining capacity upon closure of Shell's Wilmington refinery, 15 without documenting the worsened enuironmental impacts and added risks of this expansion) to the City of Martinez. 6. Water Oualitt : 6-2&3 Stormwater Runoff - MTBE (6-5) An alternative system to storing storm water runoff at the wastewater treatment facility must be examined. Consideration must be giuen to implement measures to assure that surface water is uncontaminated and does not mingle with waste water. Both systems should be addressed fully in the EIR. CEQA requires all elements of .a project to be included in one document. The wastewater treatment project requires CEQA compliance within this document. 6-4 Increased Selenium Discharges. Quantify the selenium (7 discharge from each of the two project components. 7-6 Selenium Discharges and Oil Spills, mitigation should be �& described that would bring selenium discharge to a leuel consistent with 1989 refining capability. ----------------------------------------------- - ' ------------------------ Testing sea floor below and around wharf: As Shell loaded crude Oil in the 80's with numerous spills reported, an activity not �9 listed in the '79 EIR, contamination of the sea floor impacted by crude spills must be determined by testing and the condition reported in the EIR. Large streams of ballast water are emitted from tankers -loading aO at Shell's wharf. This problem is inappropriate and must be addressed in the EIR. B. Air Dual ituy: [270 Cal .Rptr. 6501, reports "the need to support with rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence the conclusion that impacts will be insignificant; the requirement to analyze both "on-site" and "secondary" air pollution emissions in assessing the overall significance of air quality impacts; . . ." a' Coke Dust: This section applies to the expansion project and not the clean fuels project. The EIR is deficient. It fails to provide details of how coke will be loaded into railroad cars. The impact from this operation can not be adequately identified or mitigated without basic details. Coke particles are known to be light and are a health risk. Will coke particles be brought into the City on rail cars being switched at Ozol? The EIR must describe the method used to load coke into cars and anticipate worst case upset and adequate safeguards to avoid this material from being released in town. BAAQMD broad spectrum monitoring statistics from Concord and Pittsburg from 1980 through 1992 are required to establish an historic air profile for this region. The 1992 Concord statistics, missing from the EIR could indicate reductions from the marine vapor incinerator, which began operating in Kouember, 1991. As stated before, the environmental air quality setting is inadequate. An accurate air quality setting must be included in the EIR. Air testing of the entire MMC and wharf as well as air quality testing in affected areas in Martinez/Concord and the regional are required to establish an adequate current air profile. Air testing must be accomplished to establish an accurate current baseline. Air modeling must address times of atmospheric stagnation. OZ3 All air emission referenced in tables in the text of Chapter 8. Air Quality from the BAAQMD must be documented by testing. Are mathematically computed emission verifiable? Provide independent testing for those mathematically computed emissions supplied by the BAAQMD. For years that estimates are used, provide calculation record. As the project covers the entire MMC, reduction consideration for additional emissions should be offset by emissions from the existing refinery. Include a discussion of methods to reduce, rather than increase emissions from the refinery. Currently, fugitive emissions are not counted in Shell's BAAQMD emission --------------------------------- ---- - - - ------ - - cap. The EIR must include testing and a profile of those emissions. There is a discrepancy in the marine loading element of Shell's BAAQMD Shell WOR Permit Conditions, dated November S, 1984 and which sets an emission baseline for 1977 wharf loading, more than 700 tons are listed as existing emissions on Table 1, second page 11. The '80 permit allows 10,950,000 barrels of gasoline to be loaded annually at Shell's wharf. This amount of gasoline represents 142 days of annual gasoline production. The 1980 EIR d anticipated continued crude unloading and fuel oil loading. Had a change of use to loading nearly half the annual throughput into tankers at the wharf been antici-gated, it would -have been addressed in the 1979 EIR. This discrepancy must be documented by reconstruction actual material loading records for 1977 from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Division, tax record or other documented verifiable source, and applying the BAAQMD, Shell loading emission factors. 9. Public Health: An accurate emission history must be a5 established before health forecasting can occur. Differentiate the health affects from both projects. This section forecasts health risks from estimations included in a study by Radian, 1991. Accurate broad spectrum testing must be a accomplished at MMC and in the affected communities ie. (Martinez and Concord), in order to accurately model future emissions and the associated health risk. 10. Noise: The 1979 EIR forecast that "The total noise after the completion of the proposed project would be unchanged if the recommended mitigation measures were included" probably addresses the existing refinery that is much larger than approved in 1980. By bringing BAAQMD permits into line, noise will likely be reduced This EIR has an opportunity to test and compare noise measurements existing at the time of the last major project in 07 1979 and noise levels in existence today. Examination of noise information recorded at Shell's noise monitoring stations from. installation to present would present historic noise information. Consideration of locating noise monitors at other noise producing locations at MMC, the wharf, and in Martinez as a noise mitigation aide should be discussed. 11. Risk of Upset: This section is inaccurate as it does not define level of oZ$ production to determine risk. Gasoline loading at the wharf will "xcrease and the risk in total must be addressed. Nbsportation: --------- -- - - Shipping ------Shipping statistics: The EIR neglects to include a comparison of Shipping activities as described in the 1979 EIR. The inconsistency of reporting either wharf loading or unloading as the dominant wharf activity, between US Army Corps of Engineers, a 9 the 1979 EIR and 1980 BAAQMD permit must be explained. Wharf activities, risk to the community, conflict with recreational uses and increased shipping in Carquinez Strait meets the criteria for a cumLrlatiue impacts studu. Switching Coke Cars West of Martinez: The EIR (11-47) states that 13,000 additional train cars containing hazardous material will be switched west of Martinez, and that the total cars switched will be 14,500. The present switching activity appears to have commenced after 1979, as it is not mentioned in the 1979 EIR. Describe how this switching activity came to be 30 established, along with a history of switching and exact numbers of trains and cars to the numbers included in the 1979 EIR, plus material contained must be included. Noise and risk from switching is not and must also be addressed. Outline alternatives that would avoid Shell's use of right of way through the City of Martinez for switching activities. Is this a new use or expanded use? Martinez Shoreline Park: The EIR mentions increased rail use, but does not address the cumulative impacts of increased switching and rail use on the use of the Martinez Shoreline Park and development of a parking structure at the `cannery' site. SP is reported to be considering adding an additional siding through Martinez to 31 accommodate the expanded switching need presented by Shell. Would building an overpass to develop the `cannery' as parking, become a `liability' issue due to the number of train cars Shell Plans to switch at the Ozal switching yard? There are adequate negative impact indicators to discuss the cumulative impacts of switching and increased use of the rail lines through Martinez Marina Vista Corridor This corridor meets the CEQA Cumulative Impacts and the many problems must be analyzed it total. Even without this project Marina Vista's many uses are in 3 conflict. Grade crossings for trains and trucks, tank car oZ storage on tracks alongside the road, lack of a bicycle lane, flooding near the I-680 entrance, causing the road to be impassable and motorists using the road as a short-cut to avoid backups on the approach to the Benicia Bridge create cumulative problem and risk which must be addressed in total. ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ Is the expanded manufacturing component of the proposed projects responsible for the projected increased use of Marina Vista roadway and railway tracks? The EIR would serve the community well to examine the cumulative increased use by rail and truck traffic and consider alternatives to these cumulative problems. Marina Vista narrows to one lane heading West to accommodate trucks turning onto Mococo slowing traffic and creating risk as slow trucks make wide turns. Traffic entering Mococo must cross railroad tracks and occasionally turn into the oncoming traffic lane. The EIR does not address this problem. Alternatives to grade crossing for trucks and train/tank car traffic must be explored, along with alternate methods of transporting materials besides vehicular/train. Tank car storage drains is unsightly now. Will it worsen if the 33 expansion project goes through? What risk does tank car storage present. Are there existing ordinances that disallow storage on sidings? If not, can such an ordinance be drafted? Is there risk of damage from a leak to the adjacent wetlands? Can the cars be tampered with? Marina Vista connects I-680 to downtown Martinez. Table 12-2 does not accurately address reflect PM peak hour traffic at the Marina Vista 1-680 N and S bound on-ramps are not included. PM peak hours must be included, differentiating between three day 3cf holiday traffic and regular Benicia bridge traffic that exits I- 680 at Pacheco to Shell and right on Marina Vista. Entry to that traffic from downtown Martinez and Shell construction traffic must be addressed. Specific mitigation for the visual blight of the Marina Vista corridor must be included in the EIR. 35 14. Public Utilities Water Use: Describe what percent increase water usage Shell l 3` will require for each of the two projects. Explain their water J storage history. 15. Visual Quality: Visual corridors and visual impact are not complete. The vista of MMC from the Benicia bridge is the major focus at this 37 entrance to the County and must be addressed. Proposed mitigation must designate a landscaping and surfaces plan. The rusting tanks in need of paint and redundant and 3 8 discolored equipment detract from this major gateway to Contra Costa County. (4-4) ' Landscaping will not screen the shabby equipment visible from 3'r much of Martinez. Again surface treatment to equipment and removal of redundant equipment would significantly reduce the visual blight viewed from peoples homes. (4-6) (4-7) r The proposed tanks at the wastewater treatment plant, 148 feet fn diameter by 56 feet high would adversely impact the visual 39 corridor from the Martinez marina, Benicia and homes in Martinez overlooking the waterfront. Alternate locations or stbrage systems must be considered. The EIR preparers accepting "Incompatibility" with the City General Plan policy which states that the "North Contra Costa Waterfront Zone should remain essentially unimproved 44O and devoted to open space. This impact would be less significant." is unacceptable. Mitigation must be offered to at least soften the existing equipment by natural looking landscaping and coordinate the equipment surfaces and structures to blend with the environment. (4-4) As the project incorporates the entire MMC site, Landscaping plans for the site are required as mitigation. Shell must maintain their property as well as most Martinez residents do. The EIR would serve the community well by including a comprehensive maintenance program that includes cleaning and painting equipment and landscaping those areas visible from roadways and peoples homes to be included in the land use permit. 18. Cumulative and Beneficial Impacts: Economic Impact Upon Martinez The EIR as approved does not adequately present environmental and economic problems affecting Martinez at this time, or how the two projects individually will impact Martinez. An accurate EIR is required to obtain a project that will benefit the community, the ya environment and Shell's employees. Martinez lies in the shadow of Shell. The City's economic viability already is encumbered by Shell's presence. How will worsened air, more noise, increased rail and roadway and marine traffic as well as construction related problems affect Martinez property values and business? The EIR must address this. California Courts have held than an agency cannot simply release a draft report that hedges on important environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to the final EIR that is insulated from public review. This document does less than that. It does not even present the size of the project (throughput), document present emissions to forecast future emissions in the affected community, nor is the project fully defined. Many significant components tie. wastewater, process units, piping and ----------------- ----------- - -------- --------- - - -- - - ----- - loading facilities) are not, but must be reviewed as their design is incomplete. There is not an adequate review of how the new sections will go on line and worst case risk must also be t 3 addressed. Shell continues to build in what was their buffer zone, development beyond that allowed in the 1980 BAAQMD permit must be described. r Mitigation Monitoring Program Because of the vastness of the project, the EIR must consider adequate mitigation monitoring programs. 8-52 D. Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, must be based on an actual emission data Response 13 - 1 "The accuracy and history of BAAQMD's regulation �1�5 and permitting is not relevant to the environmental analysis of the proposed project." CEQA Guidelines state: "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are c{(a likely to produce, related or cumulative impacts. or (b Response to comments 13-3 - Marine Loading emission data must be accomplished by verifiable testing. Factors supplied by the BAAQMD operating permit, are likely mathematically computed and do not meet CEQA requirements for accuracy. Alternatiues To The Project Consider locating expansion and clean fuels modifications east of the existing MMC in an area near Tosco. Y7 Consider joining Shell and Tosco's clean fuel modifications into one state of the art plant. Risk Since "upsets" are.prone to occur with start-up this document must describe the start-up of new components. Location of piping and volumes of materials used and stored are needed along with an analysis of accident potential . cf� Explore exposure of risk Marina Vista and I-680 traffic back-up during pm peak hours in case of a release at Shell. Worst case disaster potential must be described and the affected area projected. ---`---------- Alternatives The EIR fails to adequately consider feasible alternatives which ~ could mitigate the project's significant impacts, such as �f reducing throughput and locating refining activities in other areas such as the Acme Fill property. 21 EIR Report Preparers This EIR is seriously flawed as well as deficient and must be redrafted. Please list qualifications of individual preparers- and their refining expertise. Consider developing a conflict of interest criteria to ensure that preparers are not biased to industry. r I look forward to development of an EIR that will lead to a positive project for all concerned. I have no objection to Shell refining more gasoline if the quality of life for the community is improved. This project provides an opportunity to require Shell to become a regulated, state of the art non-polluting refinery, that could be an asset to the community. This potential benefit will slip by if the project goes forward as approved. cc: City of Martinez EPA -.•- .mss, ��� CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT #2009-92 (SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT) GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1 . Development shall be based on the following documents except as modified by the conditions herein: A. "Application for Land Use Permit - Volume 1 " dated received by the County Community Development Department on February 2, 1993; B. "Response to Comments: Application for Land Use Permit Volume 2" dated received by the County Community Development Department on July 1 , 1992. C. Project development and operation as further described in the Final EIR. 2. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a Site Development Plan. The Plan shall: A. Identify the phasing of project construction, and the expected construction start and completion dates for each phase; B: Identify the schedule for submittal of the Hazard and Operability Studies; C. Change the location of the Light Crude Tank (refer to Draft EIR: Figure 3-22, Location Z) from the southeastern portion of the site to the area designated for additional tankage located directly to the south of proposed Cooling Water Tower (Unit #12) and the Cracked Akylation Unit (Unit #17) as depicted in Figure 3-22 of the Draft EIR or provide evidence to the satisfaction of the County Zoning Administrator, that the relocation of the tank to a more central location of the refinery or to an area more distant from residential areas is not possible. (MM 4-4) 3. The approved Site Development Plan shall be updated every six months during the duration of the construction period. OFFICE BUILDINGS 4. The office building shall not exceed any of the following: 150,000 square feet, three stories in height and 40 feet in height. (MM 4-3) 5. At least thirty days prior to submitting an application for building permits for the office building, the applicant shall submit architectural and landscaping plans to the City of Martinez for review and to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval. (MM 15-1 1 ) The office building use is limited to administrative and professional office uses. Uses such as research and development, and laboratories are prohibited. 2 GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY: GRADING REQUIREMENTS 6. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project site, the applicant shall submit the County Zoning Administrator a site-specific geotechnical report detailing the site- specific grading concepts, stability analysis, stabilization procedures, and design criteria for cut-slopes and fill-slopes. The report shall be prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the structural engineers for the project. The report applies to all sites underlain by unconsolidated deposits and underlain or adjacent to Martinez Formation or Meganos Formation bedrock. The required report shall: (MM 5-la/5-2a): A. Document the analysis and findings of a site-specific stability analyses conducted for the area proposed for grading to establish the design criteria for proposed cut or fill slopes. B. Document that the recommended criteria have been incorporated in the design of cut and/or fill slopes. C. Document before-grading and after-grading site elevations. 7. During grading activities, the registered geotechnical professional shall be on the site to (MM 5-1 b/5-2b): A. Supervise the implementation of slope stability designs. B. Observe areas of potential instability. C. Supervise slope repairs, as necessary. D. Supervise compaction testing. 8. It is crucial that the grading code be carefully implemented, that all grading procedures be accurately documented, and that the geotechnical engineer provide effective inspections to ensure the highest quality of performance. The grading completion report submitted to the Grading Division of the Building Inspection Department shall contain a detailed, as-graded geologic map signed by the engineering geologist for the project. This plan shall show details of observed conditions in all keyway excavations and cut areas, including geologic contacts, bedding, jointing, aquifers and seepage zones, and stratigraphic units. This map, or a separate map provided by civil engineers for the project shall show all subdrains and their connections, surveyed and mapped by the civil engineer, as well as foundations. The final grading report shall provide documentation that all grading and related site preparation conforms with the applicant's sponsored geotechnical report, the County Grading Ordinance, and Chapter 70 of the UBC. It should provide for settlement monitoring of thick fills, as well as compaction test results. Design modifications, where warranted by exposed conditions, must be reviewed by the Grading Section and documented in the final report. 3 The grading of the site shall comply with the following requirements: A. To avoid creating potentially unstable slopes in the construction site, the volume of earthwork shall be kept to a practical minimum. B. Cut slopes in alluvium, and fill-slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) unless the design-level geotechnical investigation can demonstrate the satisfactory stability of a steeper configuration; C. Berms or other fill embankments shall be stabilize by removing and replacing weak material with engineered fill, by providing surface and/or subsurface drainage, or by similar procedures recommended by the geotechnical profes- sional; and D. Side-hill fills, if used, shall be keyed, drained and compacted according to the design specifications of the slope stability analyses for the site provided by the geotechnical professional. (MM 5-1/5-2) GEOLOGY SOILS AND SEISMICITY: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS 9. At least thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for foundations or structures, the applicant shall submit to the County Zoning Administrator a site-specific geotechnical report detailing seismic-restraint criteria to be incorporated into the designs of the foundations and structures. The report shall be prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the structural engineers for the project. The report shall provide for the following: A. The minimum seismic-resistant design standards for all proposed facilities shall conform to the California Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4 Standards and Contra Costa County Building Regulations Division 716. B. Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design criteria shall be incorporated in the project as necessary, based on the site-specific recommen- dations of a California Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the California registered structural engineering professionals. C. Documentation that the requirements listed in Mitigation Measure 5-4D have been incorporated into the building plans as appropriate. (MM 5-4) 10. Building permit applications or certificates for foundations or structures shall include a report prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer which documents the following requirements: A. Engineering analyses shall demonstrate satisfactory performance of Bay Mud, alluvium, and fill where they form part or all of the support for structures; 4 B. Appropriate remediation (grouting, compaction, removal etc) shall be completed prior to using liquefaction-prone sediments for foundation support; C. Roads, foundations and underground utilities in fill or alluvium shall be designed to accommodate settlement or compaction estimated by the site-specific investigations of the geotechnical engineer. (MM 5-4) WATER QUALITY 1 1 . Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit to the County Community Development Department a Soil Management Control Plan which has been approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Plan shall: A. Describe soil screening protocol to determine suitability of soil for use as fill; B. Provide for segregation of surface runoff and accumulated contaminated soils; and C. Ensure compliance with the existing stormwater NPDES permits to ensure that pollutants are not transported off-site in concentrations which would adversely impact the environment. (MM 6-2) 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction of the Delayed Coker and the Distillate Hydrotreater, the applicant shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval which details the project's compliance with the Mitigation Measures addressing selenium in the Final EIR This includes conducting a pilot study, prior to completion of final design, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, the effectiveness of the chosen combination of recycling and treatment processes in achieving no net increase in selenium discharge. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the approved report. (MM 6-4). 13. Prior to the start-up of any Clean Fuels Project element, the applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to the County Zoning Administrator that the Spill Prevention Con- trol and Countermeasure Plan has been updated and implemented to include: A. Secondary containment providing 100 percent capacity for all tanks; B. Segregation of oily surfaces and surface runoff by physical barriers; C. Operational controls such as limited access to gates at discharge locations, logging procedures for gate operation, maintenance and inspection procedures, and worker education; D. All new facilities within the operations of the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the approved report. (MM 6-5) 5 14. All hydrocarbon pipes shall be installed above ground as feasible to allow for inspection and maintenance. If no practical alternative to underground hydrocarbon piping exists, underground systems with double containment and leak detection systems will be required. (MM 8-1 b) 15. In areas with high groundwater where construction will occur, the applicant shall undertake dewatering as necessary. Any discharge of groundwater shall be in compliance with the stormwater NPDES permit. (MM 6-2) AIR QUALITY 16. During the construction phase, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce fugitive .dust emissions: A. Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to be maintained at 15 mph or less. B. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered and should maintain at least six inches of freeboard (i.e., minimum requires space between top of the load and top of the trailer). C. Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, 150 total daily trips for all vehicles. D. Pave all construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road. E. Water active sites at least twice daily. Active sites shall be watered more often if necessary during excessively hot or windy conditions to avoid any impact to adjacent properties. F. Suspend dust generating demolition activities when wind speeds (as instanta- neous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. G. Water site or suspend grading and/or excavating activities when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. H. Water or apply approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specifications to all inactive construction areas. I. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practical. J. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders, according to manufacturer's specifications to exposed stock piles, i.e., gravel, sand, dirt. K. Pave construction and access roads that will become part of the refinery long term operation early in the construction schedule. 6 L. Establish a wheel washing station on the construction site exit to prevent entrance dust from leaving the site. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement to comply with one or more of the above measures based on the applicant's submittal of adequate evidence that compliance is infeasible because of associated safety hazards. 17. During the construction phase, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce construction equipment combustion by product emissions (MM 8-1 c): A. Use construction equipment that have catalytic converters (for gasoline powered equipment) to the extent feasible. B. Prevent trucks from idling longer than two minutes to the extent feasible. C. Use low emission on-site mobile equipment: - on-road diesel engines, to the extent available. - use turbochargers and aftercoolers, to the extent available. - maximum fuel injection timing retard adjustment for equipment without on-road diesel engines. - electric versions of equipment, to the extent available. D. Use electricity from power plants (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators to the extent feasible. E. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05% sulfur content) in diesel-powered construction equipment. 18. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the program to reduce nitrogen oxide through urea injection control technology has been implemented. (MM 8-4) 19. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the program to reduce sulfur oxide emissions has been approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and has been implemented. (MM 8-6) 20. Prior to the start-up of the proposed hydrogen plant, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that carbon monoxide oxidation catalyst technology has been applied to the hydrogen plant heater in order to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from that source by 90 percent; or that other measures have been applied which achieve the same level of reduction (97.5 tons per year reduction in carbon monoxide emissions). (MM 8-7) 7 21 , Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide confirmation to the Zoning Administrator that its proposed control measures leading to reduction of PM 10 formation in the atmosphere (i.e. nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide control) would be sufficient to reduce PM10 emissions below a level of significance. (MM 8-8) RISK OF UPSET 22. At least sixty (60) days prior to the start-up of any element of the proposed project with the exception of control rooms, maintenance/warehouse buildings, and the office building, a Hazard and Operability study and accident consequence analysis shall be completed and submitted to the County Health Services Department for reviev.) and the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The study shall use methods established by the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 750 and significance criteria identified in the project Final EIR. If the Hazard and Operability Study finds significant impacts, the study shall include proposed engineering or operational controls to reduce the probability or severity of significant accidents. If additional engineering and operation controls are not adequate to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant, the applicant shall consult with the County Health Services Department to identify feasible changes in the proposed project necessary to further reduce the probability or severity of significant accidents. The changes may require moving project components. (MM 1 1-6a) 23. Prior to start-up, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Health Services Department, that the measures detailed in the approved Hazard and Operability studies have been implemented. (MM 1 1-6a) 24. Prior to the commencement of any construction to modify any portion of the proposed Clean Fuels project which has the potential to generate an off-site hazard from process upset, the applicant shall provide written notice to the County Health Services Department and to the County Zoning Administrator and obtain a determination as to whether the change requires an new Hazard and Operability Study and accident consequence analysis. If the Zoning Administrator determines that the analysis is required, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Conditions #22 and #23 above for the modification to the project. (MM 1 1-6b) ODOR PREVENTION 25. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for the Sour Water System, the Delayed Coking Unit, the Sulfur Recovery Unit, the Hydrogen Plan, the Flare System and the Distillate Hydrotreater, the applicant shall provide adequate evidence to the County Zoning Administrator that total hydrogen sulfide concentration (background plus project) will not exceed the odor threshold as defined in the project Final EIR. If the total hydrogen sulfide concentrations exceed the threshold, the applicant shall detail the revisions to the designs the above named units that will reduce emissions of odorous sulfur compounds, such that they will not con- tribute to concentrations (including background) above the significance threshold identified in the project Final EIR. (MM 8-12) 8 26. The applicant shall monitor concentrations of hydrogen sulfide using existing monitors sensitive to concentrations on the order of 0.001 ppm. The monitoring reports shall be submitted on a monthly basis to the BAAQMD. An annual summary of the monitoring reports shall be submitted to the County Community Development Department. (MM 8-12) 27. If excedances of the odor threshold occur after implementation of the project, the applicant shall implement the following measures (MM 8-12): A. Determine the source of odors and the nature of the odor-causing incident (e.g. maintenance process fluctuation, operator error, weather conditions); B. Implement improved operating procedures and/or controls for identified odor sources and odor-causing conditions, so as to reduce maximum concentrations to below the odor significance threshold identified in the project Final EIR. AIRPORT SAFETY 28. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administra- tion regarding the installation of lights on any equipment which exceeds 200 feet in height. The applicant shall install red strobe lights on any equipment which exceeds 200 feet in height unless prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE AND LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS 29. Noise generating construction activities (e.g. demolition, grading) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday, and shall be prohibited on State and federal holidays. Concrete pours begun during the allowed construction period may continue until completion. The unloading of equipment is allowed outside of the specified construction period. However, the Zoning Administrator may, after receipt of complaints from neighboring property owners, restrict this activity to the times listed in this condition. Noise generating construction activities may be allowed on Sundays following written approval by the Zoning Administrator. 30. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons, with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their areas of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. H• 9 31 , Noise-generating construction activities (e.g. demolition, grading) at the office building location, the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot, and the tank construction area in the southeast portion of the site shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, with no construction work allowed on State and federal holidays (MM 10-a/2a) 32, Construction noise sources, such as air compressors, for the construction activities on the office building site, the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot site, and the tank sites at the southeastern portion of the complex, be located as far north on the sites as possible to maximize the distance to sensitive noise receptors to the south. All construction equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained. (MM 10-1 c/2c) 33, Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the commencement of construction for the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot, a standard plywood construction fence noise barrier shall be erected along Pacheco Boulevard adjacent to the parking lot construction site. The fence shall be eight (8) feet high and constructed of solid 3/4-inch minimum thickness plywood. The fence shall be removed after the noise-generating paving and grading activities are concluded. (MM 10-2d) 34. Flood or area lighting needed for construction activities shall be placed and directed so as not to shine on residential or commercial properties. (MM 1 5-1 3) OPERATIONAL NOISE REQUIREMENTS 35. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for any element of the project which would generate noise, the applicant shall: A. Submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval, detailed noise level calculations delineating the noise control treatments included in the design and calculated noise levels demonstrating compliance with the following noise performance standard: 77 dBA when measured five (5) feet above the ground and 100 feet from the equipment. This analysis shall be performed by an individual who is a registered engineer or a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and who has at least five years experience is noise control engineering. (MM 10-4a/b). B. Submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval a noise monitoring Plan. The Plan shall specify noise monitoring requirements for certifying the project's compliance with the noise performance standard specified in Condition #35.A., shall identify procedures for handling remedial noise control, if required, and shall specify reporting requirements (MM 10-4c) BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN 36. Submit to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, with a copy to the City of Martinez, a plan for improving bicycle use on Marina Vista during both the construction phase and the operational phase of the project. The plan may include participation with the City of Martinez in the improvement of an alternate bicycle route, 10 including a connection from Marina Vista to the planned bicycle lane on the proposed new Benicia Bridge span, subject to the review of the East Bay Regional Parks District and City of Martinez, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Construct the improvements as outlined in the plan from 1-680 to Shell Avenue, or contribute to the City of Martinez the equivalent construction cost for the improve- ments, subject to the review of the City, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified in writing of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-15) Shell Oil ,shall be obligated to provide a trail easement from the Bay Trail to Marina Vista. The location and alignment of the trail shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the East Bay Regional Park District and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez and the East Bay Regional Park District shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. GENERAL TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS 37. The requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements as detailed in Conditions #38 through #44 and Conditions #47 through #70 will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914(Drainage) and Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Unless otherwise noted in the Environmental Impact Report or in these .conditions of approval, the improvements required herein shall be completed prior to commission (start-up) of the proposed facilities. 38. Coordinate with Southern Pacific and contribute the necessary funding for the modification or replacement of the existing automatic crossing protection to include crossing gates at Marina Vista in the vicinity of the Genstar Gate. The new or modified crossing protection shall be designed to accommodate the ultimate improvements on Marina Vista, or at the minimum, to accommodate the traffic identified in the 2010 cumulative scenario in the EIR, and will conform to CPUC standard No. 9A (Highway Crossing Signal Assembly Automatic Gate Type with Cantilever Arm), subject to the review of the CPUC and the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-12) 39. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this project. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division. 11 40. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. 41 . An encroachment permit for construction within the ;State right of way shall be obtained from Caltrans through the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 42. Provide for adequate sight distance at the P-2, P-3, Genstar, and Fairview access gate and the Shell Avenue access to the proposed office facility, for a design speed of 40 miles per hour in accordance with Caltrans standards. 43. On all public roads with longitudinal slopes less than five percent, all public pedestrian access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access). This shall include all driveway depressions as well as handicap ramps. 44. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Martinez for any work within the City limits. 45. The applicant shall prohibit construction and material truck deliveries which originate within the State of California, with the exception of concrete delivery trucks, between the hours of 6:00 to 8:00 AM and 4:30 to 6:30 PM (MM 12-1 d) 46. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Zoning Administrator of compliance with Mitigation Measure 8-1 a. The Measure requires that he applicant include in all contracts with companies involved in the construction of the project that daily average vehicle ridership equal not less than 1 .15 (BAAQMD goal for Contra Costa County, 1194). The average daily ridership shall be calculated based upon the definition construction BAAQMD Regulation 13, Rule 2. To the extent that the average vehicle ridership can not be achieved, the applicant may propose alternative measurable pollution reducing alternatives for implementation. In the event that local commute rules also apply, the most stringent rules shall be followed. (MM 8-1 a) FRONTAGEIMPROVEMENTS 47. A. Construct curb, six-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, signing and striping, and necessary pavement widening along the Pacheco Boulevard frontage between Wygal Drive and the easterly Shell property line. The face of the curb shall be 40 feet from the centerline of the road. The graded hinge point in the cut areas shall be a minimum of 8 feet from the face of the curb. Construct a 6-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face) from the above sidewalk at Wygal Drive to the P-3 Gate at Pacheco Boulevard. Standard curb returns with ramps shall be constructed at Wygal Drive. 12 The face of curb along the frontage of the ACE Hardware property at Wygal Drive shall be located 44 feet from the centerline of the road to provide for on street parking. The frontage improvements along the ACE property shall be constructed by the applicant only if the property owner dedicates the appropriate road widening to the County at no ,cost. If the property owner (ACE) refuses, in writing, to dedicate the area for the frontage improvements, then the applicant will not be required to construct the frontage improvements and will conform at each end of the ACE property. Level the depressed section of existing pavement along the curb at the creek crossing, east of Howe Road on Pacheco Road. B. Construct curb, six-foot six-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along the Shell Avenue frontage of the old County Corporation Yard (site of the proposed Shell office building) on the west side of the road. The face of the curb shall be 20 feet from the centerline of the road. 48. Construct four-foot rock shoulders along both sides of Shell Avenue subject to the review of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. This may require the installation of longitudinal and transverse drainage to replace the existing roadside ditches. The four-foot rock shoulders will not be required at the following locations: A. In areas where a new curb is to be constructed, such as the County Corpora- tion Yard frontage. B. In the vicinity of the utility bridge. C. In areas with curb adjacent to the travel lane, and D. In the vicinity of Pacheco Boulevard, if not feasible. Provide for a safe pedestrian access, along Shell Avenue or along an alternate alignment, from the proposed office site to the existing sidewalk at Pacheco Boulevard, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. This may be implemented by providing a 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the west side of Shell Avenue, an 8-foot parking lane and two 12-foot travel lanes from the County Corporation Yard to Pacheco Boulevard with an alignment subject to the review of the Public Works Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The widening of Shell Avenue south of the County Corporation Yard may require installation of a retaining wall, guard rail and relocation of a portion of the existing sidewalk on the east side of the street. All improvements along Shell Avenue shall be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed administrative offices. 13 49. Install a traffic signal at the Gate P-3/Pacheco Boulevard intersection, and interconnect the new signal with the existing signals on Pacheco Boulevard at Howe Road, Morello Avenue, and Shell Avenue. Installation of microwave connections between these signals is acceptable, if feasible. (EIR Chapter 12, Section II.A.3.b; page 12-34) 50. The applicant shall be required to repair damaged sections of curb and sidewalk along the Pacheco Boulevard and Marina Vista frontage of the Shell Oil property. 51 . Execute a deferred improvement agreement to construct curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from the curb face) at the ultimate location, along with longitudinal and transverse drainage and necessary pavement widening along the Marina Vista frontage from the end of the existing curb gutter and sidewalk near Shell Avenue to the easterly property boundary. The improvements shall be constructed when the bicycle/pedestrian connection between Marina Vista and the proposed new Benicia Bridge span is constructed. The intent is to provide a pedestrian facility along the south side of Marina Vista to tie into the bicycle/pedestrian connection from the new Benicia Bridge. OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 52. Prior to project initiation submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan prepared by an independent traffic consultant, subject to the review of Caltrans and the review and approval of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. The following elements shall be included in the study: A. Transportation Demand Reduction Plan. B. Congestion Monitoring Program. C. Access Management Plan. Any operational or capacity problems created as a result of the Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be mitigated subject to the review and approval -of the Public Works Department. This may entail construction of additional physical road improvements. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1a) 53. Construct a temporary traffic signal at the Fairview Gate that is consistent with Caltrans and County standards, and operate the signal during the construction period. At the completion of the construction period, the signal shall be dismantled. The signal design shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1 b and 12-5) 54. Prior to project initiation, install a connecting roadway between the Fairview parking lot and the Genstar internal roadway. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1 c) 14 55. Should the Construction Traffic Management Plan identify the need, widen Pacheco Boulevard in the vicinity of Morello Avenue to provide one additional westbound through lane at the Pacheco Boulevard/Morello Avenue intersection, and modify the existing signal to its ultimate location and configuration. This improvement will involve the adjustment of the Contra Costa Water District siphon;manhole. The additional lane shall extend a minimum of 250 feet east of Morello Avenue. This improvement shall constitute the project's pro-rata share of the Pacheco Boulevard widening off-site. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-3 and 12-6). The design of the signal and the signing and striping on Morello Avenue shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. If the Traffic Management Plan does not identify the need to improve the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Morello Avenue, then the applicant shall contribute the project's pro-rata share of widening Pacheco Boulevard from Morello Avenue to Arthur Road. 56. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The fee will be based upon the number of new permanent shift employees impacting the PM peak hour, plus the square footage of the proposed office building, plus the number of new, permanent administrative employees which will not be stationed in the proposed office facility. The fee associated with the new office facility will be collected prior to issuance of building permits for the facility. Existing office buildings which are removed from the site shall be credited toward this fee subject to the review of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 57. Reconfigure the intersection of Marina Vista and Amorco Road to provide for adequate truck turning radii, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. If there are right of way conflicts with the railroad which cannot be resolved or acquired prior to completion of the improvements for this project, then the applicant shall contribute their fair share of the cost of the improvements to the City to be held in a trust fund for the construction of the intersection improvements. - PAVEMENT DETERIORATION AND MAINTENANCE 58. Rebuild the pavement structural section of Marina Vista between the Fairview Gate and the Interstate Highway 680 northbound ramps, subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4, 12-8 and 13-6) 59. Contribute a fair share amount toward the reconstruction of the pavement structural section of the Interstate Highway 680 northbound and southbound on- and off-ramps at Marina Vista. The fair share amount shall be based upon the project-generated truck ADT on the ramps versus the total truck ADT on the ramps. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4, 12-8 and 13-6) 15 60. Prepare and implement a pavement monitoring program for Marina Vista,subject to the review of the City of Martinez, and for the Interstate 680 on- and off-ramps, subject to the review of Caltrans. These improvements shall also be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. The monitoring program shall require: A. Video evidence of the pavement conditions before and after the project. B. Posting of a pavement repair bond. C. The exclusion of specific County and City roads from truck delivery routes to the site, which for safety and maintenance reasons, cannot support additional truck traffic. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4) D. The applicant shall contract with the County to have a road rating and deflection analysis performed before and after project construction to determine the extent of remedial work to be performed. Remedial work shall consist of pavement repair and/or pavement overlay and reconstruction of portions of the road as deemed necessary to bring the road to at least its pre-construction condition. The scope of work for the contract shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. ROAD DEDICATIONS 61 . Convey to the County and the City of Martinez, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Shell Avenue as required for the planned future half-width of 30 feet at the time improvements on Shell Avenue are needed. Convey to the City of Martinez, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Marina Vista as required for the planned future width of 60 feet -at the time improvements on Marina Vista are needed. The applicant shall execute an agreement with the County and the City, wherein the applicant shall agree to dedicate the additional right of way when the improvements are needed and the County and City decides to construct the improvements. The applicant shall also agree to not construct any new facilities within the area to be dedicated and that any facilities currently within the area to be dedicated that are to be reconstructed or replaced, shall be relocated outside of the area to be dedicated at the time of replacement or reconstruction. The intent is that over time the area to be dedicated shall be cleared of all existing facilities through the routine maintenance and replacement of the facilities. At the time the road improvements are needed, any facilities that remain within the area to be dedicated shall be relocated and paid for as a part of the road improvement project. The applicant, however, shall be responsible for relocating any facilities that were reconstructed or replaced within the area to be 16 dedicated, in violation of the intent of this condition. In addition, for those facilities that are replaced rather than relocated, the applicant shall participate in the replace- ments costs of the facilities in relation to the benefit derived by replacing the old facility with a new facility. The agreement shall include a map, as an exhibit, which shall depict the areas to be dedicated. Upon execution of,the agreement, the applicant shall show the area to be dedicated on their planning, ngineering and maintenance drawings, maps, and documents to ensure implementation of the provisions of the agreement. The agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the Public Works Department and shall be reviewed by the City of Martinez and shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. The agreement shall be executed prior to completion of the project improvements. 62. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Pacheco Boulevard as required for the planned future half-width of 50 feet. 63. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Shell Avenue along the frontage of the administration building project (Helena Avenue to the utility bridge) for the planned future half width of 30 feet. 64. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Jefferson Street as required for the planned future width of 56 feet. 65. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way and necessary slope easements on Helena Avenue for the planned future half width on the north side of 28 feet. STREET LIGHTS 66. Install street lights along the Shell Avenue frontage of this property between Helena Avenue and the utility bridge (the County Corporation Yard). The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department,-Engineering Services Division. 67. Install additional safety street lighting (such as at intersections) along the Pacheco Boulevard frontage of the Shell Oil property. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 68. Install additional safety street lighting (such as at intersections) along the Marina Vista frontage, if deemed necessary by the City of Martinez subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The final number and location of the lights shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. 17 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 69. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires conveying of all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Since storm waters entering or originating within the property are discharged into the natural watercourse traversing the property, the applicant will be permitted an excep- tion from the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance Code providing it is shown that storm waters do not back up onto public or private property outside of the project boundaries. In addition, the applicant shall execute an agreement (drainage release) accepting the storm waters onto the applicant's property and holding the County harmless from any damage caused by the storm waters crossing the applicant's property. 70. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. FLARE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 71 . The use of an alternate flare system which would include a number of smaller flare "stems" as described in the "Flare System Alternative" of the Final EIR (refer to page 20-18 of the Draft EIR) is allowed upon approval of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. LANDSCAPING PLANS 72. Within six (6) months of the effective date of the land use permit, the applicant shall submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval a Landscaping Plan for the project site. Prior to submittal to the County, the applicant shall submit the Plan to the City of Martinez for their review and comment. Any City comments or requests for changes which are not incorporated in the proposed Landscape Plan, shall be summarized and submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The purpose of the Landscaping Plan is to reduce the visual impact of the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible as visible from Highway 680 and from the Marina Vista "Gateway" to the City of Martinez. The Landscaping Plan shall be prepared by a Certified Landscape architect and shall improve the visual appearance of: A. The proposed project as viewed from Highway 680 and from the Marina Vista Interchange; and B. The area between the Light Crude Tank and residential areas if relocation of the tank is found to be infeasible (refer to Condition #2.C.). (MM 4-6) 18 Since the proposed project would include structures that may be up to 300 feet in height, landscaping would have limited success as a screen. Thus, the focus of the Landscaping Plan shall be to improve the visual character of the area to the maximum extent feasible. The Landscaping Plan shall provide for: A. Increasing the height and length of the existing berm which runs along the northeastern boundary of the Complex; B. The use of berms throughout the landscaped areas to increase the height of the land and thus provide for greater visual screening; C. The use of evergreen trees with minimum mature heights consistent with the existing mature trees at the northeast portion of the complex; D. The landscaping of a sufficiently large area to achieve the goal of improving the visual character of the proposed project area. E. Placing trees as close as possible and adjacent to Highway 680 consistent with the proposed preliminary landscape plan; F. A schedule for Plan implementation; and G. Ongoing maintenance and replacement of landscaping that dies. (MM 1 3-8b(i)) The implementation of the Landscaping Plan shall be completed according to the schedule specified in the approved plan. The applicant shall provide evidence to the County Community Development Department that a landscape plan for the screening along Marina Vista has been approved by the City of Martinez. The Plan shall be consistent with Mitigation Measure 15-5 of the Final EIR. The applicant shall notify the County Community Development Department when the landscaping has been completed as provided for in the approved Plan. (MM 15-5) RECLAIMED WATER 73. The applicant shall complete a feasibility study for the use of reclaimed water for industrial use. The study, which shall be prepared in consultation with the Contra Costa Water District, shall identify water quality standards necessary for industrial use, and determine the mix of raw and reclaimed water which would meet these standards (MM 13-8b(i)) OTHER REQUIREMENTS 74. The maintenance, warehouses and control buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in height (MM 4-3) 19 If the applicant is responsible for the demolition of the facilities located at the County Yard on Shell Avenue, the applicant shall comply with Conditions #31 and #32 with respect to the demolition of the site. (MM 8-13) 75. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Cosa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this land use permit, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 76. A. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. B. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. C. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. 77. The Zoning Administrator shall hold public hearings at a frequency of one per year during the first five years and every three years thereafter for the sole purpose of determining the applicant's compliance with the land use permit conditions. The applicant shall pay the cost of the compliance reivew. 78. The applicant shall submit an annual report to the Director of Community Development on the facility's compliance with the conditions of approval and the Mitigation 20 78. The applicant shall submit an annual report to the Director of Community Development on the facility's compliance with the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The report shall include supporting information from other regulatory agencies as applicable. For each mitigation measure, the report shall identify the compliance with the measure, the procedures or standards used to judge the compliance as applicable, times and dates of the monitoring and whether further action is required. 79. Within 18 months of the effective date of this permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the facility's "Office Education Program" has been expanded. 80. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the Emergency manual has been updated to include the project units. 81 . Prior to the start-up for each project element which manages hazardous materials, the applicant shall update the Hazardous Materials Business Plan. 82. The applicant shall, upon the request of the County, participate with the County in community emergency response notification and education programs. 83. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the office building or prior to the start-up of the project units, the applicant shall comply with the County Childcare Ordinance. ADVISORY NOTES A. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. B. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within the development that may affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. C. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required. D. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. E. The applicant will be required to pay an environmental review fee of $850.00 for the Department of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal period. Failure to do so will result in fines. A check for this fee shall be submitted to Contra Costa County for submittal with the final environmental documents. 21 G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construc- tion and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Region II or Central Valley - Region V). (EIR Mitigation, Measure 5-3, 6-1 and 7-1 ) H. The applicant will be required to submit to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and comment fire prevention and protection system plans for the Clean Fuels project operating equipment and fire supply. CK/aa LUPXXXVIII/2009-92C.CK 9/2/93 9/7/93 - PC (a) Box 1086 -;; COUNTY Martinez 94553 93 OCT - I PH 3: 53 September 30, 1993 „ . ,�.;r,�j DE?T, i TO: Tom Torlakson, Chair CCC Board of Superuisors FROM: Diana Patrick I appeal the Contra Costa County Planning Commissions acceptance of both the Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project (State Clearinghouse g 92093028) as complete: and approual of the land use permit for Project #2009-92 to the Board of Superuisors, under your category of aduerse impact on my property ualue.' The public is ill serued by the inaccurate project name of Shell Oil Company.Clean Fuels Project and an EIR that does not address the major component of this project, that of expanding gasoline/jetfuel production. The larger project, that of expanded gasoline and jet fuel production by increased crude distillation and other residual cracking actiuities must be•Included in the project name, considered separately in the Initial Study and Project Definition. The land use permit as approued, allows Shell to worsen the enuironment, add uisual blight to the I-680 corridor, switch 15,000 hazardous material tank cars at night west of Martinez and increase risk of explosion due to the processes used to refine crude residuals. The public was deceiued into thinking the entire project was mandated by 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The Draft Enuironmental Impact Report and Response To Comment Documents were made inaccessible to the community. The public's choice was to pay about $120 for the DEIR and response document, or read from the single copy issued to each area library. An effort must be made to make lengthy and expensiue documents accessible to the affected community by issuing enough copies to libraries for the public to check them out to read at their leisure. Planning Commission Hearing Process: The Shell EIR/Project hearing process used by the Planning Commission was intimidating and auoided EIR dialogue. At both hearings persons supporting the project were allowed to speak before those in opposition. Instead of speaking to the issue, many hours were filled with Shell's friends, employees and retirees offering support for the project without specific comment to the EIR or project components, delaying and intimidating those present to raise issues until uery late. Need For Public Educati n: --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ T Because the project is so expansive and treads heauily on all sections of the enuironment, organized public workshops would prouide focus on specific issues and auoid filibuster and intimidation. Hercules is prouiding public workshops to inform residents of uarious aspects of Pacific Refining's Improued Fuels Modification Project. (A notice is attached.) Conflict of Interest v I raise concern with the County's ability to be non-partial in this process as the County will be receiuing exten iue fees and taxes. The County Maintenance Yard is to be sold to Shell. The purchase price, appraised ualuation and anticipated fees and taxes are pertinent to the public and must be reuealed in this eualuation. Initial Stud" and Project Definition: Again the two projects: Clean Fuels and Refining Expansion must be described separately. To leaue them together as one Clean Fuels Project, deceives the public into disregarding the separate product expansion, the larger and more enuironmentally damaging project. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectiues of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project (projects) may affected outsiders and public decision makers balance the proposal's benefit against its enuironmental costs, considering mitigation measures, assess the aduantage of terminating the proposal tie., the 'no project' alternatiue) and weigh other alternatiues in the balance. . The Initial Study and Project Definition must describe. increased production due to expanded refining capability from the additional manufacturing processes (ie. isomerization, cracking and alkylation) and all the other process that increases production of gasoline, jet fuel and other products from residual: that part of the processed crude oil not currently refined into product. The initial study and project definition must be corrected and expanded to address this production increase omissions and their impacts. CEQA guidelines require that an EIR be adequate, complete and a good faith effort at full disclosure. "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are likely to produce, related or -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cumulative impact, or (b) The proposed project area for the expansion As expanded refining was not considered in the 1979 EIR, this EIR process to meet Substantive Requirements of CEQA described in CEQA Guidelines says, "If necessary, the lead agency must use "reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss" related . past, present and future projects, even if under review by other agencies." A comparison of the 1979 EIR to the expanded activities existing today, along with a review of BAAQMD permits since 1980, would shed light on how this possible doubling of throughput occurred, without public notice. Inconsistencies in The Record: a substantiue requirement of CEQA provides that "if necessary the lead agency must use "reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss" related past, present and future projects, euen if under review by other agencies." Shell has grown like topsy, in opposition to historic record and permits. Verify 1979 and 1993 EIR Statistics and BAAOHD Baseline Emission Components: The 1979 Shell `Modernization' project EIR reported no more than 128,000 barrels day of crude oil would be brought to the refinery, and that gasoline production would increase from Six to 60x. A respected trade journal reported that Shell's refining capacity was 20,000 barrels less, 108,000 barrels day. 1992 statistics from that same trade jouurnal indicate that Shell's current capacity is 147.000 barrels/day. Describe the permit process allowing this expansion and what percent of the production gasolineijetfuel manufacturing represents today and project what production levels will occur after expansion? The probable 50x barrel/day refining expansion since 1977 and the resulting product and transportation increases meets the Substantive issue criteria of CEQA and accurate information must be obtained and considered. Ualid statistics from reliable providers, ie. US Army Corps of Engineers, tax records, Marine Exchange, must be used to determine barrel/day capacity in 1977. and 1982, wharf actiuity, ie. numbers of tankers/barge visits and type and quantity of materials loaded/unloaded. Marine Loading Inconsistencies: ------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------- - ------------------ The 1979 Shell EIR reports 194 tankers and 247 barges visited Shell's wharf in 1977. Marine Exchange records indicate 108 tankers visited Shell's wharf in 1977. This EIR claims that 542 barges and 220 ships visited Shell's wharf in 1988. Mo source was given to this number. - Wharf Activity Inconsistencies The 1979 EIR stated that Shell's wharf main use was unloadinu crude oil and loading residual fuel oil. Gasoline loading was mentioned as an ongoing activity. As no vapor recovery was considered (as was required for Tosco's gasoline loading activity around that time), loading gasoline at Shell's wharf was an insignificant activity. In 1982 Shell started loading large amounts of crude, a new activity not addressed in the 1979 EIR or 1980 BAAQMD permit. Shell now loads a large quantity of gasoline into tankers for delivery in Los Angeles. This expanded activity and the associated risk has never been described. Switching and Rail Trip Inconsistencies: The 1979 EIR appears to address switching activities within Shell's refinery and anticipates a total of 7 rail car trips per day after Modernization. The 1993 EIR states that Shell currently switches 1500 tank cars annually at the Martinez Ozol switching station and that 13,000 more cars, or a total of 14,500 will be switched. there annually. The 1993 EIR infers that Ozol switching is an ongoing activity, please determine when did Shell start switching cars at Ozol? How many rail car trips per day exist now? Project Definition The project designation must be expanded to include the total MMC, wharf and rail line to the SP Ozol switching station west of Martinez as Shell is closing their own switching station and moving that activity to the rail line through Martinez. CEQA defines project as the "whole of an action", including information specific to all agencies that issue permits, ie. the . BAAQMD. The California courts have held that "an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informatiue and legally sufficient EIR." (CH 3) Project impacts -------- ----------------- ..5.. .. ... ........... _ ....- ..... ..... ..... .. .... ...... - ------------------------------------------------------------------ are listed in all CEQA categories indicating the seuerity of the proposed project's enuironmental presence. Expanded refining of residuals and the addition of MTBE, a corrosiue cause the entire MMC, wharf and rail line to be the "project". The affect of the project must be defined. CEQA Guidelines also state: "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that haue produced,jor are likely to produce, related or cumulatiue impact, or (b) The proposed project area for tte expansion project, must be amended to include the entire MMC, wharf and transportation routes including the Ozol switching station, Existing Environment This EIR fails to describe the existing enuironment at the MMC, wharf and rail line, ie. air monitoring data from Martinez, train, uehicular and marine traffic and a comparison to statistics in the 1979 EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(b) requires the enuironmental setting discussion to include analysis of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and existing general plans, regional plans and other releuant planning documents such as air quality management plans. A description of the existing enuironment at the MMC and the affected adjoining area is required. Broad spectrum air monitoring of equipment and fugitiue emissions at the MMC and impacted locations in Martinez/Concord are required to prouide an accurate profile of existing air conditions and note any difference in Shell's emissions since their preuious projeot and BAAQMD permit in 1980. There is no mention of MMC meeting Southern California's refining capacity upon closure of Shell's Wilmington refinery, without documenting the worsened enuironmental impacts and added risks of this expansion) to the City of Martinez. 6. Water Quality: 6-2&3 Stormwater Runoff - MTBE (6-5) An alternatiue system to storing storm water runoff at the wastewater treatment facility must be examined. Consideration roust be giuen to implement measures to assure that surface water Is uncontaminated and does not mingle with waste water. Both systems should be addressed fully in the EIR. CEQA requires all elements of a project to be included in one document. The wastewater treatment project requires CEQA compliance within this document. 6-4 Increased Selenium Discharges. Quantify the selenium discharge from each of the two project components. 7-6 Selenium Discharges and Oil Spills, mitigation should be described that would bring selenium discharge to a leuel consistent with 1980 refining capability. ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- ---------- -------------------------- Testing sea floor below and around wharf: As Shell loaded crude oil in the 80's with numerous spills reported, an activity not listed in the '79 EIR, contamination of the sea floor impacted by crude spills must be determined by testing and the condition reported in the EIR. Large streams of ballast water are emitted from tankers -loading at Shell's wharf. This problem is inappropriate and must be addressed in the EIR. r $. Air Qualitu: 1270 Cal.Rptr. 6501, reports "the need to support with rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence the conclusion that impacts will be insignificant: the requirement to analyze both "on-site" and "secondary" air pollution emissions in assessing the overall significance of air quality impacts: . . ." Coke Dust: This section applies to the expansion project and not the clean fuels project. The EIR is deficient. It fails to provide details of how coke will be loaded into railroad cars. The impact from this operation can not be adequately identified or mitigated without basic details. Coke particles are known to be light and are a health risk. Will coke particles be brought into the City on rail cars being switched at Ozol? The EIR must describe the method used to load coke into cars and anticipate worst case upset and adequate safeguards to avoid this material from being released in town. BAAQMD broad spectrum monitoring statistics from Concord and Pittsburg from 1980 through 1992 are required to establish an historic air profile for this region. The 1992 Concord statistics, missing from the EIR could indicate reductions from the marine vapor incinerator, which began operating in November, 1991. As stated before, the environmental air quality setting is inadequate. An accurate air quality setting must be included in the EIR. Air testing of the entire MMC and wharf as well as air quality testing in affected areas in tlartinez/Concord and the regional are required to establish an adequate current air profile. Air testing must be accomplished to establish an accurate current baseline. Air modeling must address times of atmospheric stagnation. All air emission referenced in tables in the text of Chapter 8. .Air Quality from the BAAQMD must be documented by testing. Are mathematically computed emission verifiable? Provide independent testing for those mathematically computed emissions supplied by the BAAQMD. For years that estimates are used, provide calculation record. As the project covers the entire MMC, reduction consideration for additional emissions should be offset by emissions from the existing refinery. Include a discussion of methods to reduce, rather than increase emissions from the refinery. Currently, fugitive emissions are not counted in Shell's BAAQMD emission --------------------------------- ---- - - - ------- - ----- cap. The EIR must include testing and a profile of those emissions. There is a discrepancy in the marine loading element of Shell's BAAQMD Shell WOR Permit Conditions, dated November 5, 1984 and which sets an emission baseline for 1977 wharf loading, more than 700 tons are listed as existing emissions on Table 1, second page 11. " The '80 permit allows 10,958,000 barrels of gasoline to be loaded annually at Shell's wharf. This amount of gasoline represents 142 days of annual gasoline production. The 1980 EIR anticipated continued crude unloading and fuel oil loading. Had a change of use to loading nearly half the annual throughput into tankers at the wharf been anticipated, it would have been addressed in the 1979 EIR. This discrepancy must be documented by reconstruction actual material loading records for 1977 from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Division, tax record or other documented verifiable source, and applying the BAAQMD, Shell loading emission factors. 9. Public Health: An accurate emission history must be established before health forecasting can occur. Differentiate the health affects from both projects. This section forecasts health risks from estimations included in a study by Radian, 1991. Accurate broad spectrum testing must be accomplished at MMC and in the affected communities ie. (Martinez and Concord), in order to accurately model future emissions and the associated health risk. 10. Noise: The 1979 EIR forecast that "The total noise after the completion of the proposed project would be unchanged if the recommended mitigation measures were included" probably addresses the existing refinery that is much larger than approved in 1980. By bringing BAAQMD permits into line, noise will likely be reduced. This EIR has an opportunity to test and compare noise measurements existing at the time of the last major project in 1979 and noise levels in existence today. Examination of noise information recorded at Shell's noise monitoring stations from. installation to present would present historic noise information. Consideration of locating noise monitors at other noise producing locations at MMC, the wharf, and in Martinez as a noise mitigation aide should be discussed. 11. Risk of Upset: This section is inaccurate as it does not define level of production to determine risk. Gasoline loading at the wharf will `%crease and the risk in total must be addressed. ,knsportat i on: -------- Shipping statistics: The EIR neglects to include a comparison of shipping activities as described in the 1979 EIR. The inconsistency of reporting either wharf loading or unloading as the dominant wharf activity, between US Army Corps of Engineers, the 1979 EIR and 1980 BAAQMD permit must be explained. Wharf activities, risk to the community, conflict with recreational uses and increased shipping in Carquinez Strait meets the criteria for a cumulatiue impacts studu. Switching Coke Cars West of Martinez: The EIR (11-47) states that 13,000 additional train cars containing hazardous Aaterial will be switched west of Martinez, and that the total cars switched will be 14,500. The present switching activity appears to have commenced after 1979, as it is not mentioned in the 19?9 EIR. Describe how this switching activity came to be established, along with a history of switching and exact numbers of trains and cars to the numbers included in the 1979 ETR, plus material contained must be included. Noise and risk from switching is not and must also be addressed. Outline alternatives that would avoid Shell's use of right of way through the City of Martinez for switching activities. Is this a new use or expanded use? Martinez Shoreline Park: The EIR mentions increased rail use, but does not address the cumulative impacts of increased switching and rail use on the use of the Martinez Shoreline Park and development of a parking structure at the `cannery' site. SP is reported to be considering adding an additional siding through Martinez to accommodate the expanded switching need presented by Shell. Would building'an overpass to develop the `cannery' as parking, become a 'liability' issue due to the number of train cars Shell plans to switch at the Ozol switching yard? There are adequate negative impact indicators to discuss the cumulative impacts of switching and increased use of the rail lines through Martinez Marina Vista Corridor This corridor meets the CEQA Cumulative Impacts and the many problems must be analyzed it total. Even without this project Marina Uista's many uses are in conflict. Grade crossings for trains and trucks, tank car storage on tracks alongside the road, lack of a bicycle lane, flooding near the I-680 entrance, causing the road to be impassable and motorists using the road as a short-cut to avoid backups on the approach to the Benicia Bridge create cumulative problem and risk which must be addressed in total. ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ - - -- Is the expanded manufacturing component of the proposed projects responsible for the projected increased use of Marina Vista roadway and railway tracks? The EIR would serue the community well to examine the cumulatiue increased use by rail and truck traffic and consider alternatiues to these cumulatiue problems. Marina Vista narrows to one lane heading West to accommodate trucks turning onto Mococo slowing traffic and creating risk as slow trucks make wide turns. Traffic entering Mococo must cross railroad tracks and occasionally turn into the oncoming traffic lane. The EIR does not address this problem. Alternatiues to grade crossing for trucks and train tank car traffic must be explored, along with alternate methods of transporting materials besides uehicularitrain. Tank car storage drains is unsightly now. Will it worsen if the expansion project goes through? What risk does tank car storage present. Are there existing ordinances that disallow storage on sidings? If not, can such an ordinance be drafted? Is there risk of damage from a leak to the adjacent wetlands? Can the cars be tampered with? Marina Vista connects I-680 to downtown Martinez. Table 12-2 does not accurately address reflect PM peak hour traffic at the Marina Vista I-680 M and S bound on-ramps are not included. PM peak hours must be included, differentiating between three day holiday traffic and regular Benicia bridge traffic that exits I- 680 at Pacheco to Shell and right on Marina Vista. Entry to that traffic from downtown Martinez and Shell construction traffic must be addressed. Specific mitigation for the uisual blight of the Marina Vista corridor must be included in the EIR. 14. Public Utilities Water Use: Describe what percent increase water usage Shell will require for each of the two projects. Explain their water storage history. 15. Visual Oualitu: Visual corridors and uisual impact are not complete. The uist-a of MMC from the Benicia bridge is the major focus at this entrance to the County and must be addressed. Proposed mitigation must designate a landscaping and surfaces plan. The rusting tanks in need of paint and redundant and - --------------------------------------- --------------_�---- .---------- discolored equipment detract from this major gateway to Contra Costa County. (4-4) Landscaping will not screen the shabby equipment visible from much of Martinez. Again surface treatment to equipment and removal of redundant equipment would significantly reduce the visual blight viewed from peoples homes. (4-6) (4-7) The proposed tanks at the wastewater treatment plant, 148 feet in diameter by 56 feet high would adversely impact the visual corridor from the Martinez marina, Benicia and homes }n Martinez overlooking the waterfront. Alternate locations or storage systems must be considered. - The EIR preparers accepting "Incompatibility" with the City General Plan policy which states that the "North Contra Costa Waterfront Zone should remain essentially unimproved and devoted to open space. This impact would be less significant." is unacceptable. Mitigation must be offered to at least soften the existing equipment by natural looking landscaping and coordinate the equipment surfaces and structures to blend with the environment. (4-4) As the project incorporates the entire MMC site, Landscaping plans for the site are required as mitigation. Shell must maintain their property as well as most Martinez residents do. The EIR would serve the community well by including a comprehensive maintenance program that includes cleaning and painting equipment and landscaping those areas visible from roadways and peoples homes to be included in the land use permit. 16 Cumulative and Beneficial Impacts: Economic Impact Upon Martinez The EIR as approved does not adequately present environmental and economic problems affecting Martinez at this time, or how the two projects individually will impact Martinez. An accurate EIR is required to obtain a project that will benefit the community, the environment and Shell's employees. Martinez lies in the shadow of Shell. The City's economic viability already is encumbered by Shell's presence. How will worsened air, more noise, increased rail and roadway and marine traffic as well as construction related problems affect Martinez property values and business? The EIR must address this. California Courts have held than an agency cannot simply release a draft report that hedges on important environmental issues while deferring a more detailed analysis to the final EIR that is insulated from public review. This document does less than that. It does not even present the size of the project (throughput), document present emissions to forecast future emissions in the affected community, nor is the project fully defined. Many Significant components tie, wastewater, process units, piping and � loading facilities) are not, but must be reviewed as their design is incomplete. There is not an adequate review of how the new sections will go on line and worst case risk must also be addressed. Shell continues to build in what was their buffer zone, development beyond that allowed in the 1980 BAAQMD permit must be described. Mitigation Monitoring Program Because of the vastness of the project, the EIR must consider adequate mitigation monitoring programs. B-52 D. Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, must be based on an actual emission data Response 13 - 1 "The accuracy and history of BAAQMD's regulation and permitting is not relevant to the environmental analysis of the proposed project." CEQA Guidelines state: "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are likely to produce, related or cumulative impacts. or (b Response to comments 13-3 - Marine Loading emission data must be accomplished by verifiable testing. Factors supplied by the BAAQMD operating permit, are likely mathematically computed and do not meet 'CEQA requirements for accuracy. Alternatives To The Project Consider locating expansion and clean fuels modifications east of the existing MMC in an area near Tosco. Consider joining Shell and Tosco's clean fuel modifications into one state of the art plant. Risk Since "upsets" are prone to occur with start-up this document must describe the start-up of new components. Location of piping and volumes of materials used and stored are needed along with an analysis of accident potential. Explore exposure of risk Marina Vista and I-680 traffic back-up during pm peak hours in case of a release at Shell . Worst Case disaster potential must be described and the affected area projected. ------------------- - ------------------ --- --------- Alternatives ~ - The EIR fails to adequately consider feasible alternatives which could mitigate the project's significant impacts, such as reducing throughput and locating refining activities in other areas such as the Acme Fill property. 21 EIR Report Preparers This EIR is seriously flawed as well as deficient and must be redrafted. Please Iist qualifications of individual preparers and their refining expertise. Consider developing a conflict of interest criteria to ensure that preparers are not biased to industry. I look forward to development of an EIR that will lead to a positive project for all concerned. I have no objection to Shell refining more gasoline if the quality of life for the community is improved. This project provides an opportunity to require Shell to become a regulated, state of the art non-polluting refinery, that could be an asset to the community. This potential benefit will slip by if the project goes forward as approved. cc: City of Martinez EPA Shell Oil Company's Clean Fuels Project An Overview Ned `Shell Oil Company's Clean Fuels Project involves modification of its Martinez Manufac- Overview taring Complex(MMQ to produce cleaner burning,reformulated gasoline by 1995 as required by the federal and state laws. These modifications will enable Shell Oil Company's Martinez refinery to meet the federal and state clean air requirements. Purpose of Shell Oil Company's Clean Fuels Project will allow the company to achieve two important the Project goals: • To produce cleaner burning,reformulated gasoline in compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act(see fact sheet on the federal and state Clean Air Acts). This will have a direct and significant impact on improving air quality in the Bay Area. • To convert heavy industrial fuel oils into cleaner products such as gasoline, jet fuels and diesel fuels. Scope of The Clean Fuels Project will require an investment of approximately$1 billion and will the Project take as long as five years to complete. Major new facilities,mostly located in the north- eastern corner of the facility,and additional storage tanks will be built. The project will not increase the throughput of crude oil at the refinery,but rather will allow the refinery to process crude more efficiently. Environmental Emissions from cars using Shell's new reformulated gasoline will be significantly re- Benefits duced. The reformulated gasoline will be less volatile;contain fewer aromatics (includ- ing benzene),sulfur and olefins;and contain oxygen to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. Specifically,the new gasolines are formulated to reduce: • Volatile organic compounds • Carbon monoxide • Sulfur dioxide • Nitrogen oxide • Air toxics,primarily benzene (continued) BAY AREA AIR CALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT March 8, 1993 .LA MEDA COON-Y .vara G.Car ooes; Lc-.0+ar.�rx'K Ge;Na';*( Mr. Gus Kramer :rar..4 Ogawa Planning Commission -PA COST A COUNTY City of Martinez. _ Pau!L.cooper 525 Henrietta Street rreo-r Powent errsPeak Martinez, CA 94533 MAPiN COUNTY 4:-rarncuru NAPA COUNTY Dear Mr. Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: Pau:Bamsti .secretary,, This letter is to let you know that we have reviewed the report: Review of Air- =L0.c.IscO COUNT" Quality issues Related to the Shell Oil Company Marine Vapor Recovery ;caeca at^.tenherg Unit prepared for you by Sierra Research. Sierra Research did, through their tea'r'y V.sr'rt engineering evaluation, find one oversight by the District. An adjustment has MA-EO COUNTY been made by the District to account for this oversight. Sierra Research Area=Snoo ;c"a,roerson1 conducted a thorough review of those new adjustments to ensure that the Jaret Fogarty allowable emissions at Shell were properlyreduced. All of Shell loading ,rA CLARA COUNry activities that have occurred since the requirements of Reg 844 went into varve Bruno place were re-reviewed. This review shows that operations at Shell did not r. ice eau result in any days of noncompliance with the adjusted cap. .-r<-McKen.ra _cLANC=UNTY The use of the Shell Marine Vapor Recovery Unit has resulted in substantial os:.Davis reduction of organic compound emissions from their wharf loading activities. XUA COUNTY The emissions of organic compounds from the wharf activities are lower now .i;,r�+artierson than they have been in the past 15 years. Cat:c:a Hdl;goss v.ce-Cna.rpeaonl As you are probably aware the City of Martinez was active in the 1990 investigation of the Shell Wharf permits. Numerous correspondence on this item has been reviewed by Ms. Raines of the City of Martinez, Mr. James Sepulveda, Deputy District Attorney, the California Air Resources Board, and former Supervisor Fanden. All findings to date clearly demonstrate that the Shell permits are in order and that they comply with District mandated Reg 8-44. At Mr. Jakel's request, February 11, 1991 correspondence to Milt Feldstein, the District staff conducted actual source tests of the emissions generated by crude oil loadin# at the wharf. These tests were conducted during the next load of crude oil across the Shell wharf. The results of these tests clearly demonstrates a reduction in emissions. A copy of this source test was sent to the Martinez City Council and Planning Commission on January 12, 1993. If you have any questions on this matter, please call Sandra Lopez, Air Quality Engineenn Manager at (415) 74974711 or John nson, Director of Permit Services at 415) 749-4735 Si re , Peter F. Hess Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer SLL:sw 939 ELLIS STREET - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94109 - (415) 771-6000 - FAX (415) 928-8560 Agenda Item #1 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION SHELL OIL COMPANY (Applicant & Owner), County File #2009-92: The applicant requests approval of a land use permit for their proposed "Clean Fuels Project". If approved, the project would involve the construction and operation of 16 processing units, support facilities including a cooling water tower, a steam and electric power generating plant, a boiler feedwater treatment unit, an oily wastewater treatment unit and an emergency relief flaring system. Approximately 20 storage tanks, a 115 KV high voltage substation, an office building and short and long term parking areas are also proposed. Additional facilities such as operator field stations and control rooms would also be constructed. The proposed project is located on numerous parcels which total approximately 80 acres of the 880 acre Martinez Manufacturing Complex located south of Marina Vista, west of Highway 680 and north of Pacheco Boulevard in the unincorporated area. (H-1) (ZA: H-1/N-3) (CT 3200.01) II. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Receive public testimony on the land use permit application and close the public hearing; B. Accept the Zoning Administrator's recommendation to certify the Final EIR as adequate and complete; C. Certify that the Final EIR-is adequate and complete, and that the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project; D. Declare your intent to approve the land use permit subject to the attached conditions of approval; and E. Direct staff to prepare the Statement of Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Commission adoption. III. BACKGROUND This project was scheduled for the Commission's August 24, 1993 meeting. The Commission opened the public hearing, received testimony and continued the hearing to this date to allow additional testimony. 2 The Commission's motion to continue the public hearing specified that those who testified at the August 24, 1993 hearing must limit any additional testimony to issues about which they did not already testify. IV. SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed project would be located on approximately 80 acres of the 880 acre Martinez Manufacturing Complex and on a 5.6 acre parcel currently occupied by the County Fleet Maintenance Facility. The majority of the project improvements would be located at the northeastern portion of the site, the area which has been occupied by the Genstar Roofing and Trumbull Asphalt Companies (refer to Figure 1: Proposed Project Facilities). A number of other processing units and support facilities including the Lube Hydrotreater, the Distillate Saturation Unit and the Cogeneration Facility, would be located in the south central portion of the Complex. The project also involves the use of the 5.6 acre parcel on Shell Avenue which is currently occupied by the County Fleet Maintenance Building and the Agricultural Department's Weights and Measures Division. The project includes the use of this property to construct an office building. Prior to this construction, the property would be used for a parking and laydown area. Additional project components would be located within the City of Martinez. As shown on Figure 2,the pentane loading rack, truck scales and a dimate tank would be located within the incorporated area. The applicant has submitted a separate application to the City of Martinez for those components. V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The land use permit application has three objectives: To modify the facility in order to produce gasoline which meets the federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and the State 1990 Clean Air Act while maintaining existing production volume; To upgrade high sulfur, heavy fuels to cleaner, more valuable products; and To allow other oxygenates and gasoline within Tank #s 12445 and 12446 which were constructed for the storage of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). A. PROJECT ELEMENTS: The proposed project includes the construction of 16 processing units, ancillary units such as a cooling water tower and a flare system, and addition project components including 19 storage tanks, an office building and maintenance/warehouse buildings. I131 !218' its lwIv1o11wIiIaI ;aIrIolrolml '1Ie111nI + ll� lruI — I a ',"� ;4 'J• �t`�} �\`L, '�, } � g ,�, .yam O Cl\!'f!' f.'.\:\\\\�?\\j�+ 4.� t�.Lr--..'">'s:" -�O As�� fxf,•• jt� � Z t1 > ,�,�c�� �`5•..J:,.c-JC�•3_ � `•'- p•�iif}d:li /� -,`, >B` tjft .•T '•� ;,�;���li"K-:t:,yao-,--,,:�..'.—'�� ,�\.r i. -, V• /��:.. 1`"^n,.,,,,t .';\\ �.. a; 1 w j/ 7 / \ Cys• 1 j 1 �`7 •s ........ . 01 7 ..._......mss..___.,....... t ,� t i _ 1 . 77II 1I y -^� 71 -7� 0 00 0 - 00 00 00 Is Uio 00000 coos r , i • ''is r / 1� •+Iv 'J'' i f y 4 � ro Ell 01, 06 Y C , r O00 �y ..� . r'•:.. .moi II �� y��� f �" _ , s`'Z : � o.o 1 •y+ s # + �. IF :.. I' 00 •oo . . 'r.r { O Q .. `0 -1-I 00� _ - _ It � ; ! •'e 00�:. ,� _..�� i � t � .............__ I1 � t •) .... 0 0 0.3 .. Fi gut I 1 r ' {I. Ij a 00 n ,��► _ ©O 0 O r A- ' .�° .•'•. : pY..�/. ® ®®666666®®6 00000 O©OO [fill fillf I g r Ln _ I FI " I 3 1 . PROCESSING UNITS: The project involves the construction of 16 processing units as listed below. The list includes a brief description of the size and shape of the prominent structures of each unit. The purpose of each unit is summarized in Figure 3,and is described in detail in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. The Unit numbers corresponds to the location shown on Figure,1): #1 : C5/C6 Isomerization Unit, including the Decyclohexanizer: This unit would include two prominent columns which are approxi- mately 200 feet in height by 14 feet in diameter, and 130 feet in height and 6 feet in diameter. #2: Hydrogen Plant: This plant would include a stack approximately 300 feet in maximum height and 13 feet in diameter. #3: Distillate Hydrotreater: This unit would have three prominent structures: two columns and the stack associated with the heater. The columns would be 120 feet by 6 feet and 110 feet by 11 feet. The stack would have a maximum height of 300 feet. #4: Delayed Coker with Coker Gasoline Splitter Column: This unit would be the most visible from Highway 680. The unit consists of six vertical drums in a row surrounded by a support structure 120 feet in height, with a combined length of 180 feet and a width of 30 feet. Drilling equipment located on the top of the drums would add 130 feet, resulting in a combined height of 250 feet. #5: Coke Barn: The coke barn would be the largest component of the proposed project. The barn would be similar to an A-frame structure with a rectangular base 400 feet in length and 200 feet wide. The height of the barn would be 100 feet at the roof's peak. #7: lube Hydrotreater: The Lube Hydrotreater would include a stack and heater. The stack would be a maximum of 300 feet in height by 2 feet in diameter. The Hydrotreater would be similar in appearance to the existing Lube Hydrotreater (refer to Figure 15-5 on page 15-14 of the Draft EIR). #16 Heavy Cracked Gasoline Hydrotreater: This unit would include a heater and stack. The stack would be a maximum of 300 feet in height and 3 feet in diameter. #17 Alkylation Unit: This unit would include four prominent columns which are approximately 200 feet, 170 feet 155 feet and 135 feet in height. d d Q ��+ ��i c� {�• � c, W rob* VQ E c9 is. O O "+C! ►r+ d "� �x B N co .. D. ^W N Cr N � O 1 Cr1 � C b � w ►aIV WC C id � ►.� � rn c c C p. c� O A H fD t9 �e O O p O o4 C m as a+ w .to a. 3 a Acr �° b' o c OQ to .. a .,, b s• 4 #18 Butane Isomerization: This unit would include two prominent columns. The height and diameter of the columns would be approximately 200 feet by 13 feet and 100 feet by 6 feet. #19: Light Cracked Gasoline Treater: This unit would include one prominent column which is approximately 180 feet in height and 9 feet in diameter. #20: Light Cracked Gasoline Hydrotreater: This unit would include one prominant column which is approximately 150 feet in height. #23 Distillate Saturation Unit: This unit would have one prominent structure, a stack which would be approximately 150 feet in height. 2. ANCILLARY UNITS AND EQUIPMENT: To support new processing units, additional equipment and systems are proposed. A description of the function of each of these project elements is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. The numbers refer to the location as shown on Figure 1 . They include: #9 Sulfur Recovery Unit and Sour Water System: This unit would include three columns with heights of 105 to 135 feet and a stack with a maximum height of 300 feet. #10 Cogeneration Facility: This facility would include a stack with 15 foot diameter and a maximum height of 300 feet. #11 Boiler Feedwater Treater: This unit would be one of the smaller of the proposed improvements. It would include tanks (20 feet in height and 20 to 50 feet in diameter) #12 Cooling Water Tower: This unit would be a box-type structure approximately 75 feet in height, similar in appearance to the existing tower shown in Figure 15-7 of the Draft EIR. #15 Flare System: The Flare System would include two flares approximately 150 feet in height. Each flare would have a continual pilot flame but would flare only as necessary to dispose of flammable gases during emergencies and maintenance. 3. ADDITIONAL PROJECT COMPONENTS: The proposed project involves the construction of 19 storage tanks, a maintenance building, 3 ware- house buildings, and a 150,000 square foot office building. Other facil- ities such as control rooms and operator field stations would be installed. In general,the control rooms and operator field stations would be located adjacent to the new processing units. Parking lots for construction and long-term use would also be constructed. 5 a) New Storage Tanks: The project includes the construction of nineteen (19) storage tanks which would act as feed tanks, provide process unit intermediate storage, and store products. The tanks would range in size from 30 feet to 60 feet in height, and from 42 to 230 feet in diameter. Figure 4 identifies each of the proposed new tanks and their size. Additional description of the proposed tanks is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR (refer to page 3-53). The land use permit application provides that the tanks would be located in designated areas (refer to Figure 5). b) Change in Use for Storage Tanks: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District allows the storage of methyl tertiary butyl ether(MTBE) and other oxygenates in Storage Tank#12445 and #12446. However, the tanks are limited to the storage of MTBE unless provided for in a County land use permit. This applica- tion, if approved, would allow the use of these tanks to store other oxygenates, gasoline and gasoline blending compounds. c) Warehouses/Maintenance Buildings: The project includes three 7500 square foot warehouse buildings and an approximately 5600 square foot maintenance building. These buildings would be located to the west of the Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreaters.and the Butane Isomerization Unit (refer to location #8 on Figure 1). d) Office Building: The project includes a 150,000 square foot office building and a parking lot located on the 5.6 acre parcel on the west side of Shell Avenue. The parcel currently houses the County Fleet Maintenance Facility and the Agricultural Depart- ment's Weights and Measures Divisions. The existing structures would be demolished and the uses transferred to the County's .Blum Road facility. The proposed Conditions of Approval would require the building be limited to 40 feet in height, three stories and 150,000 square feet (refer to Condition #4). The building would be limited to administrative and professional office uses. The proposed Conditions of Approval would require the applicant to submit architectural and landscaping plans to the City of Martinez for review and to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval (refer to Condition #5). FIGURE 4 PROPOSED NEW TANK DIMENSIONS aximum :;.... Number d[ M �1ew an Tanks Diameter Height Lube Crude Tanks 2 150' 48' Dimate Tank 1 134' 30' Isomerization Feed 1 144' 34.5' Tank Heavy Naphtha Tank 1 87' 47' Sour Water Tank 1 110' 60' Declayed Coking 1 120' 48' Unit Recycle Oil Tank Delayed Coking Unit 1 150' 48' Feed Tank CS Tanks 3 90' 60' Lt. Crude Tank (#1) 1 110' 60' Lt. Crude Tank (#2) 1 230' 48' Olefin Sphere 1 50' --- Liquified Petroleum 1 42' --- Gases Sphere Alkylate Tank 1 123' 48' Butane Sphere 1 50' --- Effluent Holding 1 50' 48' Tank Sludge Thickener 1 60' 40' Tank L---J M lie ;` r .40 � � ear. • "{, .. .. r�� ' OIA ,• c. O a /{ - x0�\ •�` 000' P Q m i\ o ,., . I\ •,�'�� � � � 80- - �. X00 � O , •• ' I k� a`. t. © z O 0 0 . i tii`y /F: o A (//y�j;p (yam .. � .',O �' I o \ V O Q l •• NOO CO g _ o \. 9, , T _ I 00Cis 0 . .61 :Iob ~� �_. , op o m — 00 ii Jamr• • '.� a [: i 3 / I` IY..11l' l l f i / 't ... .. 19 p s 00 :It 9 S •• r .. B' uTe On 1: •;:�i. , •, •• r n d D t_ £ e N o &' 77 6� au X 1i / G'� O d•• C e m 0 A 0 _ d 0 v m'j I N I 6 e) Parking Lots: The project includes the construction of long-term parking lots. As shown in Figure 6, additional long term parking would be constructed on the 5.6 acre office building location along Shell Avenue, and on the north side of Pacheco Ave (refer to location I, on Figure 6). Additional parking for construction needs would primarily be provided at the northeast portion of the Complex (refer to location E and H on Figure 6). B. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION/IMPLEMENTATION: The project would be constructed over a five year period, and would involve up to an estimated 1750 construction employees per day during peak periods. In order to prepare for construction of the proposed project, some existing equipment and facilities would require demolition. Areas and equipment to be demolished are listed in Figure 7 (Location of Demolition and Relocation Activities), and include old crude reservoirs, tanks and concrete slabs. The project would also involve grading (approximately 308,000 cubic yards of cut and 408,000 cubic yards of fill) at the locations identified in Figure 8. Additional information regarding the grading is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR (refer to page 3-58). C. PROJECT COMPONENTS EXCLUDED FROM THE LAND USE PERMIT A portion of the "Clean Fuels Project" would be located within the City of Martinez. As shown in Figure 2, a pentane loading rack, truck scales and a dimate tank would be located within the incorporated area. The applicant has submitted a separate application to the City of Martinez for those uses. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The EIR identified environmental impacts which would occur if the proposed project would be implemented, and recommended mitigation measures which would reduce most of the impacts to a level of less than significant. All mitigation measures have been included within the proposed Conditions of Approval. A summary table listing the impacts, the mitigation measures and the corresponding Conditions of Approval is provided as Exhibit A. The EIR also identified impacts which could not be reduced to a "less than significant" level, and impacts which were found to be beneficial. Additional information on these "Significant and Unavoidable" impacts and on the Beneficial Impacts of the proposed project was provided in Section V of the staff report prepared for the August 24, 1993 hearing. N N N � � r _a ..� w,► r .� w,a I r N ..i O to + 00 -4 Qf cn 4.b WIN ( --+ O � cc.C* -1 + Qf rn I ? I W N -L B s€ 1 ag o O a E i c D cmoll \ 3 o _ E Q b t Go O. I � Ix a 10 ; SHELL BVENUE _ IE ? f t . o lis _ QI Q 0 3 ti O of _ I; e CCI o l 01111 j°L° ' e I. ESrpM9C��� to cE s % (l p B © IL MI I h r � ! V N C \ t CO2 O l0vk 0, No \� 'y♦ ' �: zip �, ,�' . N. .XXYxxx Cb rq • 1 �r ,�7py'�� S i q t... O xx ^ O ICU � :. upo i : k J�: .�rf' •,,i_:_. - aO O O O t s - oe®o©aea eo .4 eaoo� tiff f 4 cl • R Ap /wmi:d `/``�,i'� \i�`.,� ,�,• i any � � it �, �. It' e x (1( sw"•is i �,„,,pP � J�� n, '.� J +"�::;.,}7: � �� ,( \O , _, 8�y�•`,� �`,`yam �-- y:' '�,� • �O $g 00 " I............ Wee , (B 0 -tot .......... i 00 It o t is ace © o t, © ©oQQ Q00 ©0o Sol 110, All- ,ti'r + . _►� ,,.• o o0eeeaeee9e Oo00t'� O©4o rL j. Y� 7 VII. CEQA STATUS The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on May 7, 1993. The Zoning Administrator held public hearings to receive testimony on the adequacy of the document on May 26, 1993 and June 7, 1993. A Response to Comments document was prepared and was distributed on August 5, 1993 to responsible agencies and to agencies that commented on the Draft EIR. On August 10, 1993, the Zoning Administrator determined that the Final EIR was adequate and complete, and was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with State and County CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator recommends that the Commission certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete. The Zoning Administrator's Resolution is attached as Exhibit B. VIII. PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS All comments from public agencies were received prior to the preparation of the EIR with•the exception of the Airport Land Use Commission. The proposed project is located approximately 21/2 miles northwest of the Buchanan Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission found that the proposed development would not encroach on the airport's protected airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that tower lights be provided on structures which exceed 200 feet in height. The proposed project involves structures that may extent to 300 feet in height. The Airport Land Use Commission requested that the applicant be required to install strobe lights rather than steady-beam lights whenever tower lighting is required by the FAA. The Commission reported that this would enhance the safety of the proposed project. The Commssion's recommended condition of approval would have required the applicant to submit a proposed plan for complying with this requirement to the County Zoning Administrator, the FAA, the Contra Costa County Airport Manager and the Land Use Commission staff. The proposed Conditions of Approval include the requirement that the applicant install red strobe lights on any project component which exceeds 200 feet in height (refer to Condition #28). The portion of the recommended condition which would require that a plan be submitted to a number of reviewing parties/agencies has not been included within the proposed Conditions because it is not necessary to ensure that strobe lights be used as requested. VIII. DISCUSSION The proposed "Clean Fuels Project" has three objectives: 8 To modify the facility in order to produce gasoline which meets the federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and the State 1990 Clean Air Act while maintaining existing production volume; To upgrade high sulfur, heavy fuels to cleaner, more valuable products; and To allow other oxygenates and gasoline within Tank #s 12445 and 12446 which were constructed for the storage of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). This Section provides additional information on the Federal and State "Clean Air" laws, and provides additional information on several issues related to the project review. A. "CLEAN AIR" LAWS The 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments and the 1990 State Clean Air Act established a phased system for requiring significant changes to the gasoline that is produced. Phase I and Phase II of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments set requirements for reid vapor pressure and oxygenate levels. These Phases were implemented on January 1 , 1992 and November 1 , 1992 respectively. Phase III of the federal Clean Air Act amendments requires the most drastic changes in gasoline specifications and subsequently, changes to the refineries. The amendments require "reformulated" gasoline to be available at service stations pumps in the nation's nine worst ozone non-attainment areas, which includes the San Francisco Bay Area, and the California Central Valley. Reformulated gasoline is a fuel designed to produce cleaner combustion in motor vehicles than the gasoline presently available. Through cleaner combustion, improvements in air quality and public health can be realized. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments require reformulated fuels to be available at gasoline pumps by January 1 , 1995. Additional discussion of the regulatory requirements is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR (refer to "Objectives and Requirements" on page 3-12) and Chapter 8 (refer to "Applicable Rules and Standards on page 8-1). The California Air Resources Board Regulations require additional specifications (e.g. olefin content, oxygen content) be met by March 1 , 1996. The discussion of the benefits of the regulations statewide and as a result of the proposed project is discussed in Chapter 18 of the EIR. Additional discussion of the project's benefits was included in Section V of the staff report prepared for the August 24, 1993 hearing. B. AIR IMPACTS The EIR concluded that the project would not result in a significant impact from the emission of PM10. The project facilities coupled with the control equipment would not increase PM10 emissions. The 4.7 ton per-year increase 9 associated with the project is caused by the increase in rail and marine traffic. This project would result in an increase of 313 tons per year of volatile organic compounds, and an increase of 336 tons per year of carbon monoxide. Nitrogen oxide would be reduced by approximately 5 tons per year. The increases in air pollutants should be considered in terms of the benefits derived from the use of reformulated fuels. As noted in this report, the primary objective of this project is to comply with federal and State laws which are designed to reduce air pollutants. Regional reductions from the use of reformulated fuels would result in an estimated 3,285 tons per year reduction in volatile organic compounds. Carbon monoxide would be reduced by over 75,000 tons per year. These "regional reductions" are based on the use of reformulated fuel throughout the region, and thus, include the benefits of "Clean Fuels" projects for the other refineries in the region. C. SELENIUM IMPACTS Selenium is an essential element necessary to human and animal health, but may be toxic at elevated levels. Selenium is known to bioaccumulate, and, hence, poses a greater environmental problem. Present operations at the Martinez Manufacturing Complex exceeds the permitted selenium discharge limit of the Regional Water Quality Control Board of 5.8 lbs per day. The existing refinery discharges approximately 8 to 9 lbs of selenium per day. Implementation of the proposed project, without mitigation, would increase selenium discharged by an estimated 27 percent. The EIR recommended a mitigation measure which would ensure that the project results in a "no net increase" in the discharge of selenium. The mitigation measure which is described in more detail in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR requires the applicant to: 1. Maximize the recycle of stripped sour water around the hydrotreaters to concentrate the selenium stream; 2. Reuse the stream in the coke process; 3. Treat the remaining concentrated stream; 4. Undertake a pilot study prior to completion of final design to demon- strate, to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the effectiveness of the chosen combination of recycling and treatment processes in ensuring a no net increase in selenium discharge; and 5. Implement a sampling program to monitor the effectiveness of the design features. 10 This mitigation measure has been incorporated in the proposed Conditions of Approval (refer to Condition # 12). IX. FINDINGS AND SUMMARY . The County Ordinance Code requires the Planning Commission to make findings regarding the impact of the proposed project prior to approving the land use permit. The findings and supporting information are as follows: A. The health. safety, and welfare of the County: The primary objective of this project is to modify the refinery in order to produce gasoline which meets the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the 1990 State Clean Air Act. The goal of these laws is to improve air quality and public health by requiring the production of gasoline which will emit substantially fewer pollutants during combustion. The California Air Resources Board estimated that during the first year of reformulated gasoline use, volatile organic compounds will be reduced by 15 percent, nitrogen oxide by 6 percent, carbon monoxide by 17 percent and sulfur dioxide by 80 percent. These reductions in air pollutants result in a reduction in adverse health effects associated with air contaminants. Health effects of air pollutants are commonly described in terms of the increase in cancer risk probability. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District estimated that the reduction in cancer risk in the Bay Area as a result of reformulated gasoline requirements would be 129 in one million. This equates to 12 fewer cancer cases per year in the Bay Area, of which 1 .5 is attributable to this project. The Health Risk Assessment which assessed the impact of the project con- cluded that the project would reduce the risk of cancer by three in one million. This assessment excluded any health benefits derived from the use of reformulated gasoline in vehicles. The potential for noncarcinogenic health effects was also evaluated and found to be less than significant. The EIR included an analysis of a range of potential upset events from implementation of the proposed project. Although the analysis of the various accident scenarios did not result in a finding of a significant impact, the EIR identified the "general" risk of upset as "Significant and Unavoidable" because of uncertainties in risk analyses. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR to reduce this impact have been included within the proposed Conditions of Approval (refer to Conditions #22 through #24). B. The orderly development of property in the County, the potential to create marginal development within the neighborhood, and the effect on the General Plan. The proposed project is located within an area designated for "Heavy Industrial" use in the County General Plan. This designation allows oil refining and other manufacturing uses. The project's consistency with each of the General Plan 11 Elements was evaluated in the project EIR. Mitigation measures necessary to ensure the project's consistency with the General Plan were included in the proposed Conditions of Approval (refer to Conditions 4 and 5). The majority of the Complex is located within the Heavy Industrial Zoning District. The project as proposed is consistent with the Zoning District requirements. C. The preservation of nroye►ty values and the protection of the tax base: The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect property values in the surrounding area. The project involves the use of lands currently designated for Heavy Industrial use in the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project would employ a large workforce, peaking at approximately 1750 employees per day over a five year construction period, partially addressing the County's 3,440 lost construction jobs since 1990. D. The effect on the neighborhood and the likelihood of a nuisance being created: The project EIR evaluated the potential of the project to impact surrounding areas and found that the project as proposed could create noise and odor nuisances for surrounding neighborhoods. 1 . ODOR: The proposed Conditions of Approval require the applicant to provide adequate evidence to the County Zoning Administrator that total hydrogen sulfide concentrations would not exceed the significance thresholds. If the review finds that thresholds may be exceeded, the Conditions require the applicant to detail design changes such that hy- drogen sulfide thresholds will not be exceeded (refer to Condition #25 through #27). 2. NOISE: The proposed Conditions of Approval restrict construction noise generating activities particularly at the office building location, the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot and the tank construction area at the southeast portion of the site (refer to Conditions #29 through #34). The proposed Conditions require the applicant to submit to the Zoning Administrator noise level calculations and noise control treatments included in the design of the project units. The project units must achieve a noise performance standard of 77 dBA when measured five (5) feet above the ground and 100 feet from the equipment (refer to Condition #35). CK/aa LUPXXXVI I I/2009-92.CK 9/1/93 Z co N Af • �o # s s� � w •- � $ eo Q�...� s 0 is y q n g g _°J VV cr .bag O M 8 a t 8. 4 4 a. AS Cd 9. i-O sP rvt 10, co lit 40 J2 dJ OR ec' J'S � s �� 1A. HAVS da-0 AA I a I I 0 0*1 a—0 12A I-A 0 lit II A. z s 0 a Al so C4 5 O 0 --Io 961 111 t wA Is. a t so -1 t82AA sic,* �u t4� LuC: IL ca thou 04 as cs PR C4 WA Z d fs 0 8 v-4 8 M Q X38 m ... a gn Vo, 100 b 9 3 u aspG . �• o�ad �_ � .9 w .� �'^� c � A r VS Or p O at gIla .. E" 12- Z. cg Ro. .4. t 'a.to os� ll I %A a gs -410 T. ca 0'a Vaa. w 1 11 iii go's loo. TL OIL TL Q 2 .L 2 I a. t ` � Z 3 '3 $ a C' a 0 oSO p� N 0.% �l � S4 'Al A- lei d.s & -% a I& a' AS 9 3 JA I% woo 0°• '°'a c- cg � �U p„• � d N 9 Q' a g C-4 M a 3 `i m it's IS 10 -- 8 -a TA Big d1 A N G V1. � ^ •�O� yy i• ¢•`CT G 3 a � �► OA e c a4 a u o9 D ,o _ ob N SC6 ILA. O az 8 C6 IL t3` o�� CA z x 3� 4 y 1 C �y a� SR bb�YY �p •• G Q� ob M �••�� 3 y•r0 vs G .. iTi -� S 12. ,TI 64 4 a 3 ,� � m •� o � �� as a G7 '� � '��� D dge3as � d +`�, �y 66b� too 4 O Z C-4 O 93 �a � �� o.o o $ As'. A P..S %9,3 JS -t*a 40 o Ms 10% toA 0, Ac,15 A.,. 5s St 1A. ,s ) a 1%1% Z ab 40 t) UNA JAA PA s 0 o % W, Va 0 % 3 %.,A % 0 - C-3 Air Q. -0 C-4 ao -z N m � �� � � Dal g .. IL A g. sc .2 OR -1.0a .. 0 jL19 8 1 ob ob wdg I St.1, , JE t 111 ps.9..6 I lb 'bi C-4 gol OAS a. is cg a s- a so Isss OA Ito --i % I 0- 4 —0 at a �vo Q 4 2 33 'd 2 0 2 �x w .�wQS .y dj Qa F ob 9 A ' i, C3 till 40 OM 96 A19, 'i ob it �a "Mgt iso -I All od '17 .Q 0 a W - et JS "0. &off x �� u Vogt V. el 3 °` Cli tr) C-4 TO I t e, Van CA ti lot -04 X, W% Ts 03 W-o yr an vs cs -W '801 a-e s3 a i I 14 . 1,C21 I a$ 06 OR os- p vs %Ali ca At 42 sill UA lk% ice; 27) Fn do AllC6 C4 z 0 6 z 3 . w . � A a a 0 z z z z z CA Is . •$ � o.ts $'p� �''� 9� e ,� a as•o � 'Q 3 91 •v3y E E- c... a E� �S� � � � oo�� a �L E-° o w � c Z z Z z tg c�S a 7 O O ° z z z z C4 $0L is o a � Aa •�� 3 S �, v '3 � �.o a � a p E ,� ,9� N h•o s CO 44-1a v �. �, ' '�, y 8 Y `06 Q N N W rA � x s° cc a ° �+1 �+ 0 1•y ii C Op = C .0 8 V•� F.� Y.� ae C cc ., c8.5acup 2 V tog ag .05 a O,� CO � '�` � L1. •r a o Y N � � O� � B � �y •p �C ti �d L1� C ��C R,cc N a o cJ � z M Z a � N V N N a C « fA O C O C v 'Q C C {�8p pQ ffYY'' O O b a..;:D 44 � � .` a VK-S Vy o .a Q d C, p •w,• �Q� �y� O � a+ C.�.� aOw rrQq� Cca�ypL''.c 'C A 6 �$ Q° �'g^�� � '° i.� C a CC ►.� � � w Q e � a H .m V SIR v a $. auy a 4 eC a � a � � ciW � F° 3� a°�h � Z c E . a � C� a •ao.. cli Y a s c V w c o a o v d O Q •..� Y p g1g C a om a° � Cga' e� y°F� � aC� iy a ri /va 0 .20,0 � .�� � � � � No' 'cfl o $ fo o a e � � � a .5 a e E�e E •.^. a a b$ a aw E �'ao oc1 u g a � a E a a � a3h e o a N a Cl. 2119 pq 5 0 •o I. o IPA 6. o 0 Is PA QA �o IOA vA ssl u CA a� o 4A JA 'S C4 O �D .. -wr �z 0% Y J H Vl V1 L � �'adBuw aJ 12 4) ILI � 41 a� �Q6j .7 a iQ� p U s a0 a p 7 W O ,C ' y o 5 ��3•a.8.wig' C I a a ° �k• pb s�� � .� w .ao *a 9A 8.°a a awJ 6dy be w ° c `soeo 8seoB ��• as � � a�•� a.� � � � � 0 g w �a'�.a `a o 3v�i .•�? o��v=i .9 V2 in' in Sq a S �. Wo .. ,� W� a geld p •g 9 o ��AQ � gs� �s•� � � �3 a o H i Z Q oo � Z M Q Qs =moo y Q w 1+�:C•+ � Y1 y b . O �; �,y �• d•Q w aod .13 � .G �•�a0:�y�a � .� � a�'r N Q H � , Q a„�� • ��. Hs I I o « vIla .� ..A � •v � ��8'� w ���� ago . � r�'� N H � 43 !3 tr,Cl Q z w I-e to d w V3 �• «� 004? motg � °° og � � ro- •o a x Z a � r r C G rg ua acss so v+ pit, w ��CL11 ij OY «� .22 fill pFp i2 Rl 6 0S .0 �1 N � � 4 Y t+ o x -- a tg 6 co a p jig � 1« W e0 @ • �i ` All, O J r $� o .a ILSq M atoa t .2 « [a aJA I =y � O � J41 E' OAS tit .5 .0- *0 sl as C 410 3-0,-s t l C4 go, I 40 s JS .A & 0. 0' IA io s All it's S I-A ,rr "' � �y '.8 as � ��g � � .p'y.Q.E'' � ,� � A � '� Q^ N w V N CV06t co to 9 �3 o c 0 .� cJ ri 4 vi MIg M y 1 bu via • @ er 6 s sf da rl y Bat a 4 11, c as c.� CF, -lot Zo to u a -4 or 16, 0 vA I So.I I ✓ in 'i Uo 0. A Ia Al* Al a 8.0 0 I M98 go ca Cn C4 c6 C-1 a M s _q ' � �` rte'. ¢ �i 6Z �?, '�'.►o ray � lit ra � r•�� �a� a i � � .� r yo to- all ✓ ��j'[( G G a � d Q ~ Z d 2 s ' 4 oa a � $ N M Vf 96 oa 5 IR a, 18• fa w� Cal OWL N W ' Q, ` Z Y c ¢ Q Z ?� Z a� d 1 p ju .lz A �QQ •� y gale 8 � N•iY7 P' etc �► r� � � .�� o•� a� �' �.� sae q vT H o C-4 3 4 w ae a 1Z g Dos to 0.0 cy FDA6�.j E-3 .0 ce�6yCi, '$b y a tc!5 }C.£ mca� F gg C w t7 0 9 e � E o � a tilt l 'tD 6� ►• � a0 0�C w .ip ^ ae w•a ffi' G� L' . aw `� �,, ae=s �+ ate' N." a 01,5-011 a 06 � C.:� yp�'w �.w� R�„w,. �(� � +'�•�� �i i t� C" +��, +moo N � ✓' $ w Ei � 04 w' a "'yrW�� ,^Q} ;; p c► ""992 ii. ��a awe p.wCJ� Cy W•Q . •Z•; ip' Y �6� top i Val us s.8:1 02 soil eat. g 0 . IL:3 C6tjAS 12 .00 ss o v ae � � a � W 01121 C a CA w.70. > F 0. la E F C-1 Z Z o � c� W g � a & 9 b a � a a 3 CL awe a .. E o ,� � •`3' q oo $" 2 � C C 9d � � � a °•y z z 0. �55] ya 3 6 q �O Ci .aCd O ae e Q Y y if Z d i C -� PA g lo- « @ V Z �Aaas ,� 309 � � u � $ aw a as ° � ti ti 5 p $ � a4ea o � $ st � $ 9 H Z C4 vw �A 1109A 'it JS % Wit A Rot s. Is s vat Vti,ok 0. .1 -'s -0 .0 -0- A 'A P. d Z °�Z• Z d M� 0 ec .f o E O � 4'" o OIL Alt. ru EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHELL OIL COMPANY "CLEAN FUELS PROJECT" WHEREAS, on February 2, 1992, the Shell Oil Company (Applicant and Owner), submitted to the Community Development Department, a request for a proposed clean fuels project which would involve the construction and operation of sixteen 0 6)processing units, support facilities including a cooling water tower,a steam and electric power generating plant, a boiler feedwater treatment unit, an oily wastewater treatment unit and an emergency relief flaring system, approximately 20 storage tanks, a 115 KV high voltage substation, an office building and short and long term parking areas. Additional facilities such as operating field stations and control rooms would also be constructed; and WHEREAS,on September 11,1992,the County Community Development Department issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP), registered the NOP with the State Clearinghouse, and sent notices by mail to potential Responsible Agencies and interested parties,thereby initiating a 30-day comment period which terminated on October 12, 1992, and included a public Scoping Session on September 30, 1992; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and issued on May 7, 1993,and a CEQA Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse, enacting a 45-day public comment period; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1993,the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on the Draft EIR, at which time, all who wished to present testimony were heard; then the public hearing was continued to June 7, 1993 for further testimony; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 1993, the County Zoning Administrator received further testimony, CLOSED the public hearing to oral testimony and confirmed June 21, 1993 as the deadline to receive written testimony on the adequacy and completeness of the Draft EIR;and WHEREAS,on August 5, 1993,a Response to Comments Document was prepared and distributed to commenting and Responsible Agencies, and notices were sent to others who previously requested notification advising of its availability; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator finds: That the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Shell Oil Company's proposed Clean Fuels Project, consisting of the May 1993 Draft EIR and the August 1993 Final EIR Response Document, was prepared, processed and completed in accordance with State and County CEQA Guidelines and with the California Environmental Quality Act; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the County Zoning Administrator on the basis of the record, hereby recommends that the County Planning Commission certify the final EIR as adequate and complete. rvey E. Br grelopment Zoning Ad itor and Director of Community D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT #2009-92 (SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT) GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1 . Development shall be based on the following documents except as modified by the conditions herein: A. "Application for Land Use Permit - Volume 1 " dated received by the County Community Development Department on February 2, 1993; B. "Response to Comments: Application for Land Use Permit Volume 2" dated received by the County Community Development Department on July 1 , 1992. C. Project development and operation as further described in the Final EIR. 2. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a Site Development Plan. The Plan shall: A. Identify the phasing of project construction, and the expected construction start and completion dates for each phase; B. Identify the schedule for submittal of the Hazard and Operability Studies; C. Change the location of the Light Crude Tank (refer to Draft EIR: Figure 3-22, Location Z) from the southeastern portion of the site to the area designated for additional tankage located directly to the south of proposed Cooling Water Tower (Unit #12) and the Cracked Akylation Unit (Unit #17) as depicted in Figure 3-22 of the Draft EIR or provide evidence to the satisfaction of the County Zoning Administrator, that the relocation of the tank to a more central location of the refinery or to an area more distant from residential areas is not possible. (MM 4-4) 3. The approved Site Development Plan shall be updated every six months during the duration of the construction period. OFFICE BUILDINGS 4. The office building shall not exceed any of the following: 150,000 square feet, three stories in height and 40 feet in height. (MM 4-3) 5. At least thirty days prior to submitting an application for building permits for the office building, the applicant shall submit architectural and landscaping plans to the City of Martinez for review and to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval. (MM 15-11) The office building use is limited to administrative and professional office uses. Uses such as research and laboratories are prohibited. 2 GEOLOGY SOILS AND SEISMICITY: GRADING REQUIREMENTS 6. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project site, the applicant shall submit the County Zoning Administrator a site-specific geotechnical report detailing the site- specific grading concepts, stability analysis, stabilization procedures, and design criteria for cut-slopes and fill-slopes. The report shall be prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the structural engineers for the project. The report applies to all sites underlain by unconsolidated deposits and underlain 'or adjacent to Martinez Formation or Meganos Formation bedrock. The required report shall: (MM 5-la/5-2a): A. Document the analysis and findings of a site-specific stability analyses conducted for the area proposed for grading to establish the design criteria for proposed cut or fill slopes. B. Document that the recommended criteria have been incorporated in the design of cut and/or fill slopes. C. Document before-grading and after-grading site elevations. 7. During grading activities, the registered geotechnical professional shall be on the site to (MM 5-1 b/5-2b): A. Supervise the implementation of slope stability designs. B. Observe areas of potential instability. C. Supervise slope repairs, as necessary. D. Supervise compaction testing. 8. It is crucial that the grading code be carefully implemented, that all grading procedures be accurately documented, and that the geotechnical engineer provide effective inspections to ensure the highest quality of performance. The grading completion report submitted to the Grading Division of the Building Inspection Department shall contain a detailed, as-graded geologic map signed by the engineering geologist for the project. This plan shall show details of observed conditions in all keyway excavations and cut areas, including geologic contacts, bedding, jointing, aquifers and seepage zones, and stratigraphic units. This map, or a separate map provided by civil engineers for the project shall show all subdrains and their connections, surveyed and mapped by the civil engineer, as well as foundations. The final grading report shall provide documentation that all grading and related site preparation conforms with the applicant's sponsored geotechnical report, the County Grading Ordinance, and Chapter 70 of the UBC. It should provide for settlement monitoring of thick fills, as well as compaction test results. Design modifications, where warranted by exposed conditions, must be reviewed by the Grading Section and documented in the final report. 3 The grading of the site shall comply with the following requirements: A. To avoid creating potentially unstable slopes in the construction site, the volume of earthwork shall be kept to a practical minimum. B. Cut slopes in alluvium, and fill-slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) unless the design-level geotechnical investigation can demonstrate the satisfactory stability of a steeper configuration; C. Berms or other fill embankments shall be stabilize by removing and replacing weak material with engineered fill, by providing surface and/or subsurface drainage, or by similar procedures recommended by the geotechnical profes- sional; and D. Side-hill fills, if used, shall be keyed, drained and compacted according to the design specifications of the slope stability analyses for the site provided by the geotechnical professional. (MM 5-1/5-2) GEOLOGY. SOILS AND SEISMICITY: BUILDING REQUIREMENTS 9. At least thirty (30) days prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for foundations or structures, the applicant shall submit to the County Zoning Administrator a site-specific geotechnical report ,detailing seismic-restraint criteria to be incorporated into the designs of the foundations and structures. The report shall be prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the structural engineers for the project. The report shall provide for the following: A. The minimum seismic-resistant design standards for all proposed facilities shall conform to the California Uniform Building Code Seismic Zone 4 Standards and Contra Costa County Building Regulations Division 716. B. Additional seismic-resistant earthwork and construction design criteria shall be incorporated in the project as necessary, based on the site-specific recommen- dations of a California Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer in consultation with the California registered structural engineering professionals. C. Documentation that the requirements listed in Mitigation Measure 5-4D have been incorporated into the building plans as appropriate. (MM 5-4) 10. Building permit applications for foundations or structures shall include a report prepared by a Certified Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer which documents the following requirements: A. Engineering analyses shall demonstrate satisfactory performance of Bay Mud, alluvium, and fill where they form part or all of the support for structures; 4 B. Appropriate remediation (grouting, compaction, removal etc)shall be completed prior to using liquefaction-prone sediments for foundation support; C. Roads, foundations and underground utilities in fill or alluvium shall be designed to accommodate settlement or compaction estimated by the site-specific investigations of the geotechnical engineer. (MM 5-4) WATER QUALITY 11. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit to the County Community Development Department a Soil Management Control Plan which has been approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Plan shall: A. Describe soil screening protocol to determine suitability of soil for use as fill; B. Provide for segregation of surface runoff and accumulated contaminated soils; and C. Ensure compliance with the existing stormwater NPDES permits to ensure that pollutants are not transported off-site in concentrations which would adversely impact the environment. (MM 6-2) 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction of the Delayed Coker and the Distillate Hydrotreater, the applicant shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval which details the project's compliance with the Mitigation Measures addressing selenium in the Final EIR This includes conducting a pilot study, prior to completion of final design, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, the effectiveness of the chosen combination of recycling and treatment processes in achieving no net increase in selenium discharge. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the approved report. (MM 6-4). 13. Prior to the start-up of any Clean Fuels Project element, the applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to the County Zoning Administrator that the Spill Prevention Con- trol and Countermeasure Plan has been updated and implemented to include: A. Secondary containment providing 100 percent capacity for all tanks; B. Segregation of oily surfaces and surface runoff by physical barriers; C. Operational controls such as limited access to gates at discharge locations, logging procedures for gate operation, maintenance and inspection procedures, and worker education; D. All new facilities within the operations of the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the approved report. (MM 6-5) 5 14. All hydrocarbon pipes shall be installed above ground as feasible to allow for inspection and maintenance. If no practical alternative to underground hydrocarbon piping exists, underground systems with double containment and leak detection systems will be required. (MM 8-1 b) 15. In areas with high groundwater where construction will occur, the applicant shall undertake dewatering as necessary. Any discharge of groundwater shall be in compliance with the stormwater NPDES permit. (MM 6-2) AIR QUALITY 16. During the construction phase, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions: A. Traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to be maintained at 15 mph or less. B. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered and should maintain at least six inches of freeboard (i.e., minimum requires space between top of the load and top of the trailer). C. Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, 150 total daily trips for all vehicles. D. Pave all construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road. E. Water active sites at least twice daily. Active sites shall be watered more often if necessary during excessively hot or windy conditions to avoid any impact to adjacent properties. F. Suspend dust generating demolition activities when wind speeds (as instanta- neous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. G. Water site or suspend grading and/or excavating activities when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. H. Water or apply approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specifications to all inactive construction areas. I. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as practical. J. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders, according to manufacturer's specifications to exposed stock piles, i.e., gravel, sand, dirt. K. Pave construction and access roads that will become part of the refinery long term operation early in the construction schedule. 6 L. Establish a wheel washing station on the construction site exit to prevent entrance dust from leaving the site. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement to comply with one or more of the above measures based on the applicant's submittal of adequate evidence that compliance is infeasible because of associated safety hazards. 17. During the construction phase, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce construction equipment combustion by product emissions (MM 8-1c): A. Use construction equipment that have catalytic converters (for gasoline powered equipment) to the extent feasible. B. Prevent trucks from idling longer than two minutes to the extent feasible. C. Use low emission on-site mobile equipment: - on-road diesel engines, to the extent available. - use turbochargers and aftercoolers, to the extent available. - maximum fuel injection timing retard adjustment for equipment without on-road diesel engines. - electric versions of equipment, to the extent available. D. Use electricity from power plants (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators to the extent feasible. E. Use low sulfur fuel (0.05% sulfur content) in diesel-powered construction equipment. 18. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the program to reduce nitrogen oxide through urea injection control technology has been implemented. (MM 8-4) 19. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the program to reduce sulfur oxide emissions has been approved by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and has been implemented. (MM 8-6) 20. Prior to the start-up of the proposed hydrogen plant, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that carbon monoxide oxidation catalyst technology has been applied to the hydrogen plant heater in order to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from that source by 90 percent; or that other measures have been applied which achieve the same level of reduction (97.5 tons per year reduction in carbon monoxide emissions). (MM 8-7) 7 21 . Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide confirmation to the Zoning Administrator that its proposed control measures leading to reduction of PM 10 formation in the atmosphere (i.e. nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide control) would be sufficient to reduce PM10 emissions below a level of significance. (MM 8-8) RISK OF UPSET 22. At least sixty (60) days prior to the start-up of any element of the proposed project with the exception of control rooms, maintenance/warehouse buildings, and the office building, a Hazard and Operability study and accident consequence analysis shall be completed and submitted to the County Health Services Department for review and the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval. The study shall use methods established by the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 750 and significance criteria identified in the project Final EIR. If the Hazard and Operability Study finds significant impacts, the study shall include proposed engineering or operational controls to reduce the probability or severity of significant accidents. If additional engineering and operation controls are not adequate to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant, the applicant shall consult with the County Health Services Department to identify feasible changes in the proposed project necessary to further reduce the probability or severity of significant accidents. The changes may require moving project components. (MM 11-6a) 23. Prior to start-up, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Health Services Department, that the measures detailed in the approved Hazard and Operability studies have been implemented. (MM 1 1-6a) 24. Prior to the commencement of any construction to modify any portion of the proposed Clean Fuels project which has the potential to generate an off-site hazard from process upset, the applicant shall provide written notice to the County Health Services Department and to the County Zoning Administrator and obtain a determination as to whether the change requires an new Hazard and Operability Study and accident consequence analysis. If the Zoning Administrator determines that the analysis is required, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Conditions #22 and #23 above for the modification to the project. (MM 1 1-6b) ODOR PREVENTION 25. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for the Sour Water System,the Delayed Coking Unit,the Sulfur Recovery Unit, the Hydrogen Plan, the Flare System and the Distillate Hydrotreater, the applicant shall provide adequate evidence to the County Zoning Administrator that total hydrogen sulfide concentration (background plus project) will not exceed the odor threshold as defined in the project Final EIR. If the total hydrogen sulfide concentrations exceed the threshold, the applicant shall detail the revisions to the designs the above named units that will reduce emissions of odorous sulfur compounds, such that they will not con- tribute to concentrations (including background) above the significance threshold identified in the project Final EIR. (MM 8=12) 8 26. The applicant shall monitor concentrations of hydrogen sulfide using existing monitors sensitive to concentrations on the order of 0.001 ppm. The monitoring reports shall be submitted on a monthly basis to the BAAQMD. An annual summary of the monitoring reports shall be submitted to the County Community Development Department. (MM 8-12) 27. If excedances of the odor threshold occur after implementation of the project, the applicant shall implement the following measures (MM 8-12): A. Determine the source of odors and the nature of the odor-causing incident (e.g. maintenance process fluctuation, operator error, weather conditions); B. Implement improved operating procedures and/or controls for identified odor sources and odor-causing conditions, so as to reduce maximum concentrations to below the odor significance threshold identified in the project Final EIR. AIRPORT SAFETY 28. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administra- tion regarding the installation of lights on any equipment which exceeds 200 feet in height. The applicant shall install red strobe lights on any equipment which exceeds 200 feet in height unless prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration. CONSTRUCTION PERIOD NOISE AND LIGHTING RESTRICTIONS 29. Noise generating construction activities(e.g. demolition, grading) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday, and shall be prohibited on State and federal holidays. Concrete pours begun during the allowed construction period may continue until completion. The unloading of equipment is allowed outside of the specified construction period. However, the Zoning Administrator may, after receipt of complaints from neighboring property owners, restrict this activity to the times listed in this condition. Noise generating construction activities may be allowed on Saturdays following written approval by the Zoning Administrator. 30. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons, with name,title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their areas of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major construction activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. 9 31 . Noise-generating construction activities(e.g. demolition, grading) at the office building location, the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot, and the tank construction area in the southeast portion of the site shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, with no construction work allowed on State and federal holidays (MM 10-a/2a) 32. Construction noise sources, such as air compressors, for the construction activities on the office building site, the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot site, and the tank sites at the southeastern portion of the complex, be located as far north on the sites as possible to maximize the distance to sensitive noise receptors to the south. All construction equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained. (MM 10-1c/2c) 33. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the commencement of construction for the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot, a standard plywood construction fence noise barrier shall be erected along Pacheco Boulevard adjacent to the parking lot construction site. The fence shall be eight (8) feet high and constructed of solid 3/4-inch minimum thickness plywood. The fence shall be removed after the noise-generating paving and grading activities are concluded. (MM 10-2d) 34. Flood or area lighting needed for construction activities shall be placed and directed so as not to shine on residential or commercial properties. (MM 15-13) OPERATIONAL NOISE REQUIREMENTS 35. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the commencement of construction for any element of the project which would generate noise, the applicant shall: A. Submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval, detailed noise level calculations delineating the noise control treatments included in the design and calculated noise levels demonstrating compliance with the following noise performance standard: 77 dBA when measured five (5) feet above the ground and 100 feet from the equipment. This analysis shall be performed by an individual who is a registered engineer or a member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and who has at least five years experience is noise control engineering. (MM 10-4a/b). B. Submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval a noise monitoring Plan. The Plan shall specify noise monitoring requirements for certifying the project's compliance with the noise performance standard specified in Condition #35.A., shall identify procedures for handling remedial noise control, if required, and shall specify reporting requirements (MM 10-4c) BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN 36. Submit to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, with a copy to the City of Martinez, a plan for improving bicycle use on Marina Vista during both the construction phase and the operational phase of the project. The plan may include participation with the City of Martinez in the improvement of an alternate bicycle route, 10 including a connection from Marina Vista to the planned bicycle lane on the proposed new Benicia Bridge span, subject to the review of the East Bay Regional Parks District and City of Martinez, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Construct the improvements as outlined in the plan from 1-680 to Shell Avenue, or contribute to the City of Martinez the equivalent construction cost for the improve- ments, subject to the review of the City, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified in writing of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-15) Shell Oil shall be obligated to provide a trail easement from the Bay Trail to Marina Vista. The location and alignment of the trail shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the East Bay Regional Park District and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez and the East Bay Regional Park District shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. GENERAL TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS 37. The requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements as detailed in Conditions #38 through #44 and Conditions #47 through #70 will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Unless exceptions are specifically granted,this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914(Drainage) and Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Unless otherwise noted in the Environmental Impact Report or in these conditions of approval, the improvements required herein shall be completed prior to commission (start-up) of the proposed facilities. 38. Coordinate with Southern Pacific and contribute the necessary funding for the modification or replacement of the existing automatic crossing protection to include crossing gates at Marina Vista in the vicinity of the Genstar Gate. The new or modified crossing protection shall be designed to accommodate the ultimate improvements on Marina Vista, or at the minimum, to accommodate the traffic identified in the 2010 cumulative scenario in the EIR, and will conform to CPUC standard No. 9A (Highway Crossing Signal Assembly Automatic Gate Type with Cantilever Arm), subject to the review of the CPUC and the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-12) 39. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this project. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division. 11 40. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. 41 . An encroachment permit for construction within the State right of way shall be obtained from Caltrans through the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 42. Provide for adequate sight distance at the P-2, P-3, Genstar, and Fairview access gate and the Shell Avenue access to the proposed office facility, for a design speed of 40 miles per hour in accordance with Caltrans standards. 43. On all public roads with longitudinal slopes less than five percent, all public pedestrian access ways shall be designed in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap access). This shall include all driveway depressions as well as handicap ramps. 44. Obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Martinez for any work within the City limits. 45. The applicant shall prohibit construction and material truck deliveries which originate within the State of California, with the exception of concrete delivery trucks, between the hours of 6:00 to 8:00 AM and 4:30 to 6:30 PM (MM 12-1 d) 46. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Zoning Administrator of compliance with Mitigation Measure 8-1 a. The Measure requires that he applicant include in all contracts with companies involved in the construction of the project that daily average vehicle ridership equal not less than 1 .15 (BAAQMD goal for Contra Costa County, 1194). The average daily ridership shall be calculated based upon the definition construction BAAQMD Regulation 13, Rule 2. To the extent that the average vehicle ridership can not be achieved, the applicant may propose alternative measurable pollution reducing alternatives for implementation. In the event that local commute rules also apply, the most stringent rules shall be followed. (MM 8-1 a) FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS 47. A. Construct curb, six-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, signing and striping, and necessary pavement widening along the Pacheco Boulevard frontage between Wygal Drive and the easterly Shell property line. The face of the curb shall be 40 feet from the centerline of the road. The graded hinge point in the cut areas shall be a minimum of 8 feet from the face of the curb. Construct a 6-foot sidewalk (width measured from curb face)from the above sidewalk at Wygal Drive to the P-3 Gate at Pacheco Boulevard. Standard curb returns with ramps shall be constructed at Wygal Drive. 12 The face of curb along the frontage of the ACE Hardware property at Wygal Drive shall be located 44 feet from the centerline of the road to provide for on street parking. The frontage improvements along the ACE property shall be constructed by the applicant only if the property owner dedicates the appropriate road widening to the County at no cost. If the property owner (ACE) refuses, in writing, to dedicate the area for the frontage improvements, then the applicant will not be required to construct the frontage improvements and will conform at each end of the ACE property. Level the depressed section of existing pavement along the curb at the creek crossing, east of Howe Road on Pacheco Road. B. Construct curb, six-foot six-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and necessary pavement widening along the Shell Avenue frontage of the old County Corporation Yard (site of the proposed Shell office building) on the west side of the road. The face of the curb shall be 20 feet from the centerline of the road. 48. Construct four-foot rock shoulders along both sides of Shell Avenue subject to the review of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. This may require the installation of longitudinal and transverse drainage to replace the existing roadside ditches. The four-foot rock shoulders will not be required at the following locations: A. in areas where a new curb is to be constructed, such as the County Corpora- tion_Yard frontage. B. In the vicinity of the utility bridge. C. In areas with curb adjacent to the travel lane, and D. In the vicinity of Pacheco Boulevard, if not feasible. Provide for a safe pedestrian access, along Shell Avenue or along an alternate alignment,from the proposed office site to the existing sidewalk at Pacheco Boulevard, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. This may be implemented by providing a 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk along the west side of Shell Avenue, an 8-foot parking lane and two 12-foot travel lanes from the County Corporation Yard to Pacheco Boulevard with an alignment subject to the review of the Public Works Department and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The widening of Shell Avenue south of the County Corporation Yard may require installation of a retaining wall, guard rail and relocation of a portion of the existing sidewalk on the east side of the street. All improvements along Shell Avenue shall be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed administrative offices. 13 49. Install a traffic signal at the Gate P-3/Pacheco Boulevard intersection, and interconnect the new signal with the existing signals on Pacheco Boulevard at Howe Road, Morello Avenue, and Shell Avenue. Installation of microwave connections between these signals is acceptable, if feasible. (EIR Chapter 12, Section II.A.3.b; page 12-34) 50. The applicant shall be required to repair damaged sections of curb and sidewalk along the Pacheco Boulevard and Marina Vista frontage of the Shell Oil property. 51 . Execute a deferred improvement agreement to construct curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from the curb face) at the ultimate location, along with longitudinal and transverse drainage and necessary pavement widening along the Marina Vista frontage from the end of the existing curb gutter and sidewalk near Shell Avenue to the easterly property boundary. The improvements shall be constructed when the bicycle/pedestrian connection between Marina Vista and the proposed new Benicia Bridge span is constructed. The intent is to provide a pedestrian facility along the south side of Marina Vista to tie into the bicycle/pedestrian connection from the new Benicia Bridge. OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 52. Prior to project initiation submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan prepared by an independent traffic consultant, subject to the review of Caltrans and the review and approval of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. The following .elements shall be included in the study: A. Transportation Demand Reduction Plan. B. Congestion Monitoring Program. C. Access Management Plan. Any operational or capacity problems created as a result of the Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be mitigated subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. This may entail construction of additional physical road improvements. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1a) 53. Construct a temporary traffic signal at the Fairview Gate that is consistent with Caltrans and County standards, and operate the signal during the construction period. At the completion of the construction period, the signal shall be dismantled. The signal design shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1 b and 12-5) 54. Prior to project initiation, install a connecting roadway between the Fairview parking lot and the Genstar internal roadway. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1 c) 14 55. Should the Construction Traffic Management Plan identify the need, widen Pacheco Boulevard in the vicinity of Morello Avenue to, provide one additional westbound through lane at the Pacheco Boulevard/Morello Avenue intersection, and modify the existing signal to its ultimate location and configuration. This improvement will involve the adjustment of the Contra Costa Water District siphon manhole. The additional lane shall extend a minimum of 250 feet east of Morello Avenue. This improvement shall constitute the project's pro-rata share of the Pacheco Boulevard widening off-site. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-3 and 12-6). The design of the signal and the signing and striping on Morello Avenue shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. If the Traffic Management Plan does not identify the need to improve the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Morello Avenue, then the applicant shall contribute the project's pro-rata share of widening Pacheco Boulevard from Morello Avenue to Arthur Road. 56. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Martinez Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The fee will be based upon the number of new permanent shift employees impacting the PM peak hour, plus the square footage of the proposed office building, plus the number of new, permanent administrative employees which will not be stationed in the proposed office facility. The fee associated with the new office facility will be collected prior to issuance of building permits for the facility. Existing office buildings which are removed from the site shall be credited toward this fee subject to the review of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 57. Reconfigure the intersection of Marina Vista and Amorco Road to provide for adequate truck turning radii, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. If there are right of way conflicts with the railroad which cannot be resolved or acquired prior to completion of the improvements for this project, then the applicant shall contribute their fair share of the cost of the improvements to the City to be held 'in a trust fund for the construction of the intersection improvements. PAVEMENT DETERIORATION AND MAINTENANCE 58. Rebuild the pavement structural section of. Marina Vista between the Fairview Gate and the Interstate Highway 680 northbound ramps, subject to the review of the City of Martinez and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4, 12-8 and 13-6) 59. Contribute a fair share amount toward the reconstruction of the pavement structural section of the Interstate Highway 680 northbound and southbound on-and off-ramps at Marina Vista. The fair share amount shall be based upon the project-generated truck ADT on the ramps versus the total truck ADT on the ramps. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4, 12-8 and 13-6) 15 60. Prepare and implement a pavement monitoring program for Marina Vista,subject to the review of the City of Martinez, and for the Interstate 680 on- and off-ramps, subject to the review of Caltrans. These improvements shall also be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. The monitoring program shall require: A. Video evidence of the pavement conditions before and after the project. B. Posting of a pavement repair bond. C. The exclusion of specific County and City roads from truck delivery routes to the site, which for safety and maintenance reasons, cannot support additional truck traffic. (EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4) D. The applicant shall contract with the County to have a road rating and deflection analysis performed before and after project construction to determine the extent of remedial work to be performed. Remedial work shall consist of pavement repair and/or pavement overlay and reconstruction of portions of the road as deemed necessary to bring the road to at least its pre-construction condition. The scope of work for the contract shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez and subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. ROAD DEDICATIONS 61. Convey to the County and the City of Martinez, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Shell Avenue as required for the planned future half-width of 30 feet at the time improvements on Shell Avenue are needed. Convey to the City of Martinez, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Marina Vista as required for the planned future width of 60 feet at the time improvements on Marina Vista are needed. The applicant shall execute an agreement with the County and the City, wherein the applicant shall agree to dedicate the additional right of way when the improvements are needed and the County and City decides to construct the improvements. The applicant shall also agree to not construct any new facilities within the area to be dedicated and that any facilities currently within the area to be dedicated that are to be reconstructed or replaced, shall be relocated outside of the area to be dedicated at the time of replacement or reconstruction. The intent is that over time the area to be dedicated shall be cleared of all existing facilities through the routine maintenance and replacement of the facilities. At the time the road improvements are needed, any facilities that remain within the area to be dedicated shall be relocated and paid for as a part of the road improvement project. The applicant, however, shall be responsible for relocating any facilities that were reconstructed or replaced within the area to be 16 dedicated, in violation of the intent of this condition. In addition, for those facilities that are replaced rather than relocated, the applicant shall participate in the replace- ments costs of the facilities in relation to the benefit derived by replacing the old facility with a new facility. The agreement shall include a map, as an exhibit, which shall depict the areas to be dedicated. Upon execution of the agreement,the applicant shall show the area to be dedicated on their planning, engineering and maintenance drawings, maps, and documents to ensure implementation of the provisions of the agreement. The agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the Public Works Department and shall be reviewed by the City of Martinez and shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. The agreement shall be executed prior to completion of the project improvements. 62. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Pacheco Boulevard as required for the planned future half-width of 50 feet. 63. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Shell Avenue along the frontage of the administration building project (Helena Avenue to the utility bridge) for the planned future half width of 30 feet. 64. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Jefferson Street as required for the planned future width of 56 feet. 65. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way and necessary slope easements on Helena Avenue for the planned future half width on the north side of 28 feet. STREET LIGHTS 66. Install street lights along the Shell Avenue frontage-of this property between Helena Avenue and the utility bridge (the County Corporation Yard). The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 67. Install additional safety street lighting (such as at intersections) along the Pacheco Boulevard frontage of the Shell Oil property.. The final number and location of the lights shall be determined by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. 68. Install additional safety street lighting (such as at intersections) along the Marina Vista frontage, if deemed necessary by the City of Martinez subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The final number and location of the lights shall be subject to the review of the City of Martinez subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The City of Martinez shall be notified, in writing, of any administrative decisions by the Zoning Administrator within three days of the date of the decision. 17 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 69. Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires conveying of all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Since storm waters entering or originating within the property are discharged into the natural watercourse traversing the property, the applicant will be permitted an excep- tion from the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance Code providing it is shown that storm waters do not back up onto public or private property outside of the project boundaries. In addition, the applicant shall execute an agreement (drainage release) accepting the storm waters onto the applicant's property and holding the County harmless from any damage caused by the storm waters crossing the applicant's property. 70. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalks and driveways. FLARE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 71 . The use of an alternate flare system which would include a number of smaller flare "stems" as described in the "Flare System Alternative" of the Final EIR (refer to page 20-18 of the Draft EIR) is allowed upon approval of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. LANDSCAPING PLANS 72. Within six (6) months of the effective date of the land use permit, the applicant shall submit to the County Zoning Administrator for review and approval a Landscaping Plan for the project site. Prior to submittal to the County, the applicant shall submit the Plan to the City of Martinez for their review and comment. Any City comments or requests for changes which are not incorporated in the proposed Landscape Plan, shall be summarized and submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The purpose of the Landscaping Plan is to reduce the visual impact of the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible as visible from Highway 680 and from the Marina Vista "Gateway" to the City of Martinez. The Landscaping Plan shall be prepared by a Certified Landscape architect and shall improve the visual appearance of: A. The proposed project as viewed from Highway 680 and from the Marina Vista Interchange; and B. The area between the Light Crude Tank and residential areas if relocation of the tank is found to be infeasible (refer to Condition #2.C.). (MM 4-6) 18 Since the proposed project would include structures that may be up to 300 feet in height, landscaping would have limited success as a screen. Thus, the focus of the Landscaping Plan shall be to improve the visual character of the area to the maximum extent feasible. The Landscaping Plan shall provide for: A. Increasing the height and length of the existing berm which runs along the northeastern boundary of the Complex; B. The use of berms throughout the landscaped areas to increase the height of the land and thus provide for greater visual screening; C. The use of evergreen trees with minimum mature heights consistent with the existing mature trees at the northeast portion of the complex; D. The landscaping of a sufficiently large area to achieve the goal of improving the visual character of the proposed project area. E. Consideration of placing trees adjacent to Highway 680; F. A schedule for Plan implementation; and G. Ongoing maintenance and replacement of landscaping that dies. (MM 13-8b(i)) The implementation of the Landscaping Plan shall be completed according to the schedule specified in the approved plan. The applicant shall provide evidence to the County Community Development Department that a landscape plan for the screening along Marina Vista has been approved by the City of Martinez. The Plan shall be consistent with Mitigation Measure 15-5 of the Final EIR. The applicant shall notify the County Community Development Department when the landscaping has been completed as provided for in the approved Plan. (MM 15-5) RECLAIMED WATER 73. The applicant shall complete a feasibility study for the use of reclaimed water for industrial use. The study, which shall be prepared in consultation with the Contra Costa Water District,shall identify water quality standards necessary for industrial use, and determine the mix of raw and reclaimed water which would meet these standards (MM 13-8b(i)) OTHER REQUIREMENTS 74. The maintenance, warehouses and control buildings shall not exceed 40 feet in height (MM 4-3) 19 If the applicant is responsible for the demolition of the facilities located at the County Yard on Shell Avenue, the applicant shall comply with Conditions #31 and #32 with respect to the demolition of the site. (MM 8-13) 75. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9,the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the. Contra Cosa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 76. A. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. B. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site,there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. C. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Any artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent with current archaeological standards. 77. The Zoning Administrator shall hold public hearings at a frequency of one peryear during the first five years and every three years thereafter for the sole purpose of determining the applicant's compliance with the land use permit conditions. 78. The applicant shall submit an annual report to the Director of Community Development on the facility's compliance with the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The report shall include supporting information from other 20 regulatory agencies as applicable. For each mitigation measure, the report shall identify the compliance with the measure, the procedures or standards used to judge the compliance as applicable, times and dates of the monitoring and whether further action is required. 79. Within 18 months of the effective date of this permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the facility's "Office Education Program" has been expanded. 80.. Prior to the start-up of any project unit, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator that the Emergency manual has been updated to include the project units. 81. Prior to the start-up for each project element which manages hazardous materials, the applicant shall update the Hazardous Materials Business Plan. 82. The applicant shall, upon the request of the County, participate with the County in community emergency response notification and education programs. 83. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the office building or prior to the start-up of the project units, the applicant shall comply with the County Childcare Ordinance. ADVISORY NOTES A. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. B. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within the development that may affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. C. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required. D. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. E. The applicant will be required to pay an environmental review fee of $850.00 for the Department of Fish and Game at the end of the appeal period. Failure to do so will result in fines. A check for this fee shall be submitted to Contra Costa County for submittal with the final environmental documents. 21 G. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construc- tion liand industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Region II or Central Valley - Region V). (EIR Mitigation Measure 5-3, 6-1 and 7-1) H. The applicant will be required to submit to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District for review and comment fire prevention and protection system plans for the Clean Fuels project operating equipment and fire supply. CK/aa LUPXXXVIII/2009-92C.CK 9/2/93 Agenda Item #1 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION SHELL OIL COMPANY (Applicant & Owner), County File #2009-92: The applicant requests approval of a land use permit for their proposed "Clean Fuels Project". If approved, the project would involve the construction and operation of 16 processing units, support facilities including a cooling water tower, a steam and electric power generating plant, a boiler feedwater treatment unit, an oily wastewater treatment unit and an emergency relief flaring system. Approximately 20 storage tanks, a 115 KV high voltage substation, an office building and short and long term parking areas are also'proposed. Additional facilities such as operator field stations and control rooms would also be constructed. The proposed project is located on numerous parcels which total approximately 80 acres of the 880 acre Martinez Manufacturing Complex located south of Marina Vista, west of Highway 680 and north of Pacheco Boulevard in the unincorporated area. (H-1) (ZA: H-1/N-3) (CT 3200.01) 11. RECOMMENDATION A. Accept the Zoning Administrator's recommendation to certify the Final EIR as adequate and complete; B. Certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete, and that the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project; C. Receive public testimony on the proposed Land Use Permit Application, and continue the public hearing to the Commission's September 7, 1993 hearing; The proposed Conditions of Approval are currently being prepared, and will be included in a supplemental staff report prepared for your September 7, 1993 hearing. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY: The proposed project would be located within the 880 acre Martinez Manufacturing Complex and on the 5.6 acre parcel on Shell Avenue currently occupied by the County Fleet Maintenance Facilty. The Martinez Manufacturing Complex is located within the unincor- porated area and within the City of Martinez. The main portion of the Complex is bordered by Marina Vista Boulevard to the north, Interstate 680 to the east, Pacheco Boulevard to the south and Merrithew Avenue to the west. 2 The surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, industrial and open space (refer to Figure 1). B. SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would be located on approximately 80 acres of the 880 acre Martinez Manufacturing Complex and on a 5.6 acre parcel currently occupied by the County Fleet Maintenance Facility. The majority of the project improvements would be located at the northeastern portion of the site, the area which has been occupied by the Genstar Roofing and Trumbull Asphalt Companies (refer to Figure 2: Proposed Project Facilities). A number of other processing units and support facilities such as the Lube Hydrotreater, the Distillate Saturation Unit and the Cogeneration Facility, would be located in the south central portion of the Complex. The project also involves the use of the 5.6 acre parcel on Shell Avenue which is currently occupied by the County Fleet Maintenance Building and the Agricultural Department's Weights and Measures Division. The project proposes to use this property to construct an office building. Prior to this construction, the property would be used for a parking and laydown area. Additional project components would be located within the City of Martinez. As shown on Figure 3, the pentane loading rack, truck scales and a dimate tank would be located within the incorporated area. The applicant has submitted a separate application to the City of Martinez for those components. C. GENERAL PLAN: The proposed project is predominately located within the unincorporated area, with portions located within the City of Martinez. 1. County General Plan: The Martinez Manufacturing Complex is desig- nated "Heavy Industry" (H-1) which allows oil refining and other manufacturing uses. The proposed project's consistency with each of the General Plan elements is discussed in the Environmental Impact Report (E1R). The recommended mitigation measures necessary to bring the project into compliance with the General Plan will be incorporated into the proposed Conditions of Approval. 2. City of Martinez General Plan: The consistency of the proposed project with the City of Martinez General Plan is discussed in the EIR (refer to Chapter 4) The recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed Conditions of Approval as applicable to the requested land use permit. D. ZONING: The majority of the Martinez Manufacturing Complex is located within the Heavy Industrial Zoning District, as shown on Figure 4. There are no height or lot size/dimension requirements for this District. A small portion of the southeast corner of the site is zoned Controlled Heavy Industrial (W-3), General Agricultural (A-2) and General Commercial (C). However,the proposed project does not involve improvements within any of these other Zoning Districts. ' I � ' � �� ia'�£,i„• 'fix 7. r i P ��♦♦t i -, yI � -sxr � y En 1. .. oa �� Ise/Q ” ,(�,�°o I O Q 7i\y•' ♦ ...ice \ y co 0 13 sl- r i . oil 1♦- rri00 11 (fi IJP ® o�► OM ti•� m If31 = 1?ZIm Iro I :ilalwl + lig liol = loltolaelvlCD C" lulro 1 — I I I I $gyp\,�+ "j;A �•* + � •`iii '� s�m �� �1.� O IN - `� • %�°••.• e�,.�®tel \ „r��• � a�:. ®�••� „ ql; � •�.�,yyrrs�. � . Ir C21 ii O 1, �� �,OY�`�1., �' I , ��-a:., m�`I� v, �i��'•rte • ,.�.;•�` ,• �°�;�(` �,C�;P. ter..:-,:..,�, :, y•,\•f.:, :,�r,-y .. _:, r.; ; gid :•�, .. . ....... .....�. +r-i�` i� �o ` ,rte y •• fj.., e j v00 [...,.{f'U /�� � O O� �/��,•J .\ I J J' 8 r r 11 t t I, l O O O ;} 1 i 0 Oj .:: ...... 1 �... F , I .i F. j•� i 8 _ ! ® — �� of000 ®j r•, i I r VY /r©©00 — I( URA 1'. ® ®®®c®®®®®ee cocoa coma fit loffi ,. � � ���m � �'•••�.• /-fir � z�. � x n ,'�,> � ;p �•270 .,t � �A z 16�` �, y � O " �,' e�� � ,•'L 69 LTi T SII '�'" « ""�` m \ • m // i � i% •� 1111 t f�p •° �Ir 006` a.Q /.ice m m m .000 pQo • a 1 O O i r'f 8 0n SO r` rn !4 O y�'�Dp;, 'moo, Oil ttfifi f ❑ `•,.� Li ; � Qlyi;i• �s ❑ o tt 0° 0 i 00• 06ES u e O " O + . O 0000 00 O 0,;, 1E) CA ......... w i AA ,ii..; .:::. air. � O •\� is p 0 0 © c0 i\ p ; 0 ®®®e6®eemem OOOo© O©m0 IN SL 0 • f � moi' ,\i �`w 1j� stt-�V• �'- ,` �v�.1"��k 40 �e� 1mi coo 0 �� i is ✓: ` Q -�] .................... ........_ _ _ A °! © Q� j ! �; '!!1 ..J( _- :,R ' 000 00 0 00 C r Ea Mi28 n 1 (,1 A , ! OQQOQ ; 3 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed "Clean Fuels Project" has three objectives: To modify the facility in order to produce gasoline which meets the federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and the State 1990 Clean Air Act while maintaining existing production volume; To upgrade high sulfur, heavy fuels to cleaner, more valuable products; and To allow other oxygenates and gasoline within Tank #s 12445 and 12446 which were constructed for the storage of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES: The 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments and the 1990 State Clean Air Act established a phased system for requiring significant changes to the gasoline that is produced. Phase I and Phase 11 of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act amendments set requirements for reid vapor pressure and oxygenate levels. These Phases were implemented on January 1 , 1992 and November 1, 1992 respectively. Phase III of the federal Clean Air Act amendments requires the most drastic changes in gasoline specifications and subsequently, changes to the refineries. The amendments require "reformulated" gasoline to be available at service stations pumps in the nation's nine worst ozone non-attainment areas, which includes the San Francisco Bay Area, and the California Central Valley. Reformulated gasoline is a fuel designed to produce cleaner combustion in motor vehicles than the gasoline presently available. Through cleaner combustion, improvements in air quality and public health can be realized. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments require reformulated to be available at gasoline pumps by January 1, 1995. Additional discussion of the regulatory requirements is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR (refer to "Objectives and Requirements" on page 3-12) and Chapter. 8 (refer to "Applicable Rules and Standards on page 8-1). The California Air Resources Board Regulations require additional specifications (e.g. olefin content, oxygen content) be met by March 1, 1996. The discussion of the benefits of the regulations statewide and as a result of the proposed project is discussed in Chapter 18 of the EIR: B. PROJECT ELEMENTS: The proposed project would involve the demolition and relocation of existing facilities at the Complex, excavation and grading to prepare the construction sites, construction of new processing units and ancillary facilities, and the modification of existing facilities to integrate the Clean Fuels Project. In addition, a 100,000 square foot office building would be constructed on the current site of the County Fleet Maintenance Facility on Shell Avenue. 4 1. PROCESSING UNITS: The project involves the construction of 16 processing units as listed below. The list includes a brief description of the size and shape of the unit. The purpose of each unit is summarized in Figure 5, and is described in detail in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. The Unit numbers correspond to the location shown on Figure 2): #1: C5/C6 Isomerization Unit, including the Decyclohexanizer: This unit would include two prominent columns which are approxi- mately 200 feet in height by 14 feet in diameter, and 130 feet in height and 6 feet in diameter. #2: Hydrogen Plant: This plant would include a stack approximately 300 feet in height and 13 feet in diameter. #3: Distillate Hydrotreater: This unit would have three prominent structures: two columns and the stack associated with the heater. The columns would be 120 feet by 6 feet and 110 feet by 11 feet. The stack would have a maximum height of 300 feet. #4: Delayed Coker with Coker Gasoline Splitter Column: This unit would be the most visible from Highway 680. The unit consists of six vertical drums in a row surrounded by a support structure 120 feet in.height, with a combined length of 180 feet and a width of 30 feet. Drilling equipment located on the top of the drums would add 130 feet, resulting in a combined height of 250 feet. #5: Coke Barn: The coke barn would be the largest component of the proposed project. The barn would be similar to an A-frame structure with a rectangular base 400 feet in length and 200 feet wide. The height of the barn would be 100 feet at the roof's peak. #7: Lube Hydrotreater: The Lube Hydrotreater would include a stack and heater. the stack would be 300 feet in maximum height by 2 feet in diameter. The Hydrotreater would be similar in appear- ance to the existing Lube Hydrotreater (refer to Figure 15-5 on page 15-14 of the Draft EIR). #16 Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater: This unit would include a heater and stack. The stack would be a maximum of 300 feet in height and 3 feet in diameter. #17 Alkylation Unit: This unit would include four prominent columns which are approximately 200 feet, 170 feet 155 feet and 135 feet in height. 5 #18 Butane Isomerization: This unit would include two prominent columns. The height and diameter of the columns would be approximately 200 feet by 13 feet and 100 feet by 6 feet. #19: Light Cracked Gasoline Treater: This unit would include one prominent column which is approximately 180 feet in height and 9 feet in diameter. #23 Distillate Saturation Unit: This unit would have one prominent structure, a stack which would be approximately 150 feet in height. 2. ANCILLARY UNITS AND EQUIPMENT: To support new processing units, additional equipment and systems are proposed. A description of the function of each of these project elements is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR. The numbers refer to the location as shown on Figure 2. They include: #9 Sulfur Recovery Unit and Sour Water System: This unit would include three columns with heights of 105 to 135 feet and a stack with a height of 300 feet. #10 Cogeneration Facility: This facility would include a stack with 15 _ foot diameter and a maximum height of 300 feet. #11 Boiler Feedwater Treater: This unit would be one of the smaller of the proposed improvements. It would include tanks (20 feet in height and 20 to 50 feet in diameter) #12 Cooling Water Tower: This unit would be a box-type structure approximately 75 feet in height, similar in appearance to the existing tower shown in Figure 15-7 of the Draft EIR. #15 Flare System: The Flare System would include two flares approximately 30 feet in height. Each flare would have a continual pilot flame but would flare only as necessary to dispose of flammable gases during emergencies and maintenance. 3. ADDITIONAL PROJECT COMPONENTS: The proposed project also involves the construction of control rooms, a maintenance building, 3 warehouse buildings, a 100,000 square foot office building, parking lots for construction and long-term use and nineteen storage tanks. The tanks would act a feed tanks, would provide process unit intermediate storage and would store products. A description of the size of the new tanks is provided in Figure 6. Further information on these components is provided in the Final EIR. 0 mr. rr � � � � _ � � •, v G �, $ � „ tad � x �• � `' _. tz o 8 � zrn c to ro b b 1= Un Ro og 09 a FIGURE 6 PROPOSED NEW TANK DIMENSIONS ......... .... . .. ............. ................ ... ... .. ........................... ... ... . .. .............. .... ......... . ...... ... ... .. ......... Numtier of Maximum New Tanks Tanks Diamet orHeight Lube.Crude Tanks 2 150' 48' Dimate Tank 1 134' 30' Isomerization Feed 1 144' 34.5' Tank Heavy Naphtha Tank 1 87' 47' Sour Water Tank 1 110' 60' Declayed Coking 1 120' 48' Unit Recycle Oil Tank Delayed Coking Unit 1 150' 48' Feed Tank CS Tanks 3 90' 60' Lt. Crude Tank (#1) 1 110' 60' Lt. Crude Tank (#2) 1 230' 48' Olefin Sphere 1 50' --- Liquified Petroleum 1 42' --- Gases Sphere Alkylate Tank 1 123' 48' Butane Sphere 1 50' --- Effluent Holding 1 50' 48' Tank Sludge Thickener 1 60' 40' Tank 6 C. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION/IMPLEMENTATION: The project would be constructed over a five year period, and would involve up to an estimated 1750 construction employees per day during peak periods. In order to prepare for construction of the proposed project, some existing equipment and facilities would require demolition. Areas and equipment to be demolished are listed in Figure 7 (Location of Demolition and Relocation Activities), and include old crude reservoirs, old tanks and concrete slabs. The project would also involve grading (approximately 308,000 cubic yards of cut and 408,000 cubic yards, of fill) at the locations identified in Figure 8. Additional information regarding the grading is provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR (refer to page 3-58). V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The EIR identified environmental impacts which would occur if the proposed project would be implemented. The EIR includes recommended mitigation measures which would reduce most of the impacts to a level of less than significant. The mitigation measures will be included in the proposed Conditions of Approval. The EIR also identified impacts which could not be reduced to a "less than significant" level, and impacts which were found to be beneficial. A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts: The EIR found that a number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of less than significant. These impacts are in the air quality, noise, risk of upset and visual quality topic areas. Mitigation measures have been identified for most of these impacts; however, the mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. The description and analysis of these "Significant and Unavoidable" Impacts is provided in the Final EIR. The discussions of these impacts are located in the Final EIR as follows: 1. AIR QUALITY: Five of the twenty-two air quality impacts were found to be "significant and unavoidable." Refer to Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR for Impacts 8-3, 8-5, 8-7 and 8-18. Refer to Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR and page 12-13 of the Response to Comments Document for discussion of Impact 8-1. 2. NOISE: All noise impacts were found to be mitigatable to a level of less than significant except the noise associated with the construction of the office building and the Pacheco Boulevard parking lot (refer to Chapter 10 of the Draft EIR for Impacts 10-2 and 10-11). 3. RISK OF UPSET: The risk of upset impact was determined to be "significant and unavoidable." Refer to Chapter 11 of the Draft EIR and page 12-19 in the Response to Comments Document for the discussion of Impact 11-6. NX jt ob cb •Ea • (� a 4\ 0 DOS +---• `C� to i \. :� . .• £� , i-> 00 00 w U i o .. ... .:.� ..., �,.♦i \�.;,....... .; r-,`�.I .. � hh � .A Ip lad .. � ,T�♦ /,:.,,\ i � B 0°00 p fob ;f o ate ; 00 20.0 d -� , 00 o (� 0 17 )j ."" ,'� �.; 0 '': _ oe®o®oe© o© •© 00010 ,} r '.ams. .•• 00 e®OOe©©OSL 2 v -- _ ,;4Yj eq IN 44* NI v ���J '\\ '�\/ `Jac', �" ' O•� �;i �•. �-..� .�{ . ..___ '�8•L? Ji �ti;; ®/\lj�(S�' �-.�ma.,.-:-:.,row.. .. .��i. ` • : , Oil ;c2L t , -...__. l "7777" _.Ai { ._....1 . C)ms eb i a . IWI 00 c '•��-oaf• ® �- - . i, �'L•, `i\ � ©©o GOGOOGGOGOGG I fill ® ®o®ee®®e®ee cocoa coca 7 4. VISUAL QUALITY: Visual quality was found be a significant and unavoidable impact from view areas along Highway 680 and at the "Gateway" to the City of Martinez. Refer to Chapter 15 of the Draft EIR for the discussion of Impact 15-6, 15-7 and 15-14. B. Beneficial Impacts: Motor vehicle emissions make up a major portion of total air emissions. Thus, reductions in motor vehicle emission would have a substantial beneficial effect on air quality. Both the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments and the California Clean Air Act include requirements that will improve vehicle emissions controls and phase in low-emission vehicles. The laws also require "reformulated" gasoline in order to reduce vehicle emissions. Reformulated gasoline is designed to reduce emissions of uncombusted hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which are major contributors to ground level ozone. Reformulated gasoline also reduces carbon monoxide emissions, which can reach non-attainment levels in over 24 California counties each winter. Reductions in sulfur will reduce sulfur oxide emissions and improve automotive catalytic converter performance. Reformulated gasoline substantially reduces the level of potentially carcinogenic air contaminants (benzene and 1,2-butadiene) in auto exhaust and evaporative emissions. The California Air Resources Board estimated that during the first year of reformulated gasoline use, volatile organic compounds will be reduced by 15 percent, nitrous oxide will be reduced by 6 percent, carbon monoxide by 17 percent and sulfur dioxide by 80 percent. These reductions translate to a reduction in adverse health effects. Health effects of air pollutants are commonly described in terms of the increase in cancer risk probability as a result of the pollutants. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District estimated that reduction in cancer risk in the Bay area as a result of reformulated gasoline requirements would be 129 in one million. This equates to 12 fewer cancer cases per year in the Bay area, of which 1.5 is attributable to this project. Based on the market share of Shell Oil's Martinez Complex, the proposed project would result in the following emission reductions: 1. San Francisco Bay Area: The proposed project would reduce Bay Area PM 10 emission by 9 tons per year, volatile organic compound emissions by 4,226 tons per year, nitrous oxide by 541 tons per year, sulfur dioxide by 1064 tons per year.and carbon monoxide by 19,736 tons per year. 8 2. Martinez area: The proposed project would reduce Martinez PM10 emissions by 9 tons per year, volatile organic compound emissions by 266 tons per year, nitrous oxide by 195 tons per year and sulfur dioxide by 322 tons per year. V. CEQA STATUS The Draft EIR was distributed for the 45-day public review period on May 7, 1993. The Zoning Administrator held public hearings to receive testimony on the adequacy of the document on May 26, 1993 and June 7, 1993. A Response to Comments document was prepared and was distributed on August 5, 1993 to responsible agencies and to agencies that commented on the Draft EIR. The areas evaluated by the EIR include: Land Use and Planning Policies Geology, Soils and Seismicity Hydrology and Water Quality Vegetation and Wildlife Air Quality and Public Health Risk of Upset Transportation and Noise Public Services and Visual Quality On August 10, 1993, the Zoning Administrator determined that the Final EIR was adequate and complete, and was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and with State and County CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator recommends that the Commission certify that the Final EIR is adequate and complete. The Zoning Administrator's Resolution is attached as Exhibit A. The mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will be incorporated into the proposed Conditions of Approval. VI. SUMMARY As noted in Section II of this report, a supplemental staff report will be prepared for your next meeting which will include proposed conditions of approval. Staff recommends that the Commission certify.the EIR and open the hearing to begin accepting testimony. CK/aa LUPXXXVIII/2009-92.CK 8/20/93 r RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHELL OIL COMPANY "CLEAN FUELS PROJECT" WHEREAS, on February 2, 1992, the Shell Oil Company (Applicant and Owner), submitted to the Community Development Department,a request for a proposed clean fuels project which would involve the construction and operation of sixteen 116) processing units, support facilities including a cooling water tower,a steam and electric power generating plant, a boiler feedwater treatment unit, an oily wastewater treatment unit and an emergency relief flaring system, approximately 20 storage tanks, a 115 KV high voltage substation, an office building and short and long term parking areas. Additional facilities such as operating field stations and control rooms would also be constructed; and WHEREAS,on September 11, 1992,the County Community Development Department issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP), registered the NOP with the State Clearinghouse, and sent notices by mail to potential Responsible Agencies and interested parties,thereby initiating a 30-day comment period which terminated on October 12, 1992, and included a public Scoping Session on September 30, 1992; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and issued on May 7, 1993,and a CEQA Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse, enacting a 45-day public comment period; and WHEREAS,on May 26, 1993, the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on the Draft EIR, at which time, all who wished to present testimony were heard; then the public hearing was continued to June 7, 1993 for further testimony; and WHEREAS,, on June 7, 1993, the County Zoning Administrator received further testimony,CLOSED the public hearing to oral testimony and confirmed June 21, 1993 as the deadline to receive written testimony on the adequacy and completeness of the Draft EIR;and WHEREAS,on August 5, 1993,a Response to Comments Document was prepared and distributed to commenting and Responsible Agencies, and notices were sent to others who previously requested notification advising of its availability; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator finds: That the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Shell Oil Company's proposed Clean Fuels Project, consisting of the May 1993 Draft EIR and the August 1993 Final EIR Response Document, was prepared, processed and completed in accordance with State and County CEQA Guidelines and with the California Environmental Quality Act; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the County Zoning Administrator on the basis of the record, hereby recommends that the County Planning Commission certify the final EIR as adequate and complete. rvey E. Br P Zoning Ad ind Director of Community D STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION #2009-92 ADOPTED BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 - A. Project Location and Description 1 B. The Environmental Impact Report 2 C. Scope of These Findings 3 D. Description of the Record 3 E. General Considerations 5 II. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 6 A. Land Use and Planning Policies 6 B. Geology, Soils and Seismicity 8 C. Hydrology and Water Quality 10 D. Vegetation and Wildlife 14 E. Air Quality 15 F. Noise 21 G. Risk of Upset 24 H. Transportation 26 I. Public Services 33 J. Visual Quality 36 III. DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 40 A. Cleans Fuels Only Alternative 41 B. Reduced Project Alternative 43 C. Visual Quality Improvements Alternative 45 D. Transportation Alternative 46 E. Findings 46 i J 1 IV. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS 47 A. Air Quality 48 B. Noise 48 C. Risk of Upset 49 D. Visual Quality 49 V. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 50 VI. IRREVERSIBLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 52 VII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 52 VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 53 A. Reduced Emissions 53 B. Beneficial Economic Impacts 54 C. Beneficial Energy Impacts 55 D. Beneficial Revenue Impacts 55 ii APS\44823.1 ti STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SHELL OIL COMPANY CLEAN FUELS PROJECT The Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa hereby adopts and makes the following Findings ("Findings") relating to its certification of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project ("Project") and the approval of the Land Use Permit for the Project. I. INTRODUCTION A. Project Location and Description 1. Location The Shell Oil Company Martinez Manufacturing Complex ("Complex") is located in Contra Costa County ("County") , partially within the boundaries of the City of Martinez. The main portion of the Complex is bordered by Marina Vista Boulevard to the north, Interstate 680 to the east, Pacheco Boulevard to the south, Merriweather Avenue to the west, and the Shell marine terminal to the northwest. The property is zoned industrial and is utilized as an oil refinery and manufacturing complex. 2 . Project Description The Project consists of the installation of new operating units and equipment to produce the cleaner, reformulated gasoline required under the State Clean Air Act and the Federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 while maintaining gasoline production for the Complex at current levels. The Project includes construction of a cogeneration plant to produce steam and electricity for the Complex. Equipment will also be added and physical changes undertaken to give the Complex the ability to upgrade high sulfur heavy fuels and lubricant oil distillates to higher value products, such as cleaner gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The Project will be constructed on approximately 80 acres dispersed throughout the existing Complex except for the construction of an office building at the Contra Costa County Maintenance Yard, which is located adjacent to the Complex and which will be acquired from the County for that purpose. 1 3 . Discretionary Approvals The County requires land use permits for "development projects" and "substantial expansions" involving the generation of, or increase in the generation of, certain stated amounts of hazardous materials or hazardous waste (Chapter 84-63 , Contra Costa County Code) . Because the Project will manage hazardous materials in amounts above the thresholds of the County ordinance, Shell must obtain a land use permit from the County for the Project. 4. Other Approvals The Project will be required to obtain a number of other permits and/or approvals in addition to the County land use permit. These permits and/or approvals include, but may not be limited to, the following: a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District - Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate. b. California Energy Commission - Small Power Plant Exemption. C. City of Martinez - Design Review approval. d. San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board - Potential amendment of the NPDES Permit ("NPDES Permit") . B. The Environmental Impact Report The County prepared an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") or a negative declaration would be prepared for the Project. The Initial Study indicated that the Project could have significant adverse environmental impacts, and the County directed that an EIR be prepared. A Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated to various responsible agencies, state agencies and federal agencies, to owner/occupants of property within 300 feet of the refinery boundary, and to any person who had filed a written request for notices with the County. The Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR" or "Draft EIR") was prepared by the County pursuant to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation. The DEIR was published for public review and comment on May 7 , 1993 . The DEIR was available for review and comment by concerned citizens and public agencies from May 7, 1993 2 to June 21, 1993 . The County Zoning Administrator held public hearings for the purpose of receiving oral testimony regarding the DEIR on May 26, 1993 and June 7 , 1993 . The County prepared written responses to comments received during the comment period and at the public hearings. The comments and responses were published and made available to the public on August 4 , 1993 , in two volumes entitled "Response to Comments Document for the Shell Oil Company Clean Fuels Project" ("Response to Comments") . A hearing was held before the County Zoning Administrator on August 10, 1993 . After reviewing the DEIR, the Response to Comments, and all available testimony and evidence in the record, the Zoning Administrator recommended that the Planning Commission certify the DEIR, together with the comments to the DEIR and the County's responses thereto, specifically including, but not limited to, all changes made to the DEIR in the Response to Comments, (collectively referred to as the "Project EIR, " "Final EIR" or, the "FEIR") , as having been completed in accordance with CEQA. For the purposes of these findings, the EIR consists of the Initial Study, the Notice of Preparation, the DEIR, all appendices to the DEIR, Response to Comments, the FEIR and all documents incorporated by reference into these documents. C. Scope of These Findings CEQA Guidelines at Section 15091 require that a project's significant environmental impacts identified in an EIR be addressed by one of three findings, as set forth at 15091 (a) . To insure that all significant project impacts are identified, and necessary findings made, these Findings list the significant impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR and set forth the corresponding required findings. (Some beneficial impacts are also discussed in these Findings. ) Some of the mitigation measures proposed in the FEIR have been modified by this Commission. D. Description of the Record For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record before this Commission includes, without limitation, the following: 1. All applications for approvals and development entitlements relating to the Project submitted by Shell to the County or other public entities; 3 2 . The DEIR for the Project, including appendices, and the FEIR; 3 . All County staff reports on the Project and the EIR; 4. All studies conducted for the Project and the EIR, and contained or referenced in the EIR, including appendices; 5. All public reports and documents prepared for the Planning Commission or the County; 6. All documentary and oral evidence either received and reviewed at, or obtained as a result of, public hearings relating to the Project and the EIR before the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission; 7. For documentary and informational purposes, the Contra Costa County General Plan and amendments thereto, including appendices; and the City of Martinez general plans and amendments thereto, including appendices; 8 . The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project prepared by the Community Development Department; and 9. All matters of common knowledge to this Commission, including, but not limited to (i) the County's zoning and , other ordinances; (ii) the County's fiscal status; (iii) the County's policies and regulations; (iv) reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the County; (v) state 'laws, regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Housing and Community Development and by the California Office of Planning and Research. 10. All written materials submitted to the County by Shell in support of the Application for Land Use Permit or the EIR for the Project. 11. All Permit conditions included in Land Use Permit No. 2009-92 4 y E. General Considerations 1. Reliance on the Record Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning Commission in all respects. 2 . Nature of Findings Any finding made by this Planning Commission shall be deemed made regardless of whether it appears in this document or is specifically labeled as a "Finding. " All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this Planning Commission, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This Planning Commission intends that these Findings be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any part of these Findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these Findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Planning Commission, with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project, shall be deemed made as it appears in any portion of these Findings. 3 . Summaries of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Facts, Alternatives and Other Matters All summaries of information relating to the Project are based on the referenced environmental documents and/or evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Moreover, the summaries set forth below, including, without limitation, summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives, are only summaries. Cross-references to the EIR and other documents in the record have been made and the reader should refer directly to those documents for more precise information regarding the facts on which the summary is based. All mitigation measures in this document are numbered to correspond with the impacts and mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR. 4 . Adoption of Mitigation Measures These Findings are based upon the numerous mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR or already included as part of the Project plans. This Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates into the Project those mitigation measures set forth 5 in the Project EIR which have not already been incorporated into the Project as modified in these findings. All of the mitigation measures now or previously incorporated into the Project as modified by these findings shall be implemented in connection with the Project in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation measures set forth in these findings, except as specifically designated as being measures proposed by the Project proponents as a part of the Project, are in addition to those measures proposed by the Project but can reasonably be expected to reduce adverse impacts of the Project. 5. Specific and General Mitigation The Project EIR generally identifies, for each potentially significant impact of the Project, one or more corresponding mitigation measures described below which may lessen or avoid identified impacts other than those for which they are specifically proposed. In light of the above, this Planning Commission finds that each mitigation measure adopted herein or already incorporated into the Project may avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts other than the impact which such mitigation measure is corresponded to in the Project EIR or below. II. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION A. Land Use and Planning Policies 1. Impact: The proposed office building and control buildings at the Complex could potentially exceed a height of 40 feet, thus conflicting with County General Plan standards applicable to the Complex's Heavy Industry land use designation. Mitigation: 4-3 . The proposed office building and control buildings shall be designed so as not to exceed a height of 40 feet. Facts: The portion of the Complex located in the County is designated Heavy Industrial (HI) in the County General Plan. The County General Plan restricts the height of buildings constructed within HI zones to forty (40) feet. According to the Project description, the proposed office building would be one to three stories high. Thus, the building's height could potentially exceed the HI zone 40-foot height restriction. The control buildings could also potentially exceed the height limit. Because this is in conflict with an adopted environmental document, it would be a significant impact. Implementing the proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 6 r Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 4-3, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce the Project's impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: The proposed new facilities could conflict with a County General Plan policy requiring visual buffers between new industry developments and residential areas. Mitigation: 4-4. The new tank proposed for the southeastern corner of the Complex shall be located further to the west or existing landscaping shall be augmented to provide adjacent residences with adequate visual screening. Facts: Community Identity and Urban Design Policy 3-19, contained in the Land Use Element of the County General Plan, requires setbacks, park-like landscaping, or other mechanisms to serve as buffers between new industrial development and residential areas. A new tank proposed for the southeastern corner of the Complex could be visible to some residents living on Goree Court, north of Pacheco Boulevard. Absent an appropriate buffer, the proposed Project could thus conflict with Policy 3-19. Because this impact could conflict with an adopted environmental document, it would be considered a significant impact. Implementing the proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 4-4, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 3 . Impact: The proposed new office building could conflict with Martinez General Plan policies regarding landscaping and screening of industry facilities which front directly on residential areas. Mitigation: 4-6. Landscaped screening shall be provided around the office building where it will front onto residential areas. Facts: The Industrial Policy of the Martinez General Plan requires landscaping of building sites and parking areas in keeping with landscaping criteria for industrial sites. The Industrial Policy also requires industrial areas that front directly on residential areas to be landscaped and screened. The City of Martinez could determine that the proposed Project is not 7 consistent with these policies in the area of the proposed office building, which would result in a significant impact. Implementing the proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 4-6, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. B. Geology, Soils and Seismicity 1. Impact: Grading and excavation in areas underlain by alluvium or fill could create unstable slope conditions. Mitigation: 5-1. Site-specific minimal grading concepts, stability analysis and stabilization procedures, and design criteria for cut-slopes and fill-slopes, as recommended by a California Certified Engineering Geologist and a Geotechnical Engineer, shall be required during .the design phase for each site to be graded within the Complex that is underlain by unconsolidated deposits pursuant to the procedures outlined in FEIR Mitigation Measure 5-1 A-D. Facts: At least 112 , 000 cubic yards of cutting and 181, 000 cubic yards of filling are projected to occur for Project components underlain by undifferentiated quaternary deposits, bay mud or existing fill. The alteration of topography for the addition of structures raises issues of slope stability at the structure site and at the borrow sites. The creation of cuts in alluvium or fill, and the placement of fill as berms or terraces, has the potential to create unstable slopes if the cuts and fills are not specifically engineered for stability. The construction of thick building pads or high berms could also create unstable fill slope conditions at the edges of the construction sites. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level . Findings_: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 5-1, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Grading and excavation in areas underlain by or adjacent to existing steep slopes in potentially unstable bedrock, for the construction of the Dimate Tank, Lake Slobodnik and Flare, Reservoir 3 , Coke Barn, Delayed Coker, Maintenance/Warehouse, Sulfur/Scot Unit, Heavy Gasoline Hydrotreater, Light Cracked 8 Gasoline Hydrotreater, C5 Alkylation, Butane Isomerization Plant, C5 Treater, Light Crude Tank #1, Alkylate Tank, and Light Crude Tank #2, could create unstable slope conditions at the construction site or at the sites excavated for fill material. Mitigation: 5-2 . Shell shall comply with the procedures set forth at FEIR Mitigation Measure 5-1 A-D for sites underlain by, or adjacent to, Martinez Formation or Meganos Formation bedrock. Facts: The Project EIR estimates that 206, 000 cubic yards of cutting and 236, 000 cubic yards of filling would occur for Project components underlain by, or adjacent to, existing slopes or cuts in the Martinez Formation or Meganos Formation bedrock units from the northeast flank of Middle Hill to southwest flank of Vine Hill. The alteration of potentially unstable bedrock slopes can lead to actual instability unless the slope is designed to perform satisfactorily in its new configuration. Because the Martinez and Meganos Formations are known to contain slide prone material in other nearby areas of the County, it is possible that such materials could be present in the Complex. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 5-2 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 3 . Impact: Grading, excavation and construction activities at all sites have the potential to increase erosion of soil from the sites, and subsequent deposition of soil particles in drainage ways, creeks, or wetlands. Mitigation: 5-3 . Shell shall comply with the requirements of the NPDES Permits that apply to the Project site. Facts: Runoff during periods of demolition, grading and construction could carry particles of fill off the construction sites, or could erode soil down gradient. Although the loss of fill material is not a significant impact, the re-deposition of eroded material in water bodies on, or adjacent to, the Complex could create turbidity (endangering aquatic life) , reduce wildlife habitat, and reduce the water-carrying capacity of streams and drainage ways, thereby potentially aggravating flooding conditions. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level . 9 Findings: . -The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 5-3 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 4 . Impact: The Complex will be subject to potentially damaging seismically induced groundshaking during the useful economic life of the Project. Mitigation: 5-4 . Site-specific seismic-restraint criteria, as recommended by a California Registered Geologist or Certified Engineering Geologist in consultation with the geotechnical and structural engineers for the Project, shall be incorporated in the design of slopes, foundations and structures for the Project. Facts: The Complex will likely be subjected to at least one major earthquake during the useful economic life of the Project. The vibration from such an earthquake could cause damage to structural members of the proposed facilities in the construction areas (primary effects) , and could cause ground failures in Bay deposits, some types of alluvium, and poorly compacted fill (secondary effects) . Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 5-4 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. C. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Impact: Construction of the proposed facilities would result in high rates of erosion and generation of sediment load which could impact water quality in Vine Hill Creek and Peyton Slough. Mitigation: 6-1. Shell shall comply with the existing NPDES Permits for the Complex, including those currently held by the Genstar Roofing Company and the Trumbull Asphalt Company. Facts: New facility construction is anticipated to involve grading of 80 acres of land within the Complex, with construction scheduled throughout the year. Rain and runoff from construction sites would transport soil particles downslope into stream channels and water bodies. The delivery of eroded sediments into receiving waters, particularly Vine Hill Creek or marsh lands 10 below Lake Slobodnik, could degrade aquatic resources and could result in a violation of applicable water quality standards. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 6-1, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Surface and groundwaters could be contaminated and polluted during construction at Reservoirs 2 and 3 through contact with exposed and excavated contaminated soils, and the release of existing contaminated groundwaters. Mitigation: 6-2 . Dewatering shall be undertaken during construction in areas of high ground water. Any discharge of groundwater shall be undertaken in compliance with the NPDES Permits for the Complex. Shell shall implement a Soil Management Control Plan that has been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Plan shall: b a. describe soil screening protocol to determine suitability of soil for use as fill ; b. provide for segregation of surface runoff and accumulated contaminated soils; and C. comply with the existing NPDES Permits to ensure that pollutants are not transported off-site in concentrations which would adversely impact the environment. Facts: Shell has submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board an environmental investigation report proposing a Soil Management Control Plan for construction activities at Reservoir 3 . The Soil Management Control Plan proposed that hydrocarbon affected soils to be used for fill (from the Reservoir 3 berm and other locations from within the Complex) would be placed to avoid contact with surface water runoff. "Clean" soils to be used as fill would undergo a soil screening protocol prior to use to insure their suitability. These criteria would be defined such that the quality of offsite receiving waters would be protected. Further, studies undertaken by Shell have demonstrated that contamination occurred at various locations over the site with mixed plumes of hydrocarbons extending to a depth of at least 25 feet below grade in the soil, and slowly migrating down gradient. Implementing the proposed mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 11 Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 6-2, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 3 . Impact: Operation of the Project would increase selenium concentrations in discharges from the Effluent Treatment Plant to the Carquinez Strait. Mitigation: 6-4 . Shell shall introduce design features to comply with recommendations as proposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for mass emissions reduction strategy for selenium in order to result in no net increase of selenium discharged. The following approaches shall be pursued by Shell to develop a detailed engineering design to affect a reduction in selenium. a. Maximize the recycle of stripped sour water around the hydrotreaters. b. Reuse the concentrated stream for the cutting/slurring of coke. C. Treat a remaining concentrated stream, if necessary, either: (1) upstream of biotreating facilities; or (2) downstream of a CFP biotreater. d. Design and implement a sampling program. e. A pilot study shall be undertaken, prior to completion of final design, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the effectiveness of the chosen combination of recycling and treatment processes in achieving no net increase in selenium discharge. Facts: Releases from the Effluent Treatment Plant are regulated under a NPDES Permit enforced by the Regional Water Control Board. The Complex has been exceeding its numeric running annual average limit set for selenium (5. 8 pounds per day or 0. 10 milligrams per liter) . The proposed Project would add refining processes which have been identified as main sources of selenium within the Complex process. An estimation of the increase in selenium discharge has been made, based on Bechtel's 1991 twelve- day sampling program, as more fully discussed in the Project EIR. New processes within the Project would result in a selenium source 12 increase of 26 percent and an associated increase in selenium discharged of 27 percent. This increase would cause the Complex to exceed the interim limit as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and, therefore, is considered a significant impact. In an effort to reduce selenium limits, Shell has pursued alternatives for process design within the Project. These efforts are set forth in detail in the Project EIR. Inclusion of the mitigation measures require that there be no net increase in selenium discharge from the proposed Project. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 6-4, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which, in addition to the mitigation measures included in the Project, will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 4 . Impact: Operation of the Project could result in contamination of surface water from oil spills. Mitigation: 6-5. New facilities shall be included within the operations of the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. Measures which shall be undertaken within the Complex to reduce spills include: secondary containment to provide 100 percent capacity by berming around tanks; - segregation of oily surfaces and surface runoff by physical barriers; - limited access to gates at discharge locations; - logging procedures for gate operations; - maintenance and inspection procedures; and - worker education. Pipelines shall be installed above ground for ease of inspection and maintenance where practical. If no practical alternative to underground hydrocarbon piping exists, underground systems with double containment and leak detection systems will be provided. Facts: Operation of an oil refinery has inherent risk due to potential oil spills and the subsequent contamination of surface waters. An oil spill or leak could result from pipeline 13 ti rupture or tank failure at many locations which are adjacent to sensitive water habitats and which support aquatic wildlife. The addition of new facilities to the Complex increases the probability of oil spills occurring proportional to the number of processes which are occurring on the site. An oil spill would be a significant impact to water resources if oil was released to Vine Hill Creek or Peyton Slough. Additional measures undertaken by Shell to prevent oil spills following the last large spill at the Complex are set forth in the Project EIR. The implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would further reduce the risk of an oil spill to a less than significant level . Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 6-5, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. D. Vegetation and Wildlife 1. Impact: Construction of the hydrogen plant, distillates hydrotreater, new storage tanks, employee parking and laydown areas along the northern project boundary could result in surface runoff into Vine Hill Creek and nearby freshwater emergent wetlands. Mitigation: 7-1. During construction of the Project, Shell shall comply with the requirements of the NPDES Permits which apply to the existing Complex as well as those currently held by the Genstar Roofing Company and the Trumbull Asphalt Company. Facts: The Trumbull and Genstar sites, and the employee parking and laydown areas along the northern Complex boundary, are not hydrologically separated from low wetlands and creeks by berms or other barriers to prevent the runoff of surface water. Construction activities in these areas, particularly the former Genstar Roofing Company and Trumbull Asphalt Company sites, pose a significant risk of runoff and related damage to aquatic life. Implementing the proposed mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 7-1, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: As discussed above at Impact C-3 , potential discharges of selenium into surface waterways could endanger aquatic life. 14 J Mitigation: 7-6. Shell shall implement Mitigation Measure 6-4 . Facts: Selenium discharges could increase with the operation of the Project. For a detailed discussion of selenium discharges at the Complex and for the Project, see the discussion at HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, Impact No. 3 , supra. The selenium discharge at the Complex is a significant impact of the existing Complex and the proposed Project. It is also a significant cumulative impact for the region. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 7-6, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 3 . Impact: Operation of the Project could result in contamination of surface water from oil spills. Mitigation: 7-7 . Shell shall implement Mitigation Measure 6-5. Facts: For a detailed discussion of potential surface water contamination from oil spills, see the discussion at HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY, Impact No. 4, supra. This impact is considered to be potentially significant. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Findincts: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 7-7, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. E. Air Ouality. 1. Impact: Construction of the proposed Project would result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants. Mitigation: 8-1 (a) . Shell shall include in all contracts with companies involved in the construction of the Project a requirement that daily average vehicle ridership equal not less than 1. 15 (BAAQMD goal for Contra Costa County, 1994) . The average daily ridership shall be calculated based upon BAAQMD regulations. To the extent that the average vehicle ridership cannot be achieved, construction companies may propose to the County measurable pollution reducing alternatives for 15 4' implementation. In the event that local commute rules also apply, the most stringent rules shall be followed. 8-1 (b) . During construction, Shell shall implement mitigation measures for reduction of fugitive dust emissions, as detailed in Table 8-23 of the FEIR, unless determined to be infeasible based on safety considerations. 8-1 (c) . During construction, Shell shall implement each of the mitigation measures detailed in Table 8-24 of the FEIR for reduction of construction equipment combustion emissions. Facts: Emissions from construction vehicular traffic, materials handling and stationary construction equipment all contribute to the impact referred to in this section. At the level of activity associated with this Project, such emissions except for CO and SOX, would exceed significance thresholds. The mitigation measures address the three main project components contributing to the significant construction emissions impact, namely vehicular emissions, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion byproduct emissions. This impact is significant and unavoidable. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measures 8-1 (a) , (b) and (c) , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that these mitigation measures will not reduce regional air quality construction impacts to an insignificant level. Thus, the Project's impact on emissions of criteria pollutants, with the exception of SOX and CO, is a short-term significant unavoidable impact. 2 . Impact: Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase of volatile organic compound emissions, thereby contributing to the formation of ozone in the region. Mitigation: 8-3 (a) . Shell shall implement carpooling and vanpooling programs to help reduce vehicle trips and resulting air emissions. Facts: Shell will be required in connection with permitting for the Project by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ("BAAQMD") to utilize best available control technology for all Project components and to comply with the BAAQMD offset rules and regulations. The offset rules and regulations require Shell to either reduce emissions on-site or acquire emission offsets from the BAAQMD emission bank which exceed the increases in volatile organic compounds emitted by the Project. However, because purchased offsets for volatile organic compounds may be in geographic areas of the BAAQMD outside the immediate vicinity of the Project, the increase in emissions of volatile organic 16 J i compounds from the Project is considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 8-3 (a) , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that these measures will not reduce localized air quality impacts for the emission of volatile organic compounds for Project operations to an insignificant level. Thus, the Project's impact on the emission of volatile organic compounds is a significant unavoidable impact. 3 . Impact: Annual emissions of nitrogen oxide from operation of the proposed Project could result in a significant impact on air quality in the region. Mitigation: 8-4 . Shell shall implement its proposed nitrogen oxide reductions through urea injection control technology, so as to reduce annual nitrogen oxide emissions from the Project below a level of significance. Facts: A number of Project components contribute nitrogen oxide emissions, including vehicular, rail, and marine traffic as well as proposed new heaters and boilers. In addition to the Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") measures required by the Air District to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides caused by the Project, Shell has proposed to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide from the existing Complex. Such reductions will result in a net decrease of nitrogen oxide from the Complex and the Project as a whole. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 8-4, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the implementation of this mitigation measure, which is a part of the Project as proposed by Shell, will reduce the Project's impacts on nitrogen oxide emissions from stationary source operations to a level of insignificance. 4 . Impact: Operation of the Project would result in an increase of daily nitrogen oxide emissions to the atmosphere during visits to the Project site by marine vessels. Mitigation: No feasible mitigation measures identified. Facts: Marine traffic emissions in the project area would result in fuel combustion as vessels maneuver to and from the Complex docks. There are no feasible means of controlling these emissions. Because of the minimal number of increased ship movements as a result of the Project, these emissions will be somewhat infrequent and limited in nature. Emissions from marine 17 Y Y traffic related to the Project will be limited by Shell's existing facility emission's cap permit. This impact is significant and unavoidable. Finding: The Planning Commission finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the emissions from increased ship traffic as a result of the Project. The Planning Commission finds that these emissions are a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. 5. Impact: Operation of the proposed Project will result in an increase in sulfur oxide emissions to the atmosphere. Mitigation: 8-6. Shell shall implement its proposed sulfur oxide reductions through the use of low sulfur fuel, so as to reduce operational sulfur oxide emissions below a level of significance. Facts: Shell proposes to burn low sulfur fuel in three existing boilers at the Complex as a result of removing sulfur from a feed stream to an existing catalytic cracking unit. This proposal will be in addition to the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACT permitting requirements and must offset any increase in sulfur oxide emissions from the Project in accordance with BAAQMD regulations. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 8-6, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the imposition of this mitigation measure, which is a part of the Project as proposed by Shell, will mitigate impacts relating to emissions of sulfur oxide from Project operations to a level of insignificance. 6. Impact: Operation of the proposed Project's stationary sources will result in significant emissions of carbon monoxide in the project area. Mitigation: 8-7. In addition to its proposed BACT measures, Shell shall apply carbon monoxide oxidation catalyst technology to the proposed hydrogen plant heater in order to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from that source by 90%, or Shell shall apply other measures to achieve the same level of reduction (97 . 5 tons per year reduction) in carbon monoxide emissions. Facts: The primary sources of carbon monoxide emissions from operation of the Project's stationary sources are combustion sources. The proposed mitigation is in addition to the BACT 18 14 requirements of the Air District and is the only feasible mitigation measure for this impact of the Project. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 8-7, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that this measure will not reduce localized air quality impacts of carbon monoxide emissions from stationary source operations to an insignificant level. Thus, the Project's impact on emissions of carbon monoxide from stationary source operations is a significant unavoidable impact. 7 . Impact: Operation of the Project would result in a significant increase of PM10 emissions to the atmosphere. Mitigation: 8-8 . Shell shall confirm that its proposed control measures leading to reduction of PM10 formation in the atmosphere will be sufficient to reduce PM10 emissions below a level of significance. Facts: Operation of the new project mobile and stationary sources would result in increases in PM10 emissions, mainly from stationary sources. Shell has proposed to use the BACT measures for PM,o control as required by the BAAQMD. This mitigation measure, in combination with Mitigation Measure 8-7 , will reduce PM10 emissions to a less than significant level . Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 8-8, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the imposition of this mitigation measure will mitigate impacts relating to emissions of PM10 from Project operations to a level of insignificance. 8 . Impact: The proposed Project would result in increased concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. Mitigation: 8-12 . Shell shall implement the following measures to keep concentrations of hydrogen sulfide below a level of significance: Monitor concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, using existing monitors sensitive to concentrations on the order of 0. 001 ppm (1. 2 ug/m ) ; monitoring reports shall be submitted to the BAAQMD monthly. Prior to construction, Shell will verify that the total H2 concentration (background plus Project) will not exceed the odor threshold. - If total H2S concentrations exceed the threshold, further 19 4 revisions to the design of the proposed Sour Water Strippers, the Delayed Coking Unit, the Sulfur Recovery Unit, the Hydrogen Plant, the Flare System, and/or the Distillate Hydrotreater shall be made to reduce emissions of odorous sulfur compounds, such that they will not contribute to concentrations (including background) above the significance threshold. If exceedances of the odor threshold occur after implementation of the Project, Shell shall implement the following measures: Determine the source of odors and the nature of the odor- causing incident (maintenance, process fluctuation, operator error, weather conditions, etc. ) . Implement improved operating procedures and/or controls for identified odor sources and odor-causing conditions, so as to reduce maximum concentrations to a less than significant level. Facts: The Project will result in increased concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, although slightly below the significance threshold for off-site locations. Because projected concentrations of H2S are close to odor thresholds, mitigation is deemed necessary to insure such thresholds are not exceeded. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 8-12 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that this mitigation measure will reduce Project related emissions of hydrogen sulfide to an insignificant level. 9. Impact: The proposed Project may cause significant emissions of fugitive dust and combustion byproducts from construction equipment during demolition and relocation of the County Fleet Maintenance Building. Mitigation: 8-13 . Either Shell or the County shall implement Mitigation Measures 8-1 (a) , (b) , and (c) during demolition and relocation of the County Fleet Maintenance Building, so as to reduce fugitive dust emissions (i.e. , PM10) and combustion by-product emissions below a level of significance. Facts: Both demolition of the County Fleet Maintenance Building from Shell. Avenue and the construction of a new office building on the site may cause a significant, although temporary, 20 increase in emissions of fugitive dust and combustion components from construction equipment. Adoption of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 8-13 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure will mitigate the Project's impact on emissions of fugitive dust and combustion byproducts from relocation of the County Maintenance Yard and construction of a new building to a level of insignificance. 10. Impact: As identified in impacts numbers 1 through 9 of this Section E. Air Quality, the construction and operation of the proposed Project may cause significant emissions of various air contaminants. In addition to the mitigation measures referred to in items 1 through 9 above, additional changes and/or alterations of the Project are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in connection with the Air District's permitting process for the proposed Project. Such changes in the Project as required by the Air District in its permitting process can and should be adopted by the District which adoption will further mitigate significant effects on air quality resulting from the Project. Mitigation: 8-16. Shell shall comply with all rules, regulations and permit conditions of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District with respect to the permitting and operation of the proposed Project. Facts: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District requires that an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate be obtained from the District in connection with the proposed Project. Such Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate will contain conditions, the adoption and imposition of which are within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which will reduce air quality impacts from the proposed Project. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 8-16. The Planning Commission finds that the implementation of the above mitigation measure is within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and that the mitigation measures contained in the District's permitting procedure can and should be imposed on the proposed Project. F. Noise. 1. Impact: Construction of processing units, tanks, and other equipment would generate short-term noise impacts to adjacent residents. 21 Mitigation: 10-1. When constructing tanks in the southeastportion of the Complex, Shell shall comply with the following requirements: 10-1 (a) . Limit the hours of construction to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 10-1(b) . Require construction equipment to be properly muffled and maintained. 10-1(c) . Locate noise sources (such as air compressors) as far from sensitive receptors as practical. Facts: The tank construction site located in the southeast corner of the Complex is considerably closer to Vine Hill residents than other Project construction activities. Atmospheric conditions could reduce the effectiveness of noise barriers between the site and nearby residential areas. This would create the potential for noise levels to exceed nighttime levels of significance. Implementing the proposed mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 10-1, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that this mitigation measure will mitigate the Project's impact from construction noises at the tank site to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Construction of the office building and parking lot would increase noise to sensitive receptors. Mitigation: 10-2 . To mitigate potential noise impacts associated with the construction of the office building and parking lot, Shell shall implement all of the following mitigation measures.. a. Noise-generating construction activities at the office building (excluding interior finish work) and parking lot shall be limited to the hours of 8: 00 a.m. to 5: 00 p.m`. , Monday through Friday, with no work allowed on holidays. b. All construction equipment shall be fitted with properly functioning mufflers. C. Shell's construction contractor shall locate noise sources, such as air compressors, as far north on the construction site as possible to maximize the distance between these pieces of equipment and sensitive receptors located to the south. 22 d. Shell's construction contractor shall erect a standard plywood construction fence noise barrier along Pacheco Boulevard adjacent to the parking lot construction site. The fence should be 8 feet high as measured above Pacheco Boulevard and constructed of solid, 3/4 inch minimum thickness plywood. The plywood noise barrier will be temporary, and will be removed after the noise-generating grading and paving activities are concluded. Facts: The office building site is adjacent to sensitive residential receptors. During the demolition of the County corporation yard and heavy construction periods, noise levels are likely to increase over typical existing noise levels. The parking lot on Pacheco Boulevard is also adjacent to sensitive residential receptors, and during the grading phase higher than normal noise levels are likely to occur. While the mitigation set forth above will ease these noise levels, noise is still likely to be a short- term unavoidable impact related to construction of the Project. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 10-2 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that this measure will not mitigate at all times noise levels resulting from construction activities associated with the Project to an insignificant level. This impact is considered a short-term significant unavoidable impact. 3 . Impact: Operating machinery in the proposed Project would substantially alter the area noise environment if the Project related machinery noise exceeds the noise of similar equipment at the Complex. Mitigation: 10-4 . Shell shall adopt a noise performance standard for the Project's equipment and a noise monitoring plan to ensure no noticeable increase in noise at residences due to Project operations. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The elements of this mitigation measure are more fully set forth on pages 10-23 through 10-25 of the FEIR, which are incorporated herein by reference. Facts: The existing Complex is a significant contributor to noise levels in the surrounding community. At some residential locations, existing noise levels exceed an Ldn of 60 dBA, the County's goal for noise levels in outdoor areas at residences. A significant further increase in noise levels from the Complex should be avoided by the implementation of the above mitigation measure. 23 Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 10-4, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the Project plans, in addition to this mitigation measure, will mitigate the Project's impact from refinery equipment noise to a level of insignificance. 4 . Impact: Cumulative rail noise and vibration impacts on residences adjoining the Southern Pacific railroad tracks along major corridors between Oakland and Sacramento, and Oakland and the Brentwood area, will increase as a result of the proposed Project and other present and future projects in the above areas. Mitigation: None available. Facts: Because this impact would occur at the same level of significance with or without the Project, no mitigation measures have been proposed in relation to the Project. Finding: The Planning Commission finds the above impact will exist with or without the Project and cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. This impact is considered a significant unavoidable impact. G. Risk of Upset. 1. Impact: The overall risk of upset is considered to be increased by the Project due to uncertainties in the analysis. Mitigation: 11-6 a. Shell shall: (i) conduct a formal Hazards and Operability (HazOp) study and accident consequence analysis following the criteria established in American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 750 and submit it for County review and acceptance prior to start-up, and (ii) implement specific changes identified by the HazOp study to reduce the severity or probability of significant accidents determined by this study prior to start-up. The "step-wise mitigation" set forth on pages 11-49 and 11-50 of the Draft EIR is expressly referred to and incorporated herein by reference. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. 24 b. The County shall be consulted prior to any construction, design, operation, or other Project modification which has the potential to generate an off-site hazard from a process upset. Upon consultation, the County may determine that such changes be subjected to the mitigation process described in 11-6a above. C. Shell shall update its hazardous material business plan developed pursuant to AB2185 for each unit of the Project prior to the start up of that unit. d. Shell shall update its emergency manual to include units of the Project. e. Shell shall submit to the County Fire Protection District, for review and comment, plans of the fire prevention and protection systems designed for the Project operating equipment, fire supply and access. f. Shell shall participate with the County in community emergency response, notification, and education programs upon request of the County. Facts: While none of the accident scenarios explicitly evaluated would result in significant impacts, the uncertainties in some aspects of the analysis lead to a conclusion that other accidents may be possible which could potentially result in significant impacts. These uncertainties stem in part from the difficulty in predicting accident scenarios and from the fact that detailed design for some components of the Project are not yet available. In most cases, the Project has not added new chemicals to the Complex. Shell has a number of existing procedures and requirements in place to prevent or reduce the likelihood of an accidental release of these existing chemicals. An additional HazOp study will be performed by Shell and any mitigation resulting therefrom implemented prior to project start-up when more specificity regarding project component design is known. Pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 2185, Shell is required to prepare and update annually its hazardous materials business plan. The mitigation measure above would require such plan to be updated to include each Project unit prior to the start up of that unit regardless of whether or not it was time for the annual update. In addition, Shell maintains an emergency manual at its facility which contains procedures for the Complex to follow when responding to emergencies including, but not limited to, fire, explosion, and material releases. This document will be updated to 25 include all of the Project units. To obtain the input of the County Fire Protection District with respect to the fire prevention systems designed for the Project, Shell shall be required to submit its fire prevention and protection plans for the Project to the District for review and comment. The County may initiate a community emergency response, notification, and education program and Shell has agreed to cooperate with the County in any such program with respect to any potential notification and/or educational aspects related to the Project. Findinct: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 11-6, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that due to uncertainties, the above mitigation measure will not mitigate all risk of upset from the Project to an insignificant level. This impact is considered a significant unavoidable impact. 2. Impact: Potential cumulative impact involving the Project and future projects at the Shell Complex involving simultaneous incidents or secondary impacts of a single accident could occur. Mitigation: 11-8. Shell shall conduct an accident analysis for future projects at the Complex as described in Mitigation Measure 11-6(a) and undertake engineering or operation changes to reduce any potentially significant cumulative impact to a level that is less than significant. Facts: An accident analysis for each new project proposed at the Complex in the future would be analyzed for risk of upset using protocol approved by the County. In each case secondary effects with units included in this proposed Project would be, evaluated and significant impacts therefrom would be mitigated to the satisfaction of the County. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 11-8, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the above mitigation measure will mitigate any potentially significant cumulative impact from operation related accidents to a level of insignificance. H. Transportation. 1. Impact: Without adequate management of access routes used by construction workers, the Interstate Highway 680 northbound off-ramp could experience long lines and severe traffic delays, particularly at the a.m. peak hour. 26 Mitiaation: 12 . 1. Shell shall develop and adopt the following four-part mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure 12-1 (a) . Prior to project initiation, Shell shall hire an independent transportation consultant to implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan, as set forth in Table 12-A (see Response to Comments pages 12-26 through 12-28 FEIR) , as approved by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, in order to minimize the traffic impacts of the construction work force at the Interstate Highway 680 northbound Marina Vista off-ramp and at the Fairview and Genstar Gates on Marina Vista. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall ensure that levels of service at area intersections do not degrade beyond thresholds established in this Plan. This Plan shall be submitted to the California Department of Transportation ("CalTrans") for review and recommendation, and to the Contra Costa County Department of Public Works for review and approval, and shall include the following elements as described in more detail below: Part A. Transportation Demand Reduction Plan; Part B. Congestion Monitoring Program; and Part C. Access Management Plan. Mitigation Measure 12-1 (b) . During construction, the City of Martinez shall install and operate a temporary traffic signal, consistent with CalTrans and County standards, at the Fairview Gate during the construction period. The signal will be coordinated with adjacent signals along Marina Vista. Shell shall bear the full cost of the installation and maintenance of this signal, along with any traffic signing and pavement striping necessary. Mitigation Measure 12-1 (c) . Prior to project initiation, Shell shall install a connecting roadway between the Fairview parking lot and the Genstar internal roadway. Mitigation Measure 12-1 (d) . Shell shall prohibit construction and material truck deliveries which originate within the State of California, with the exception of concrete delivery trucks, between the hours of 6: 00 to 8 : 00 a.m. , and 4 : 30 to 6 : 30 p.m. 27 Facts: Without mitigation there is a significant potential for construction traffic, particularly during a.m. periods, to cause significant congestion at the intersection of the Interstate 680 ramps and Marina Vista. The, mitigation measures imposed are designed to reduce any such potential for congestion to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-1(a) , (b) , (c) and (d) , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that Project plans in addition to the above measure will mitigate the Project's potential to cause new traffic congestion at the intersection of the Interstate 680 off-ramps and Marina Vista to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Without adequate management of construction worker access routes, Marina Vista Avenue would need to be widened to accommodate construction peak traffic. Mitigation: 12-2 . Shell shall implement Mitigation Measure 12-1. Facts: The implementation of Mitigation Measure 12-1, specifically including the Access Management Plan temporary signal, internal°roadway, and peak hour construction delivery restrictions, would preclude the need for Marina Vista widening and installation of a reversible lane. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-2, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the project plans, in addition to this mitigation measure, will mitigate the Project's impact on traffic congestion on Marina Vista to a level of insignificance. 3 . Impact: The intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Morello Avenue would degrade from an LOS (A) during a.m. construction peak hour to LOS (D) with the addition of construction traffic under year 2000 conditions. Mitigation: 12-3 . Should the Construction Traffic Management Plan identify the need, the County should widen Pacheco Boulevard prior to construction to provide one additional through lane in the westbound direction at the intersection of Pacheco Boulevard and Morello Avenue. The widening would occur on the north side of Pacheco Boulevard, where adequate right-of-way exists. The lane would extend for at least 250 feet. Modifications to signal phasing and pavement striping would be necessary to accommodate this improvement. Shell shall bear the full cost of this improvement, but will apply the costs against its 28 anticipated pro-rata share of the eventual widening of `Pacheco Boulevard. Facts: Traffic projections show a significant capacity impact from project construction traffic during peak hours at Pacheco Boulevard and Morello Avenue. The imposition of the above mitigation measure would reduce the traffic impact to LOS (C) , a level which is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-3, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the project plans in addition to the above measure will mitigate the Project's traffic impact on Pacheco Boulevard and Morello Avenue to a level of insignificance. 4 . Impact: Construction truck traffic would contribute to the deterioration of the structural pavement section on Marina Vista from the Fairview Gate to Interstate Highway 680 ramps, and on the ramps themselves. Mitigation: 12-4 . Following project construction, Shell shall bear the full cost of rebuilding the pavement structural section on Marina Vista between the Fairview Gate and the Interstate Highway 680 northbound ramps to applicable City of Martinez and CalTrans standards. In addition, Shell shall contribute its fair share to the costs associated with rebuilding the pavement structural section of the Interstate Highway 680 northbound on- and off-ramps at Marina Vista and for the southbound on- and off-ramps at Marina Vista. Shell shall also prepare and implement a pavement monitoring program for Marina Vista and the ramps, and other affected roadways where applicable. It will include before and after video evidence of pavement conditions, and will require the posting of a pavement repair bond. The pavement monitoring program shall specify a route/routes (Morello Avenue, for instance, should be specifically excluded for safety reasons and for inadequate pavement section) for trucks delivering materials and equipment to the site. Facts: Construction traffic would accelerate the deterioration of roadway sections in the area. This impact would be mitigated to a level of insignificance by requiring Shell to rebuild the structural section once construction is complete. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-4 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the project plans, in addition to this mitigation measure, will mitigate the Project's impact on pavement deterioration in the 29 Marina Vista, Fairview Gate and Highway 6S0 ramps areas to a level of insignificance. 5. , Impact: The intersection of the Fairview Gate at Marina Vista will meet peak hour traffic signal warrants (CalTrans Warrant #11) with the addition of construction traffic under peak conditions. Mitigation: 12-5. Shell shall implement Mitigation Measure 12-1(b) . Facts: Peak hour signal warrants were checked on unsignalled intersections under peak construction conditions for the year 1994 at the Fairview Gate and Marina Vista intersections, and found to exceed peak hour volume warrants for the p.m. peak hour. The implementation of the mitigation measure will reduce the project impact to less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-5, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the Project plans, in addition to this mitigation measure, will mitigate the Project's impact on traffic at the Fairview Gate and Marina Vista intersection to a level of insignificance. 6. Impact: The intersection of Pacheco Blvd. and Morello Avenue would degrade from LOS (D) (V/C = 0.84) under year 2010 base conditions to LOS (D) (V/C = 0. 85) with addition of Project operations traffic during the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation: 12-6. The County should consider widening portions of Pacheco Blvd. in order to reduce this impact to less than significant level. Facts: While project operations only contribute slightly to the impact at the intersection of Pacheco Blvd. and Morello Avenue, the intersection is already facing serious degradation in service. Completion of the Pacheco Blvd, widening project would restore service levels to LOS (B) during a.m. background peak hour and p.m. background peak hour. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-6. The Planning Commission finds that this mitigation measure will mitigate the Project's impact on traffic at the Pacheco Blvd. and Morello Avenue intersection to a level of insignificance. 7 . Impact: Project operations would generate 41 additional truck trips per day which would contribute to the deterioration of the structural pavement section on Marina Vista from the Fairview 30 Gate to the Interstate Highway 680 ramps, and on the ramps themselves. Mitigation: 12-8. Following project construction, Shell shall bear the full cost of rebuilding the pavement structural section on Marina Vista Avenue between the Fairview Gate and the Interstate Highway 680 northbound ramps to applicable City of Martinez and CalTrans standards. In addition, Shell shall contribute its fair share to the costs associated with rebuilding the pavement structural section of the Interstate Highway 680 southbound on- and off-ramps at Marina Vista, the northbound on- ramp, and the northbound off-ramp. Facts: Project operations truck traffic would accelerate the deterioration of roadway sections in the area. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-8, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the project plans, in addition to this mitigation measure, will mitigate the Project's impact on pavement deterioration in the Marina Vista, Fairview Gate and Highway 680 ramps areas to a level of insignificance. 8. Impact: Increased rail operations at night across Marina Vista at the Genstar Gate would potentially create safety hazards and lead to increased accident potential. Mitigation: 12-12 . The existing automatic crossing protection (bells and lights) for Marina Vista at the Genstar Gate will be modified or replaced by Southern Pacific to include gates. The new or modified crossing protection will conform to CPUC Standard No. 9A (Highway Crossing Signal Assembly Automatic Gate Type With Cantilever Arm) . All plans for modification or replacement of this crossing protection must be approved by the CPUC before installation. Shell shall bear the full cost of this improvement. Facts: Freight rail operations to the Complex are projected to increase to between 50 and 60 shipments per day due to the Project. These shipments in and out of the Complex would continue to be handled by Southern Pacific and would utilize both the Genstar Gate and Shell Gate. It is expected that most switching operations of these rail cars would be between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The mitigation measures imposed reduce to below a significant level, the impacts of this increased rail operation on the rail crossing at the Genstar Gate. 31 Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-12 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the project plans, in addition to this mitigation measure, will mitigate the Project's impact on the rail crossing at the Genstar Gate to a level of insignificance. 9. Impact: Construction and demolition activities would adversely affect bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities during high use time periods. Mitigation: 12-15. Shell shall present a plan for improving bicycle use on Marina Vista or for participating in the improvement of an alternative bicycle route, including a connection from Marina Vista to the planned bicycle/pedestrian lane on the west Benicia Bridge span. Facts: It is anticipated that increased traffic volumes from the construction and demolition activities would adversely impact bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-15, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the project plans, in addition to this mitigation measure, will mitigate the Project's impact on bicycle and pedestrian traffic to a level of insignificance. 10. Impact: Operation of the Project would adversely affect bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities in the Project vicinity. Mitigation: 12-16. Shell shall implement Mitigation Measure 12-15. Facts: While only minimal impacts are expected 'due to Project operations (increased truck traffic) after the constructive phase of the Project, the existing deteriorated conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians justify this mitigation measure. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 12-15, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the project plans, in addition to this mitigation measure, will mitigate the Project's impact on bicycle and pedestrian traffic to a level of insignificance. 32 I. Public Services 1. Impact: The analysis of the proposed Project's accident scenarios (as presented in the Project EIR at Chapter 11) indicates that the Project would not create a significant emergency response risk for the surrounding community. However, the Risk of Upset analysis concluded that the overall risk may be significant due to analytic uncertainties in the conceptual nature of the design. Mitigation: 13-5. Shell shall comply with Mitigation Measures 11-6 (a) and 11-6 (b) . Facts: The evaluation of the potential accident scenarios for the Project showed that the probability of offsite impacts were quite low and, therefore, there would be no significant impacts due to certain types of accidents listed in the Project EIR. However, other accidents may be possible. The overall risk of upset may, therefore, be considered significant due to the uncertainties associated with the current level of project design at this stage of planning as described in Chapter 11 of the Project EIR--(Risk of Upset) . The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 13-5, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 2 . Impact: Construction traffic would affect sections of roadway on Marina Vista and Interstate 680 ramps. Mitigation: 13-6. Shell shall comply with Mitigation Measure 12-4 . Facts: Construction truck traffic could affect the structural pavement of Marina Vista from the Fairview Gate to the Interstate Highway 680 ramps, and the existing ramps. Construction traffic would contribute up to 10 percent of the total number of equivalent single axle loads on Marina Vista expected over a 10 year design period. On the southbound on- and off-ramps at Interstate Highway 680, construction truck traffic would contribute 3 percent of the total equivalent single axle load; on the northbound ramp, it would contribute 2 percent. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. 33 Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 13-6, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 3 . Impact: Project operations would affect sections of roadway on Marina Vista and Interstate Highway 680 ramps. Mitigation: 13-7. Following project construction, Shell shall contribute an additional share of the costs associated with rebuilding the pavement structural section of the Interstate Highway 680 southbound on- and off-ramps at Marina Vista, the northbound on-ramp, and the northbound off-ramp. See Mitigation Measure 12-8 for additional discussion. Facts: Project operations traffic on Marina Vista contributes 6 percent of the total number of equivalent single axle loads expected over a 10 year design period. The Project contributes 2 percent of the total equivalent single axle loads; on the northbound on-ramp, 1 percent; and on the northbound off-ramp, 2 percent of the total of both the southbound Interstate Highway 680 on- and off-ramps at Marina Vista. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 13-7, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 4. Impact: Due to cumulative development in the Contra Costa Water District (to the year 2025) , the District expects water demand to increase from the current consumption of 104, 000 acre feet per year to average critical year demand of 205, 800 acre feet per year, or 188, 000 acre feet per year with conservation and reclamation. These amounts exceed both the current conveyance capacity of 135,000 acre feet per year and the current U.S. Bureau of Reclamation contract for 195,000 acre feet per year. Mitigation: 13-8. Use of Reclaimed Water a. The Contra Costa Water District shall utilize, as much as possible, reclaimed water and conservation practices to reduce water demand. b. (i) Prior to construction, Shell shall study the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed water and determine the water quality standards necessary for industrial use. 34 a Shell shall determine what mix of raw and reclaimed water could meet these standards. This feasibility study shall be prepared in consultation with the Contra Costa Water District. (ii) Reclaimed water shall be utilized in landscaped areas. C. The County shall implement Policy 7-17 of the General Plan which requires it to encourage water service agencies "to develop supplies and facilities to meet future water needs based on the growth policies contained in the County and cities' General Plans. " d. The Contra Costa Water District shall develop and implement plans to meet future water demand by providing increased water conveyance capacity and, if necessary, increasing available water supplies. Facts: Development within the Contra Costa Water District service area is anticipated to increase as a result of this Project and future projects. Although the District has adequate water supply and infrastructure to service the proposed Project, additional development based on the General Plan build-out could result in a significant cumulative impact. The proposed mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Findi _gs: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 13-8, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 5. Impact: The Risk of Upset section concludes that cumulative impacts from other future on-site projects would pose a significant cumulative risk of upset impact. Mitigation: 13-9. Shell shall undertake an accident analysis for each new project proposed at the Complex in the future, using analytic protocols approved by the County. Shell shall undertake engineering or operational changes necessary to reduce its share of cumulative risk of upset and the cumulative emergency response impact to less than significant levels. 35 Facts: The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District does not operate a hazardous materials unit and relies on the responsible parties for response to hazardous materials incidents. The District entered into an agreement with Shell in 1980 regarding such services. The District ha-s concluded that past and future cumulative development, in conjunction with the proposed Project, 'could significantly effect the Department's capability to provide adequate fire suppression and prevention services. Findings: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 13-9, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure constitutes a change to the Project which will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. J. Visual Quality 1. Impact: The proposed pentane railcar loading rack and relocated truck scale would be visible from Marina Vista in the City of Martinez. Mitigation: 15-5. Shell shall provide vegetative screening along Marina Vista to the extent feasible. A landscape plan shall be planned and executed by a certified landscape architect so that plantings have the appropriate height, form and climate adaptability. Vegetation shall consist of evergreen shrubs and/or trees, with minimum fenceline heights. The landscaping plan will be submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Development Department for review and final approval. The County will coordinate with the City of Martinez for review, comment and approval of landscape plans for the Project. To the extent the landscaping plan is the responsibility and within the jurisdiction of the City of Martinez in connection with any potential permit applications for the pentane railcar loading rack and relocated truck scale, the changes described in this mitigation measure can and should be adopted by the City of Martinez. Facts: The pentane railcar loading rack and relocated truck scale are proposed to be located on the edge of the refinery off of Marina Vista, as shown on Figure 15-1 of the Project EIR. These facilities and accessory structures are expected to be visible from Marina Vista, as more fully discussed in the Project EIR. Further, the truck scale and the administrative building would stand alone, would not visually relate or blend in with another structure, or be replacing another structure. Therefore, the relational aesthetics of this structure would be inconsistent, creating ;a conflict in relation to height, bulk and massing. The proposed mitigation measure of adding infill vegetation atop the existing elevated area will screen proposed uses from Marina Vista, reducing the impacts to less than significant levels. 36 Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 15-5, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. In the event that this mitigation measure falls within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Martinez in connection with its permitting of the improvements referred to in the impact covered by this section, the Planning Commission finds that this mitigation measure can and should be adopted by the City of Martinez. 2 . Impact: Proposed Project components would be visible from both northbound and southbound directions of Interstate 680. Mitigation: 15-6. Shell shall provide vegetative and/or bermed screening in the area of Interstate 680 and the Marina Vista Interchange to the extent feasible. A landscape plan shall be planned and executed by a certified landscape architect so that plantings have the appropriate height, form and climate adaptability. Screening treatments shall include increasing the length and height of the existing berm. Vegetation shall consist of evergreen trees with minimum mature heights approximate to existing trees to maintain visual consistency, and shall include understory shrubs. The landscaping plan will be submitted to the Contra Costa County Community Development Department for review and final approval. The County will coordinate with the City of Martinez for review, comment and approval of landscape plans for the Project. Facts: The Project will result in prominent additions to the foreground of the Project in the area, where nothing structural currently exists. From the viewpoints along Interstate 680, the Project would result in a substantial change in view from what is presently experienced. This change would contribute to the overall intensification of industrial uses in the area. The change would result in an adverse affect to the existing relational and environmental aesthetics. Therefore, the Project would result in significant impacts to views along Interstate 680. Although the proposed mitigation measure will reduce the car-level views from Interstate 680 and the Marina Vista Interchange, it would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 15-6, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that although the adoption of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact, the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. 37 r 3 . Impact: Proposed project components would be visible from the Gateway to the City of Martinez (Key Observation Point 7 in the Project EIR) . Mitigation: 15-7. Shell shall .'implement Mitigation Measure 15-6. Facts: The proposed structures in the Project would be visually prominent from the Gateway to the City of Martinez as the viewer enters the City of Martinez, off of Interstate 680. The Project would result in a substantial change to the foreground of the Project area. The existing industrial image the viewer observes upon entering the City of Martinez would substantially change. The industrial image becomes intensified as a result of the Project, resulting in an even greater visual contrast between the openness of the Carquinez Strait and the surrounding hillsides. Therefore, the internal, relational, and environmental aesthetics would not be consistent, and the proposed Project would result in significant adverse impacts to views upon entering the City of Martinez. In addition, the proposed Project would conflict with Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 5-42 , which provides for the protection of gateways. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measure would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 15-7, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that although the adoption of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact, the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. 4 . Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project would place a one to three story office building on the site of the existing County Maintenance Yard. Mitigation: 15-11. Shell shall submit architectural and landscape plans to the Contra Costa County Community Development Department for review and final approval. The County's review will ensure that the architectural style of the building will be consistent with other similar building types in the vicinity; the height of the building will not exceed the heights of the immediately surrounding buildings; texture and colors will not be unrelated to other office building-type structures in the vicinity; and landscaping treatments will be considered on-site. The County should coordinate with the City of Martinez for review, comment and approval of architectural and landscape plans. 38 Facts: The Project proposes to replace the County Maintenance Yard with an office building, which would house up to 100, 000 square feet of office space within one to three stories. The proposed office building would be placed within an area of mixed uses to include residential, commercial and industrial. The building would have the potential to visually conflict with adjacent structures in relation to height, bulk, massing, materials and landscaping. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 15-11, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 5. Impact: Construction of the proposed Project could involve area floodlighting during construction. Mitigation: 15-13 . Flood or area lighting needed for construction activities shall be placed and directed so as not to disturb adjacent residential and commercial uses. Facts: Construction of the Project ,would take place during the day and possibly at night. Lighting would be necessary to continue construction during the night hours, which would most likely involve area floodlighting. Night lighting at this time would be considered a temporary disturbance to adjacent residential areas, particularly in the area of the proposed office building. The proposed mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 15-13 , as modified. The Planning Commission finds that the adoption of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. 6. Impact: The proposed Project would add to the cumulative change in the visual environment associated with anticipated development within the vicinity. Mitigation: 15-14 . Reduce Cumulative Visual Impacts a. Shell shall implement Mitigation Measures 15-5 and 15-6 to reduce the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts. b. Individual projects, such as the Tosco and Exxon Clean Fuels Projects, will be reviewed for conformance with the Scenic/Visual 39 Resource policies of their applicable General Plans. Mitigation measures for consistency with General Plan policies and to reduce visual impacts would be applied on a project- by-project basis. C. The County should develop standards that address modifications to existing industrial developments. Such standards would address acceptable vegetative screening (heights, plant types) , identification of sensitive receptors adjacent to the industrial use, and/or duration of views related to significance levels. Facts: Cumulative visual quality impacts are assessed in relation to other industrial projects and all other types of development, including residential and commercial. For purposes of the visual quality analysis, the vicinity is defined as the immediate area of the Complex extending from approximately State Route 4 north to Highway 680 to the Benicia Bridge. Industrial projects similar to the Project, such as those at Exxon and TOSCO, would take place within those existing industrial complexes. These projects would significantly add to the existing industrial character of views. Cumulatively, they would alter the visual meaning or impression on the existing image from the surrounding communities. Other types of developments would include scattered residential homes and possible end fill development. No substantial residential, commercial or new industrial developments are anticipated in the vicinity of the projects. Finding: The Planning Commission adopts Mitigation Measure 15-14, as modified. The Planning Commission finds that although the adoption of this mitigation measure will reduce this impact, the cumulative impacts will be significant and unavoidable. III. DISCUSSION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines at Section 15126 (d) , the Project EIR includes a comparative analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly attain the basic objects of the Project. The Project EIR analyzes two entire project alternatives and two potential project alternatives, as summarized below. While an EIR typically evaluates a "no project alternative" and an alternate site, state law prohibits the inclusion of these two types of alternatives for this EIR and other EIR's for Clean 40 Fuels Projects. (See Assembly Bill (AB) 2383 (Shear, 1990) , section 21178. 1(h) of the Public Resources Code) . Because the Project does contain facilities in addition to those necessary for the Clean Fuels Project, the EIR does analyze as an alternative a project with "Clean Fuels Only. " A. Clean Fuels Only Alternative Facts: The Draft EIR sets forth the discussion of the Clean Fuels Only alternative on pages 20-3 through 20-11. This alternative would result in elimination from the Project of 2 of the 16 major new components to be constructed as a part of the Project, namely the lube hydrotreater and cogeneration facility. The Clean Fuels Only alternative creates fewer impacts than the Project as summarized below: 1. Land Use; Geology, Soils and Seismicity; Hydrology and Water Quality; Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries: This project alternative would have similar or no substantially different impacts than the Project on land use, geology, soil and seismicity, hydrology and water quality, and vegetation and wildlife. 2 . Air Quality: This alternative would eliminate the lube hydrotreater and the cogeneration unit turbines and generators. Emissions associated with these pieces of equipment, as set forth in Table 20-1 of the Draft EIR, would be eliminated. The emissions from the turbines range from 20 tons per year of particulate to over 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide. This alternative scenario would remove the turbines from the proposed Project. However, steam is required for operation of other proposed process units and the boilers would operate in this alternative scenario in the same manner as in the Project. Implementing Alternative A, Clean Fuels Only, would lower criteria pollutant emissions by 18% for volatile organic compounds to 36% for nitrogen oxide as shown in more detail in Table 20-4 of the Draft EIR. However, the reductions are not large enough to reduce air quality impacts of the alternative to a less than significant level. 3 . Public Health: This alternative would entail fewer new and modified emission sources and would lower impacts correspondingly. However, because the public impacts have been determined to be low for the proposed Project, this alternative has a negligible beneficial impact. 4 . Noise: While the elimination of both the lube hydrotreater and the electricity generating portion of the cogeneration facility would eliminate significant sources of noise, 41 their contribution to the overall noise of the Project is minimal. Therefore, the noise impacts of Alternative A, Clean Fuels Only, would be the same as for the full Project. 5. Risk of Upset_: Eliminating the lube hydrotreater and the electricity generating portion of the cogeneration facility would result in a decrease in new equipment on site, thereby creating less risk of a hazardous material release. These components are, however, 'a small part of the overall Project and the effect on risk of upset would be minor. The lube hydrotreater would replace an existing edalaneau unit which would result in a reduction of sulphur dioxide used in the edalaneau unit. Replacing the edalaneau unit is a recommended mitigation in the Risk Management Prevention Plan. This benefit would not occur if this alternative is selected. This alternative would result in a slight reduction in the use of hydrocarbon gases, aqueous ammonia, catalyst, hydrogen and DEA, all of which would have a slight reduction in risk of upset that could result in the release of these components. However, use of these materials by the components eliminated is minor when compared with the overall Project. In summary, this alternative is expected to reduce minor risk of upsets, such as those associated with the lube hydrotreater, but would prevent reduction of other risks, such as those associated with the existing edalaneau unit and the risk of storage and transport of liquid propane gas shipments, which would be required to make up for the loss of these facilities. Overall, this alternative would appear to increase the risk of upset rather than reduce it. 6. Transportation and Circulation: The units proposed for elimination are scheduled for construction between the first and second peak construction periods. As a result, eliminating them would have no impact on construction transportation which is largely a function of peak construction work force. If the schedule were contracted, the extended impacts would lessen, and the duration of implementation of temporary mitigation measures would also be lessened. 7 . Public Service: This alternative would not appear to reduce emergency response or roadway impacts below that of the proposed Project and would require water volumes that would be similar to the proposed Project. 8. Public Utilities and Energy: The elimination of the cogeneration facility would affect energy supply and demand. This alternative would require Pacific Gas & Electric Company to supply an additional 50 mw above the current supply to the Shell Complex. This increase would represent approximately 2 .9% of PG&E's 1990 reserve capacity margin and could have a significant impact on the Utility's capabilities. 42 9. Visual Quality: The facilities that would be removed under this alternative include a stack with a maximum height of 300 feet. Stack heights create visual impacts which would be lessened to some extent by the removal of one stack. However, because of the remaining facilities that would be built under this alternative, the overall visual impact as a result of the implementation of this alternative would be minimal . 10. Employment and Housing: This alternative is anticipated to have the same or slightly less construction employment as the proposed Project and would not generate a significant need for temporary housing. B. Reduced Project Alternative Facts: This alternative includes the Clean Fuels Only alternative and in addition eliminates the hydrogen plant and the new office building. This alternative is based on an assumption that Shell would purchase certain intermediate products rather than manufacture them on site. Elimination of the new office building would also eliminate the need for relocating the County Maintenance Yard. The impacts of this alternative are summarized below. 1. Land Use: There would not be an appreciable effect on off-site land uses, and the land use impacts of this alternative would be essentially the same as those described for the Project. 2 . Geology, Soils and Seismicity: This alternative would not create a significant difference in grading activities, although it would eliminate the need for approximately 9, 000 cubic yards of cut grading at the new office building site. 3 . Hydrology and Water Quality: The area needed for new structures would be reduced by approximately 12 acres as a result of this alternative. As the selenium producing operations would still be a part of the Project, there would be no reduction in the amount of selenium discharged to process waters or subject to mitigation measures from this alternative. 4 . Vegetation, Wildlife and Fisheries: Removal of the hydrogen plant would reduce the potential for runoff in Vine Hill Creek, but other biological impacts would be comparable to those of the proposed Project. It is anticipated that the impact on plants and animals by soil, air and water borne pollutants would be essentially the same as with the proposed Project. 43 5. Air Ouality: The implementation of the- Reduced Project alternative would lower individual criteria pollutant emissions from 24% to 66% respectively (see Table 20-6, Draft EIR) . However, emission reductions from these sources are not expected to be large enough to reduce impacts of the alternative to a less than significant level. Consequently, implementation of this alternative would not change the level of impact projected to occur from the proposed Project. 6. Public Health: This alternative entails fewer and modified emissions sources than the proposed Project and impacts on public health would therefore be correspondingly lower. These impacts for the proposed Project, however, have been identified as low. For this reason, the benefits of the alternative are negligible. 7 . Noise: Eliminating the new office building would produce significant short-term construction noise reductions. The hydrogen plant is also a significant noise source in the Project that would be eliminated. However, the combined effect of these eliminations on the Project as a whole would not make a measurable difference in overall noise generation from the Project, and therefore the long- term noise impacts resulting from the reduced project alternative are essentially the same as for the proposed Project. S. Risk of Upset: The hydrocarbon gases used as fuel for the hydrogen plant and the hydrogen produced are hazardous materials. Elimination of the hydrogen plant from the facility would remove one of the several process plants which use hydrogen. However, hydrogen would remain as an essential feedstock in the remaining Project and removing the hydrogen plant would not eliminate or reduce the Project demand for hydrogen. The reduced risk at the Complex would be offset by increased risks at off-site locations where the necessary hydrogen would be produced. 9. Transportation: Because this alternative contemplates 4 of the 13 major project components being eliminated, the intensity of transportation and circulation impacts during peak construction periods would be reduced. 10. Public Services: This alternative is not expected to effect roadway impacts similar to that of the proposed Project. This alternative could lower potable water demand because of the elimination of the office building. 44 11. Public Utilities: Energy demand would be less than - Alternative A, Clean Fuels Only, because of the elimination of the hydrogen plant and new office building. When compared with the proposed Project, energy demand would be somewhat greater because this alternative does not include the cogeneration facility. 12 . Visual Quality: This alternative would produce the same visual impacts as Alternative A, Clean Fuels Only, with added visual benefits resulting from the elimination of the hydrogen plant. This alternative would create the fewest visual impacts of any of the alternatives. 13. Employment: This alternative is expected to have the same or slightly less construction employment impacts as the proposed Project. C. Visual Quality Improvements Alternative Facts: This alternative is based on analyzing the potential to modify or relocate units to eliminate certain structures, lower units' height and type, or place units in different locations, all to favorably impact the visual quality of the Project. Alternatives analyzed in this section included reducing structures that range between 100 and 300 feet in height. However, this alternative was determined infeasible because of both operational requirements and requirements to meet air quality standards. Separating operating components of large units and disbursing them throughout the existing facility in order to reduce the visual prominence was also examined. This was ..deemed infeasible because of the operating, safety and environmental problems potentially caused by this alternative. Regrouping as many tall structures as possible in an area that is less visible than the Project was also examined. This alternative was rejected because of increased safety hazards as well as maintenance and operational inefficiencies. Finally, this alternative included the potential to substitute a different flare system for the Project flares. The proposed Project includes two flares, each approximately 30 feet in height, which would occasionally flare to heights of up to 100 feet. This alternative would have a number of smaller flares of 8 to 10 feet in height with flaring occasionally to 35 to 40 feet. Although such a new flare system would effectively eliminate the visual impacts of the proposed flares, the overall visual difference, when compared to the proposed Project, would not be substantial. 45 D. Transportation Alternative Facts: This alternative evaluates options for handling construction traffic. Two of the options provide additional parking at the Complex and the third involves upgrading Marina Vista and Interstate 680 ramps to ease in exiting the freeway and entering parking areas. The first of these options would delay the construction of the new office building. After the existing County Maintenance Yard is relocated the space would be turned into a parking lot for 650 vehicles. The office building would not be built until after conclusion of the need for the parking. This option would eliminate one of the current mitigation measures necessary for construction traffic but would create three additional mitigation measures. The second option requires Shell to expand and upgrade the park-and-ride lot at the intersection of State Route 4 and Interstate Highway 680. This would eliminate approximately four of the current construction traffic mitigation measures recommended for the Project. However, it would add two additional mitigation measures, including the need to obtain approximately six to seven acres of land which may not be available for the construction of the park-and-ride lot expansion. The final transportation option considered involves widening of Marina Vista and widening of the north and southbound on- and off-ramps to Interstate 680. This option would eliminate five of the current mitigation measures proposed for the Project related to construction traffic and add five new measures. The principal concern regarding the transportation related alternatives is whether any of the alternatives creates additional adverse impacts different from those secondary impacts generated by mitigation measures previously identified to reduce project related impacts. E. Findings The Planning Commission rejects Alternative A, the Clean Fuels only alternative and finds that Alternative A is infeasible. This alternative, while minimally providing reductions and impacts on soils, air quality and visual quality, also minimally increases impacts on risk of upset and energy. This alternative would not reduce any of the Project's environmental impacts to a less than significant impact, and is not a clearly preferred, environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Clean Fuels Project. 46 The Planning Commission rejects Alternative B, the Reduced Project alternative and finds that Alternative B is infeasible. While the improvements from the Project are somewhat greater than those associated with Alternative A, the changes do not reduce a significant impact of the proposed Project to a level of less than significant. The alternative also increases impacts on risk of upset. The Planning Commission rejects Alternative C, the Visual Quality alternative and finds that Alternative C is infeasible. This alternative would increase impacts in both air quality and risk of upset in attempting to benefit the visual impacts of the Project. This alternative would not reduce any of the Project's environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. The Planning Commission rejects Alternative D, the Transportation alternative and finds that Alternative D is infeasible. The first two options, adding additional parking south of the Complex, appear to be viable alternatives regarding the parking proposed, but it is unclear that they would provide additional benefit beyond the existing mitigation measures for the Project. The option of widening ramps and roadways at Marina Vista creates impacts on vegetation and wildlife by filling lands classified as wetlands. This alternative would not reduce any of the Project's environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. The Planning Commission finds that neither the two whole project alternatives, nor the Visual or Transportation alternatives, have identified an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project, although the potential new flaring system and additional parking options of the Visual and Transportation impact alternatives can be considered in equivalent terms to the existing Project in overall environmental impacts. None of the alternatives ameliorates a significant environmental impact associated with the proposed Project. IV. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The Draft EIR summarizes the Project's significant unavoidable impacts at page 2-2 . CEQA requires that significant unavoidable impacts of the Project be described. The Project has avoided all potentially significant impacts to the extent feasible. Even after mitigation, the following significant impacts remain and are identified as significant unavoidable impacts. 47 c A. Air Ouality. Construction of the proposed Project will result in increased emissions of criteria pollutants and is considered an unavoidable significant impact. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate this impact. However, with implementation of these measures, the impact would remain a temporary significant unavoidable impact. The Project, in combination with other projects and other future projects, has a likely result of a significant increase in criteria pollutant emissions during Project construction, particularly if other projects are constructed at the same time as Shell's Project. This impact would be temporary, and would occur at the start of this and other clean fuels projects. Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase of volatile organic compound emissions to the atmosphere, contributing to formation of ozone in the region. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate this impact. However, with implementation of these measures the impact would remain a significant unavoidable impact. Operation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in daily nitrogen oxide emissions to the atmosphere during visits to the Project site by marine vessels. No feasible measures are available to reduce this impact and it is considered significant and unavoidable. Operation of the Project's stationary sources would result in significant emissions of carbon monoxide in the Project area. All feasible " mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to mitigate this impact. However, with implementation of these measures the impact would remain a significant unavoidable impact. B. Noise. Because of the location of the proposed new office building near residential areas, there will be an increase in noise to sensitive receptors during construction activities. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to reduce this impact. However, even with implementation of these measures the impact will remain significant and unavoidable, although temporary. The cumulative rail noise and vibration impacts on residents adjoining the Southern Pacific railroad tracks along major rail corridors between Oakland and Sacramento, and Oakland and the Brentwood area, are potentially significant. There are no 48 mitigation measures proposed. This impact is significant and unavoidable. C. Risk of Upset. Because of the number and magnitude of new facilities to be constructed, and the complexities and uncertainties inherent in such facilities, this impact is considered significant, even though mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted that would appear to reduce the impact to less than significant. D. Visual Ouality. 1. Views from Interstate 680. The proposed Project components would be visible from both north and southbound directions of Interstate 680. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to reduce this impact. However, even with implementation of these measures the impact will remain a significant and unavoidable impact. 2 . Views from Gateway to City of Martinez. The proposed Project components will be visible from the Gateway to the City of Martinez. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to reduce this impact, however, even with implementation the impact would remain a significant unavoidable impact. 3 . Cumulative Visual Impact. The proposed Project would add to the cumulative range change in the visual environment associated with anticipated development within the vicinity. All feasible mitigation measures have been proposed and adopted to reduce this impact. However, even with implementation of these measures the impact will remain a significant unavoidable impact. Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the measures set forth in these findings to mitigate impacts of the Project will in most cases mitigate the specific impact to a level of insignificance. The Planning Commission further finds that the Project will have significant unavoidable impacts as set forth in this Section IV, and as a result of these significant unavoidable impacts the Planning Commission hereby adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. (See Section VIII. ) The Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted after full consideration and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. 49 i V. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are discussed on pages 18-1 through 18-30 of the DEIR. A list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future Shell projects, and a summary of projections for areas adjacent to the Project site, are contained on pages 18-1 through 18-6 of the DEIR. Set forth below is a brief discussion of the potential cumulative impacts of the Project. The cumulative impact analysis contained in the Project EIR is based on the specific analysis conducted under each individual topic section and information contained in the FEIR. 1. Air Ouality. The Project, in combination with other projects and other future projects, has a likely result of a significant increase in criteria pollutant emissions during construction, particularly in the event that other projects are constructed at the same time as Shell's Project. It is anticipated, however, that the significant cumulative impact on air quality in the region would be temporary and that the impact would cease upon the start up of the Clean Fuels Projects and use of reformulated gasoline produced by such projects. A number of the projects analyzed in the cumulative impact section are in fact Clean Fuels Projects undertaken by other oil refining facilities. Since all feasible mitigation measures have been specified to control air emissions during construction of the Shell Clean Fuels Project, no further mitigation can be applied. The cumulative effect of emission increases from future projects and emission reductions from the use of reformulated gasoline will produce a net reduction in pollutant emissions in the region and a beneficial cumulative impact. 2 . Noise. In a worst case scenario, cumulative rail noise and vibration impacts on residences adjoining the Southern Pacific railroad tracks along major rail corridors between Oakland and Sacramento, and Oakland and the Brentwood area, are potentially significant as a result of the Project and other projects in the general vicinity. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact, and an impact that would occur at the same level of significance with or without the proposed Project. Because the Complex contributes an insignificant amount to this cumulative impact it is believed unreasonable to require Shell to mitigate the cumulative noise impacts resulting from increased rail operations on the Southern Pacific railroad line. 3 . Risk of Upset. Potential cumulative impacts involving the Project and future projects at the Complex, involving simultaneous accidents or secondary impacts of a single accident, could occur. This impact can be mitigated to a less than 50 significant level by Shell implementing Mitigation Measure 11-6 in the FEIR in connection with any future project at the Complex. 4 . Public Services. Cumulative development in the Contra Costa Water District in combination with this 'Project would produce a significant cumulative impact on potential water supply in the District. Mitigation Measure 13-8 has been proposed to mitigate this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. 5. Emergency Response. The risk of upset from cumulative impacts from this Project and other future on-site Shell projects would pose a significant cumulative risk of upset. These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant by Shell undertaking an accident analysis for each new project proposed at the Shell Complex in the future, using analytical protocols approved by the County of Contra Costa. Shell would be required to undertake engineering or operational changes necessary to reduce its share of the cumulative risk of upset and cumulative emergency response impacts to less than significant levels. See Mitigation Measure 13-9 . 6. Energy and Public Utilities. Implementation of the proposed Project and other reasonably foreseeable projects would result in an increase in energy consumption by operational vehicles and facilities. This would result in a significant cumulative impact on non-renewable resources. Natural gas consumption would increase and this would cause a significant cumulative impact on distribution pipelines. 7 . Visual Quality. The proposed Project would add to the cumulative change in the visual environment associated with anticipated development within the vicinity, and this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Despite the imposition of Mitigation Measure 15-14, the cumulative impacts of this Project and other projects in the vicinity will result in a cumulative adverse change to the visual impact. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Findings: Based on the FEIR, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will only contribute to cumulative impacts in the area of energy and public utilities, visual quality, noise and air quality. In recognition thereof, and having considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures, the Planning Commission hereby adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds therein that the Project's benefits outweigh the remaining significant unavoidable impacts. (See Section VIII . ) 51 VI. IRREVERSIBLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Project EIR on pages 19-1 and 19-2 discusses significant irreversible changes. CEQA requires an analysis of the justification of the Project's impact on non-renewable resources during the initial and continual phases of the Project which may be irreversible since large commitments of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated in the EIR to assure the current assumption is justified. Primary impacts and particular secondary impacts generally commit future generations to similar uses. Another potential source of irreversible damage can be environmental accidents associated with the Project. Under Section 15127 of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of irreversible significant environmental impacts is not required for the Shell Project EIR. Section 15127 states that the discussion concerning irreversible significant environmental impacts required in Section 15126 (f) is only required if the proposed Project involves one of the conditions listed below as applicable to Section 15126 (e) . VII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Facts: The Draft EIR on pages 19-1 discusses the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity. Pursuant to Section 15127 of the CEQA Guidelines, a discussion under Section 15126 (e) of the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is only required if the proposed Project involves: 1. The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy or ordinance of a public agency; 2 . The adoption by a local agency or commission of a resolution making a determination; or 3 . A project which would be subject to the requirement of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The proposed Project would not involve any of the above actions and therefore the indicated discussion is not required in the FEIR. 52 i J VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Following a determination that significant impacts remain after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, approval of a project must be accompanied by a Statement of Overriding Considerations. CEQA requires the benefits of a project to be balanced against its significant unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15093) . The Project EIR discussed over 50 potential direct significant environmental impacts, in addition to cumulative impacts, that could result from the Project. Eleven (11) out of the over 50 potentially significant impacts will result in unmitigated or unavoidable impacts. These unavoidable impacts are set forth in Section IV hereof. The Planning Commission has determined that the benefits of this Project outweigh these unavoidable environmental impacts. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered and comprise the Statement of Overriding Considerations (See DEIR pages 18-31 through 18-37) . This Statement of Overriding Considerations is being adopted after full consideration and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures. A. Reduced Emissions One of the main objectives of the Project is to produce cleaner reformulated gasolines as required under the State Clean Air Act and the Federal Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. These laws require the manufacture and sale of reformulated gasoline with a combination of basic ingredients designed to produce cleaner combustion in motor vehicles than the gasoline used at present. Through cleaner combustion, improvements in air quality and public health can be realized. The California Air Resources Board ("GARB") in its document entitled "California Phase II Reformulated Gasoline Specifications" and its accompanying staff report and technical support document dated October 4, 1991, (see application for Land Use Permit, Vol. VII) provides the following information regarding the substantial reductions that will result in the emission of criteria pollutants from the use of reformulated gasoline. It is estimated that in 1996, use of reformulated gasoline produced by Shell Oil's Martinez Manufacturing Complex would reduce state-wide volatile organic compound emissions by 5, 694 tons, emissions of NOX by 2, 190 tons, SOX by 1, 314 tons, and CO by 556, 984 tons. These emission reductions would continue in subsequent years at somewhat reduced levels because of increased vehicular emission standards. The proposed Project would create a net reduction in the Bay Area of emissions of PM10 by 9 tons per year, volatile organic compounds by 4 , 226 tons per year, NOX by 541 53 J t tons per year, SOX by 1, 064 tons per year, and CO by 19, 739 tons per year. Contra Costa County emission reductions would be 9 tons a year of PM10, 826 tons a year of volatile organic compounds, 241 tons a year of NOX, 414 tons a year of SOX, and 2,739 tons a year of CO. Finally, in Martinez net reductions would occur in PM10 by 9 tons per year, volatile organic compounds by 266 tons a year, NOX by 195 tons a year, SOX by 322 tons per year. Emissions of CO would increase by 61 tons a year. In addition to reductions of criteria pollutants, gasoline powered vehicles are a major source of suspected toxic air contaminants. Reformulated gasoline specifications developed by the CARB reduce gasoline power vehicle toxic air contaminants and their associated cancer potential. The CARB studies associated with implementation of the clean fuels legislation shows significant reductions in the emissions of toxic air contaminants, specifically including benzene and butadiene. The CARB studies also show a decrease in the potential for cancer cases in California as a result of the use of reformulated gasoline (Draft EIR, page 18-36) . The decreases in cancer risks and decreases in air contaminants caused as a result of the use of the clean fuels from the Project more than offset emissions produced by the construction and operation of the Project. The Project will also result in a substantial decrease in emissions of benzene and butadiene reducing cancer risks in the immediate project vicinity. B. Beneficial Economic Impacts As set forth in the Draft EIR on pages 18-36 and 18-37, the proposed Project will increase permanent employment at the Complex by 200 full-time and 600 part-time jobs beginning in 1995, with increases to these totals by 1998 . Assuming the part-time jobs are half-time positions, a total of 500 full-time equivalent new jobs will be generated by the proposed Project. These new jobs would exceed the 114 full-time jobs lost at the Genstar Roofing and Trumbull Asphalt companies due to the expiration of their land leases. Construction of the proposed Project would create a peak demand for 1, 750 construction workers in 1994 and 1,450 workers in 1997 . A minimum demand of 750 construction workers will be required in 1996. There is a projected surplus of labor relative to jobs for each year from 1990 to 2000, ranging from a low of 13 , 400 to a high of 32 , 700. The recent recession has reduced demand for construction jobs relative to supply below the level of a healthy 54 _economy. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the proposed Project would have a beneficial effect on local employment rates. In addition to the employment increases as a result of the Project, the Project also will enable the existing Complex to comply with the mandatory state and federal legislation requiring the production and sale of clean fuels in 1995 and 1996. The Project will allow the Complex to remain a viable employer within the County of Contra Costa and City of Martinez by enabling the Complex to comply with the state and federal legislation (Draft EIR, Chapter III, page 3-15) . C. Beneficial Energy Impacts As discussed on page 14-8 of the DEIR, demand for electricity from PG&E during normal operations of the Project would increase from 5 to 50 MW above the current demand. The Project includes installation of a cogeneration plant to meet increased demand for steam and electricity associated with the Project. The construction and operation of the cogeneration plant will have a beneficial effect on energy impacts. D. Beneficial Revenue Impacts In addition to the increased employment opportunities discussed above, financial revenues are predicted as a result of the construction and operation of the Project in the form of state and local sales taxes in the sum of approximately $33 , 000, 000, and an increase of approximately $4, 000, 000 per year in annual property taxes (application for Land Use Permit, Vol. VII) . 43824.4 55 H-ii Shell Oil Company P O Box 711 Martinez CA 94553 Te*lwne:(510)313-WW October 7, 1993 Chairperson Tom Torlakson and Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 PinelStreet Martinez, CA 94553 Re: :! Shell Oil Company's Clean Fuels Project - Land Use Permit #2009-92 - Appeal by Diana Patrick, Hearing Date October 12, 1993 This letter is to respond to and comment on the appeal to Shell Oil Company's (Shell) Clean Fuels Project filed by Diana Patrick. INTRODUCTION State and federal laws require that cleaner burning gasoline be produced and sold in the years 1995 and 1996. This new gasoline, when available, will significantly reduce air pollution caused by emissions from vehicles. It will also significantly reduce toxic emissions" caused by vehicles, including benzene, and will have a direct benefit in reducing cancer risks caused by vehicular emissions. One of the primary purposes of Shell's Clean Fuels Project is to enable it to produce this cleaner burning, reformulated gasoline. The project will also enable Shell to convert heavy industrial fuel oils to other cleaner products. As a result of the project, there will be a significant improvement in air quality in Martinez, in the Bay Area and in the state. At the same time, the project will provide in excess of 1700 construction jobs and more than 200 full-time jobs once the project is completed. Finally, the improvements being constructed will add greatly to the city and county tax rolls, and will generate millions of dollars in revenue through sales taxes. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the certification of the EIR for the Clean Fuels Project and the Use Permit. Of the 64 speakers who spoke at the two public hearings on the project before the Planning Commission, only three spoke in opposition to the project. A project agreement was entered into with organized labor, and many of the speakers supporting the project were in fact representatives of various local labor unions and/or were union members. Shell and Citizens for a Better Environment and Communities for a Safe Environment also entered into a written I Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 2 agreement resulting in project support from these environmental groups. Ms. Patrick is the only individual or organization to appeal the Planning Commission's decision and that appeal is all that stands in the way of commencement of construction of this state and federally mandated $1 billion project. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEOA) An EIR is an informational document which will inform the public agency decision makers and public generally of the "significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. " (underlining added) (CCR, Title 14, §15121) In considering the appeal of Ms. Patrick, it must be remembered that the project before you is Shell's 1993 Clean Fuels Project, and that the EIR identifies significant environmental impacts from the project and sets forth mitigation measures to minimize their effects. The same state legislature that adopted the California Clean Air Act, and its reformulated gasoline requirements, felt so strongly about the need for reformulated gasoline that it also amended CEQA to facilitate .the EIR process for such projects. (Public Resources Code, §21178.1) Subsection (g) of that section reads as follows: "Mitigation measures imposed by the lead agency shall bear a reasonable relationship to the significant impacts to be mitigated. " As will be seen in the discussion below, many of the issues addressed in the appeal have no relationship to the 1993 Clean Fuels Project and legally could not be addressed in the context of mitigation measures imposed on the 1993 Clean Fuels Project. THE APPEAL The following addresses each of the substantive comments in Ms. Patrick's appeal, paragraph by paragraph. A copy of the appeal letter is attached with its paragraphs numbered. The paragraph number in the left column below corresponds to the paragraph number in the appeal letter. Pr h. # Response/Comment 1, 2, 8 The contention in these paragraphs is that it is not clear that there are more elements to the project than solely compliance with State and Federal clean fuels legislation for the production of reformulated gasoline. It is Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 3 Pr h. # Response/Comment suggested that two EIRs should have been prepared, one for the reformulated gasoline portion of the project and one for the rest of the project. It appears that the appellant has misinterpreted the project description in the EIR. The project description in the EIR (p. 3-1) states as follows: "Shell Oil Company is proposing a Clean Fuels Project to modify its manufacturing facilities and capabilities at the Manufacturing Complex (MMC) in order to make federal and state mandated reformulated gasoline, as well as to upgrade high sulfur. heavy fuels to cleaner. more valuable products. " (Underlining added) In Chapter 3, which is entitled "Project Description", Section II is entitled "Objectives and Requirements". Subparagraph A is entitled "Reformulated Gasoline" and subparagraph B is entitled "Upgrade Heavy Fuels and Sustain Existing Gasoline Production". This subparagraph B reads as follows: "As described in the project overview, some constituents of current gasoline must be removed to 'meet the more stringent requirements for reformulated gasoline. With the removal of these constituents, gasoline volume is lost. To meet its objective of maintaining gasoline production levels without increasing crude rate, Shell is including new units which will upgrade heavy fuel stocks to lighter products in order to replace lost gasoline volume. In addition, the upgrading of high sulfur fuel (marine fuel oil) and lubricant oils will produce cleaner and more economically valuable products. These units, the Delayed Coking Unit, Coker Gasoline Splitter Column, and the Lube Hydrotreater are not required to produce reformulated gasoline." In addition, Shell produced approximately 1,000 pamphlets describing the project which were issued to the public at every opportunity and request. A copy of one page of the pamphlet is attached. As can be seen, the pamphlet clearly distinguishes the reformulated gasoline portion of the project from that portion of the project which will f Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 4 Prgh. # Response/Comment convert "heavier, industrial fuels to cleaner burning products". Contrary to the appellant's contention that there should be two EIRs, one for reformulated gasoline and one for the remainder of the project, CEQA favors, if not requires, combining related projects in one EIR (CCR, Title 14, §§15165, 15168) . 3 This paragraph contains conclusionary statements only that will be addressed in the specific discussions below. 4, 5, 6 In these paragraphs, the appellant contends that the EIR and Response to Comments documents were inaccessible to the public, that the Planning Commission process was intimidating, and that more public meetings should have been held with respect to the project. While these issues deal with the County process and are best addressed by the County, Shell would like to make the following observations: The County held five (5) public hearings regarding the EIR, including the scoping session, a daytime and a nighttime meeting to receive oral comments on the Draft EIR, and two meetings before the Planning Commission with respect to EIR certification and Land Use Permit approval. Over 100 members of the public commented orally at these meetings and approximately 88 individuals (offering more than 1,000 comments) commented in writing on the Draft EIR. In addition, Shell held at least three public meetings to explain and answer questions regarding the project. These facts do not support the contention that the public was somehow shut out or intimidated with respect to the EIR process for this project. Finally, Shell has established a Clean Fuels Project telephone number which can be accessed 24 hours a day with questions, comments, and concerns regarding the project. It is estimated that one call per day has been received on the project at this telephone number. 7 The appellant contends that the County had a conflict of interest in processing the project because it receives fees and increased taxes, and because of the potential sale of the maintenance yard to Shell. First, the County is under no obligation to sell the maintenance yard to Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 5 Pr h. # Response/Comment Shell, and nothing in the EIR process or permit requires such a sale. Second, if receiving fees and taxes were a conflict of interest, the County could hear no projects within its boundaries. Finally, the law requires the County to process a project within its jurisdiction. 9-16, 19, The EIR guideline cited by the appellant applies to the 20, 21, Cumulative Impact section of an EIR. In fact, the 31, 34, Cumulative Impact section of the Draft EIR contains a list 37, of all projects which were found to have any reasonable relationship to the Clean Fuels Project and/or which would produce any potential cumulative impact with the Clean Fuels Project. All of these paragraphs in the appeal discuss the appellant's most consistent theme, namely, alleged improprieties with Shell Oil's permitting for its 1979-84 modernization project. In reading the appeal, it is difficult to tell whether it is an appeal of the 1993 Clean Fuels Project or the 1979-84 modernization project. The appellant did not appeal the modernization project permits but apparently wishes she had. Beginning in 1990, this appellant began a campaign to have the Air District permits issued in 1980 and 1984 for what was known as the Shell Modernization Project investigated by various agencies with respect to air quality and wharf activities at the Martinez Complex. The appellant, who was then an assistant to former Supervisor Fanden, utilizing Supervisor Fanden's office, commenced an inquiry that included a public meeting with agency representatives from the Contra Costa County Planning Department, Health Department, District Attorney's office, State Attorney General's office, the State Air Resources Board, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Private interviews were also held at the request of the State Attorney General. This inquiry lasted approximately six months and at its conclusion, all agencies concluded there was no impropriety or violation of any permit. Unfortunately, this did not satisfy the appellant and all of the same issues formed the substance of an appeal filed by the appellant with respect to Shell's marine vapor recovery unit installed in November of 1991, pursuant to Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 6 Prgh. # Response/Comment the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Despite the fact that this unit reduced emissions at the Shell refinery by more than 200 tons a year, the appellant successfully held up the permitting by the City for a period of approximately two years. During that time, the City hired independent consultants to again look into the air quality and wharf activity allegations of the appellant, even though they were unrelated to the marine vapor recovery project. The consultant, as with everyone else who has looked into the issue, found no impropriety and compliance with Air District permit conditions. At the final City Council hearing where the marine vapor recovery project was approved, the head of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit division testified, unequivocally confirming the validity of the 1979-84 modernization permits and Shell's compliance with those permits. Copies of some relevant correspondence regarding the previous proceedings involving these issues are attached for your reference. This appeal has now become the latest vehicle for what are truly not only unfounded issues, but issues totally unrelated to the Clean Fuels Project. 17 The appellant raises issues about the number of railcars that will be "switched" as a result of the Clean Fuels Project. While the EIR accurately describes the switching activity related to the Clean Fuels Project, the appellant does not. The appellant asserts that the switching will take place in Martinez at what is known as the "Ozol Yard". What the EIR states is that the switchmen who will do the switching adjacent to the Martinez refinery on the Mococo Mainline sidings will come from the Martinez Ozol Yard. The switching itself does not take place in Martinez, but rather on the Mococo Mainline sidings immediately adjacent to the refinery. 18 The appellant contends that the EIR should include Shell's wharf and the SP Ozol switching station because Shell is closing their own switching station. First, Shell's information submitted to the EIR consultants is that there will be no increase in ship movements as a result of the Clean Fuels Project. The EIR consultants took a more conservative view and indicated there might be an additional two ships per year, the impact of which were Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 7 Pr h. # Response/Comment analyzed in the EIR. Second, as set forth in the Draft EIR, pages 12-25, rail access to the Martinez Manufacturing Complex is provided through two industrial leads from the Mococo Mainline. These leads are in operation now and will remain in operation after the Clean Fuels Project. Shell is not closing any of its switching stations. As pointed out in the EIR (p. 12-74) , "SP has indicated they will be able to accommodate the additional rail traffic generated by the Clean Fuels Project without any impact to freight rail operations." Furthermore, with the mitigation measures imposed in the EIR, which include an improved -or new crossing protection for Marina Vista at what is known as the Genstar gate, this aspect of rail operations will have a less than significant impact. 22 The appellant comments on Shell's stormwater storage system at its wastewater treatment facility. The Clean Fuels Project has no provisions for the storage of stormwater at the wastewater treatment facility. The EIR for the Clean Fuels Project, on page 6-1, discusses surface water in considerable detail. It points out that Shell is subject to an NPDES permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and stormwater and surface waters will be handled in compliance with the permit. The appellant's comments address the existing refinery and are unrelated to the Clean Fuels Project. 23, 24, These paragraphs discuss selenium. The first addresses 25 the project and the second refers back to 1980. Selenium is discussed in detail in both the Draft EIR and in the Response to Comments (Draft EIR, p. 6-13; Response to Comments II-1 through II-3) . The mitigation measure proposed in the EIR and adopted as a condition of the project in the County Use Permit, states that the Clean Fuels Project must have no net increase in selenium discharge above that of the existing refinery. Paragraph 25, dealing with Shell's 1980 modernization project, has no relationship to the 1993 Clean Fuels Project. Again, the appellant wishes to address historic matters, not related to the Clean Fuels Project. 26 The appellant references ballast water being discharged from tankers at Shell's wharf. Again, this is an existing activity that has no relationship to the 1993 Clean Fuels Project. The fact is that ships are required to segregate Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 8 r h. Response/Comment ballast water compartments from cargo compartments. Therefore, the ballast water is clean, uncontaminated and may be discharged directly into any water body. 27 Fugitive coke emissions for the Delayed Coker were analyzed in the EIR and were included in Table 8-16 of the EIR. Coke loading into cars will be governed by permit conditions imposed by the BAAQMD (Air District) to minimize coke emissions. For example, the railcar loading hopper will be completely enclosed and a wind shield will be used. Other conditions apply to production, storage and shipping of coke product to reduce the potential for fugitive particulate emissions. 28 The Concord monitoring station for air emissions is the closest to the refinery and, accordingly, statistics from that station were used. 1992 statistics were not used because the Draft EIR was prepared in early 1993 before the Concord data was available. 29, 32, The "Air" and "Public Health" sections of the EIR 33 commencing on page 8-1 are some 100 pages long, and discusses at length the current emission inventories of criteria pollutants and other chemicals for the Bay Area as well as for the Martinez Manufacturing Complex. Furthermore, Shell is required to obtain an Authority to Construct from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the Clean Fuels Project where existing emissions of the refinery, as well as projected emissions from the Clean Fuels Project, will be analyzed in far greater detail than in the EIR. 30 The information provided in the EIR on air emissions are estimates using conservative assumptions and agency approved models. Once a permit is obtained so the equipment can be constructed and operated, source testing of combustion sources will be completed to verify emissions factors used in the estimates and inspections of equipment will be performed to ensure compliance with permit conditions. Nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and particulate emissions from the Clean Fuels Project are being offset by reductions at the refinery. Carbon monoxide emission impacts were modeled according to EPA and BAAQMD Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 9 Pr ResponseZComment requirements and shown not to adversely affect air quality. Therefore, no offsets are required. Further, the use of reformulated gasoline in the Martinez area will result in a net reduction of carbon monoxide; however, this net effect was not included in the analysis of project impacts only in order to provide a conservative analysis. Volatile organic compound (VOC or hydrocarbon) emissions are managed differently under CEQA and BAAQMD regulations. BAAQMD regulations allow off-site offsets to be applied to the project; however, CEQA has been interpreted to not allow off-site offsets to be considered. Further, neither of these positions reflect what will really happen in the Martinez area after the Clean Fuels Project. While the Clean Fuels Project is being constructed, other regulations will become effective which will reduce VOC emissions from the refinery. Therefore, VOC emissions from the refinery will be less after the Clean Fuels Project than the VOC emissions from the refinery before the Clean Fuels Project. Finally, the agreement with Citizens for Better Environment and Citizens for Safe Environment also provides for additional on-site VOC reductions concurrent with the project. 34 This paragraph questions noise impacts from Shell's 1980 modernization project. As with so many of the appellant's comments, this comment has no relationship to the 1993 Clean Fuels Project or its potential environmental impacts. 35 The appellant contends that the risk of upset section of the EIR is incomplete because it does not include levels of production from the project. There is also a comment that gasoline loading at the wharf will increase as a result, and that that risk needs to be addressed. Shell's Land Use Permit application clearly states: "This project will not increase crude distilling capacity. " (Land Use Application 2009-92, page 1-1) The projections with respect to the Clean Fuels Project are that not more than two new shipments will occur per year as a result of the project. 38 First this comment is inconsistent with a previous comment made by the appellant that states the 1979 EIR appears to address switching activities with Shell's refinery and anticipates a total of seven railcar trips per day after Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 10 Prgh. # Response/Comment modernization (refer to comment #17) . Railcar movements or "switching" for the refinery on the two existing Shell leads is an ongoing activity which occurred prior to the 1979 EIR (refer to the "Existing Setting" discussion in the 1979 EIR and the Clean Fuels Project EIR) . The Clean Fuels Project EIR analyzed the air (Impact 8-3, 8-4, 8-6, 8-7 and 8-8) , noise (Impact 10-6 and 10-12) , traffic (Impact 12-12) , and accident (DEIR p. 11-47) impacts of the additional railcars from the Clean Fuels Project. To the extent that this comment relates back to 1979, it has no relevance to the 1993 Clean Fuels Project. 39 Refer to responses to paragraphs 17 and 18. 40 The impact of the Clean Fuels Project on the multiple uses of Marina Vista were analyzed in the EIR. The impact of truck movements on Marina Vista was analyzed and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce traffic impact including construction truck delivery time restriction, new traffic signal installation, and traffic congestion monitoring. The impact of railcar grade crossings at Marina Vista was analyzed and a mitigation measure was adopted to upgrade the automatic railroad crossing protection. The impact of project traffic on bicycle facilities was analyzed and a mitigation measure was adopted to improve bicycle use on Marina Vista. Reported flooding of Marina Vista at I-680 was addressed in the EIR and a mitigation measure adopted to address the impact. The impact of trucks turning onto Mococo Road from Marina Vista was identified and resulted in a permit condition requiring Shell to improve the access to Mococo Road. With these mitigation measures, the EIR found these impacts to be insignificant. 41 The appellant contends that the water usage for the project should be broken into two parts, one for reformulated gasoline and one for the remainder of the project. It is important to note that this is the second paragraph in which the appellant in effect requests two EIRs to analyze the two separate but related projects. However, in five other paragraphs, the appellant repeatedly asserts that to be adequate, an EIR must include a discussion of reasonably anticipated future and/or related projects (see appeal letter, paragraphs 9, . 10, 19, and 46) . As cited above, the anti-piecemealing Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page it Pr Response/Comment provisions of CEQA prevent related projects from being treated separately and their impacts must be considered together. The EIR, on pages 13-3 through 13-8 discusses the water needs of the Clean Fuels Project and the ability of public entities to supply those needs and indicates the impact will be less than significant. 42 The visual impact of the Clean Fuels Project was analyzed from seven observation points. Observation Point 5 represents the view from northbound I-680, Observation Point 6 represents the view from southbound I-680, and Observation Point 7 represents the view from the "gateway" to the City of Martinez from Marina Vista/I-680 interchange. The impact from these Observations Points is the same as the impact from the Benicia Bridge since the locations are close. The impact from the three Observation Points was found to be significant and mitigation measures were adopted. 43 CEQA guidelines, Section 15131(a) states: "Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment." The City of Martinez' existing economics is not an appropriate discussion topic for the EIR. The EIR does make it clear that the economies of both the City and the County will be greatly improved as a result of the construction and operation of the project. (See EIR, pp. 18-31 through 18- 37) 44 This paragraph is conclusionary and the individual conclusions have already been addressed in previous comments. 45 The County Planning Commission did, at the time of the adoption of the Clean Fuels Project, adopt an extensive mitigation monitoring program to ensure enforcement of the conditions of the County Use Permit. This program is approximately 45 pages in length. The remaining items listed in this paragraph are the same as those covered in previous comments. (See comments 1, 29, and 35) 46 This paragraph is a repeat of issues that have already been covered, both in the appeal and in the responses. Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 12 PXah. _t Response/Comment 47 Appellant contends the project alternatives section of the EIR should have looked at off-site locations. As mentioned above, the State legislature adopted special legislation for processing Environmental Impact Reports dealing with reformulated gasoline requirements. (Public Resources Code, §21178.1) . Among the provisions of the special legislation is subparagraph (h) which reads as follows: " (h) No environmental impact report shall include a discussion of 'no project alternative' , nor shall it include a discussion of any alternative sites for the project which are outside of existing refinery boundaries." 48 The Draft EIR, beginning on page 11-1 and extending through 11-47, examines potential risks of upset from the Clean Fuels Project. Under the section "Sensitive Receptors" on page 11-1, potential impacts on I-680 and Marine Vista are discussed. The mitigation measure imposed also specifically addresses potential risks in start-ups and requires that before the start-up of each unit, a Hazardous and Operability Study be conducted and any and all mitigation measures disclosed by the Study be implemented. In analyzing potential release and/or accident scenarios, the Draft EIR under the Risk of Upset section (page 11-25) states "the scenarios selected for detailed modeling are intended to provide an upper bound to the potential consequences of reasonably foreseeable accidents, . . ." Thus, worst case scenarios are analyzed by the Draft EIR. 49 The alternatives analyzed by the EIR include a clean fuels only alternative, a reduced project alternative, two visual quality alternatives, and a transportation alternative. Also refer to response 47 which addresses locating the project at other locations. 50 Shell .disagrees. Shell believes this project and the EIR process, as well as the cooperation between industry, the County, as well as labor and environmental interests should be held out as an example of how a project of this magnitude should be processed. County has been extremely diligent in reviewing the project for all possible impacts to ensure minimal effect on the environment and ensuring the EIR complies with CEQA. This project benefits the environment by enabling Shell to comply with State and Chairperson Torlakson and Board of Supervisors October 7, 1993 Page 13 Pr Response/Comment Federal reformulated gasoline requirements, creates major employment opportunities at a time when the economy most needs it, and provides additional tax -revenues when local agencies are having some of the greatest funding problems in their history. While some of these issues deal with the County process and are best addressed by the County, Shell would like to make the following observations: County asked Shell for a list of all contractors employed by Shell over the past several years who have been involved in environmental projects and a list of the projects involved. Also, as part of the EIR contractor selection process, all EIR preparers were required to submit a resume including qualifications and previous jobs and projects. This appeal should be denied so the project can proceed. Very truly yours, R. F. Andrews Refinery Manager Martinez Manufacturing Complex RFA/KH/ms/517M Enclosures a R Box 1086 ��;�' ;,;p, t', i;r;uti I i Martinez 94553 93 OCT - ! Pi-i 3- 53 September 30, 1993 TO: Tom Torlakson, Chair CCC Board of Supervisors FROM: Diana Patrick I appeal the Contra Costa County Planning Commissions acceptance of both the Shell Oil ComnanU Clean Fuels Project (State Clearinghouse a 92093028) as complete: and approval of the land use permit for Project 112009-92 to the Board of Supervisors, under your category of adverse impact on my property value.' The public is ill served by the inaccurate project name of Shel OOil Company Clean Fuels Project and an EIR that does not address the major component of this project, that of expanding gasolineijetfuel production. The larger project, that of expanded gasoline and jet fuel ® production by increased crude distillation and other residual cracking activities must be included in the project name, considered separately in the Initial Studu and Project Definition. The land use permit as approved, allows Shell to worsen the environment, add visual blight to the I-680 corridor, switch O 15,000 hazardous material tank cars at night west of Martinez and increase risk of explosion due to the processes used to refine crude residuals. The public was deceived into thinking the entire project was mandated by 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The Draft Enuironmental Impact Report and Response To Comment Documents were made inaccessible to the community. The public's choice was �J to pay about $120 for the DEIR and response document, or read from the single copy issued to each area library. An effort must be made to make lengthy and expensive documents accessible to the affected community by issuing enough copies to libraries for the public to check them out to read at their leisure. Planning Commission Hearing Process: The Shell EIR/Project hearing process used by the Planning Commission was intimidating and avoided EIR dialogue. At both hearings persons supporting the project were allowed to speak before those in opposition. Instead of speaking to the issue, many hours were filled with Shell's friends, employees and retirees offering support for the project without specific comment to the EIR or project components, delaying and intimidating those present to raise issues until very late. Meed For Public Education: 1 E ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Because the project is so expansive and treads heavily on all Z sections of the environment, organized public workshops would provide focus on specific issues and avoid filibuster and © intimidation. Hercules is providing public workshops to inform residents of various aspects of Pacific Refining's Improved Fuels Modification Project. (A notice is attached.) O Conflict of Interest I raise concern with the County's ability to be non-partial in this process as the County will be receiving extensive fees and taxes. The County Maintenance Yard is to be sold to Shell. The purchase price, appraised valuation and anticipated fees and taxes are pertinent to the public and must be revealed in this evaluation. ® Initial Study and Project Definition: Again the two projects: Clean Fuels and Refining Expansion must be described separately. To leave them together as one Clean Fuels Project, deceives the public into disregarding the separate product expansion, the larger and more environmentally damaging project. "A curtailed or distorted projectdescriptionmay stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project (projects) may affected outsiders and public decision. makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs, considering mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (ie., the 'no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. The Initial Study and Project Definition must describe increased production due to expanded refining capability from the additional manufacturing processes (ie, isomerization, cracking and alkylation) and all the other process that increases production of gasoline, jet fuel and other products from residual; that part of the processed crude oil not currently refined into product. The initial study and project definition must be corrected and expanded to address this production increase omissions and their impacts. �1 CEQA guidelines require that an EIR be adequate, complete and a good faith effort at full disclosure. "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements; (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are likely to produce, related or ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cumulative impact, or (b) The proposed project area for the _ expansion As expanded refining was not considered in the 1979 EIR, this EIR process to meet Substantive Requirements of CEQA described in CEQA Guidelines says, "If necessary, the lead agency must use "reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss" related past, present and future projects, even if under review by other agencies." A comparison of the 1979 EIR to the expanded activities existing today, along with a review of BAAQMD permits since 1980, would shed light on how this possible doubling of throughput occurred, without public notice. Inconsistencies in The Record: a substantive requirement of CEQA provides that "if necessary the lead agency must use "reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss" related past, present and future projects, even if under review by other agencies." Shell has grown like topsy, in opposition to historic record and permits. Verify 1979 and 1993 EIR Statistics and BAAQMD Baseline Emission Components: The 1979 Shell 'Modernization' project EIR reported no more than 128,000 barrels/day of crude oil would be brought to the refinery, and that gasoline production would increase from 51x to 60x. A respected trade journal reported that Shell's refining capacity was 20,000 barrels less, 108,000 barrels/day. 1992 statistics from that same trade jouurnal indicate that Shell's current capacity is 147.000 barrels/day. 12 Describe the permit process allowing this expansion and what percent of the production gasolineijetfuel manufacturing represents today and project what production levels will occur after expansion? The probable 50x barrel/day refining expansion since 1977 and the resulting product and transportation increases meets the Substantive issue criteria of CEQA and accurate information must be obtained and considered. Ualid statistics from reliable providers, ie. US Army Corps of Engineers, tax records, Marine Exchange, must be used to determine barrel/day capacity in 1977 and 1982, wharf activity, ie. numbers of tankers barge visits and type and quantity of materials loaded/unloaded. Marine Loading Inconsistencies: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 1979 Shell EIR reports 194 tankers and 247 barges visited Shell's wharf in 1977. Marine Exchange records indicate 108 14 tankers visited Shell's wharf in 1977. This EIR claims that 542 barges and 220 ships visited Shell's wharf in 1988. No source was given to this number. Wharf Activity Inconsistencies The 1979 EIR stated that Shell's wharf main use was unloading crude oil and loading residual fuel oil. Gasoline loading was (5 mentioned as an ongoing activity. As no vapor recovery was . considered (as was required for Tosco's gasoline loading activity around that time), loading gasoline,at Shell's wharf was an insignificant activity. . In 1982 Shell started loading large amounts of crude, a new activity not addressed in the 1979 EIR or 1980 BAAQMD permit. I(p Shell now loads a large quantity of gasoline into tankers for delivery in Los Angeles. This expanded activity and the associated risk has never been described. Switching and Rail Trip Inconsistencies: The 1979 EIR appears to address switching activities within Shell's refinery and anticipates a total of 7 rail car trips per day after Modernization. The 1993 EIR states that Shell currently switches 1500 tank cars annually at the Martinez Ozol switching station and that 13,000 more cars, or a total of 14,500 will be switched there annually. The 1993 EIR infers that Ozol switching is an ongoing activity, please determine when did Shell start switching cars at Ozol? How many rail car trips per day exist now? Project Definition The project designation must be expanded to include the total MMC, wharf and rail line to the SP Ozol switching station west of 18 Martinez as Shell is closing their own switching station and moving that activity to the rail line through Martinez. CEQA defines project as the "whole of an action", including information specific to all agencies that issue permits, ie. the 19 BAAQMD. The California courts have held that "an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (CH 3) Project impacts ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- are listed in all CEQA categories indicating the severity of the proposed project's environmental presence. Expanded refining of residuals and the addition of MTBE, a corrosive cause the entire MMC, wharf and rail line to be the "project". The affect of the project must be defined. CEQA Guidelines also state: "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are likely to produce, related or cumulative impact, or (b) The proposed project area for the expansion project, must be amended to include the entire MMC, wharf and transportation routes Including the Ozol switching station, Existing Environment This EIR- fails to describe the existing enuironment at the MMC, 20 wharf and rail line, ie. air monitoring data from Martinez, train, vehicular and marine traffic and a comparison to statistics in the 1979 EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(b) requires the environmental setting discussion to include analysis of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and existing general plans, regional ZI plans and other relevant planning documents such as air quality management plans. A description of the existing enuironment at the MMC and the affected adjoining area is required. Broad spectrum air monitoring of equipment and fugitive emissions at the MMC and impacted locations in Martinez/Concord are required to provide an accurate profile of existing air conditions and note any difference in Shell's emissions since their previous project and BAAQMD permit in 1980. There is no mention of MMC meeting Southern California's refining capacity upon closure of Shell's Wilmington refinery, without documenting the worsened environmental impacts and added risks of this expansion) to the City of Martinez. 6. Water Quality: 6-2$3 Stormwater Runoff - MTBE (6-5) 22 An alternative system to storing storm water runoff at the wastewater treatment facility must be examined. Consideration must be given to implement measures to assure that surface water is uncontaminated and does not mingle with waste water. Both systems should be addressed fully in the E:d. CEQA requires all elements of a project to be included in one document. The wastewater treatment project requires CEQA compliance within this document. 6-4 Increased Selenium Discharges. Quantify the selenium 2 3 discharge from each of the two project components. 7-6 Selenium Discharges and Oil Spills, mitigation should be described that would bring selenium discharge to a level consistent with 1980 refining capability. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Testing sea floor below and around wharf : As Shell loaded crude oil in the 80's with numerous spills reported, an activity not O listed in the '79 EIR, contamination of the sea floor impacted by crude spills must be determined by testing and the condition reported in the EIR. Large streams of ballast water are emitted from tankers loading Zle at Shell's wharf. This problem is inappropriate and must be addressed in the EIR. 8. Air Quality: 1270 Cal.Rptr. 6501, reports "the need to support with rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence the conclusion that 2,7 impacts will be insignificant; the requirement to analyze both "on-site" and "secondary" air pollution emissions in assessing the overall significance of air quality impacts; . . ." Coke Dust: This section applies to the expansion project and not the clean fuels project. The EIR is deficient. It fails to provide details of how coke will be loaded into railroad cars. The impact from this operation can not be adequately identified or mitigated without basic details. Coke particles are known to be light and are a health risk. Will coke particles be brought into the City on rail cars being switched at Ozol? The EIR must describe the method used to load coke into cars and anticipate worst case upset and adequate safeguards to avoid this material from being released in town. BAAQMD broad spectrum monitoring statistics from Concord and Zg Pittsburg from 1980 through 1992 are required to establish an historic air profile for this region. The 1992 Concord statistics, missing from the EIR could indicate reductions from the marine vapor incinerator, which began operating in November, 1991. As stated before, the environmental air quality setting is inadequate. An accurate air quality setting must be included in the EIR. Air testing of the entire MMC and wharf as well as air Zq quality testing in affected areas in Martinez/Concord and the regional are required to establish an adequate current air profile. Air testing must be accomplished to establish an accurate current baseline. Air modeling must address times of atmospheric stagnation. All air emission referenced in tables in the text of Chapter 8. Air Quality from the BAAQMD must be documented by testing. Are mathematically computed emission verifiable? Provide independent testing for those mathematically computed emissions supplied by the BAAQMD. For years that estimates are used, provide calculation record. As the project covers the entire MMC, reduction consideration for additional emissions should be offset by emissions from the existing refinery. Include a discussion of methods to reduce, rather than increase emissions from the refinery. Currently, fugitive emissions are not counted in Shell's BAAQMD emission ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cap. The EIR must include testing and a profile of those 7 emissions. There is a discrepancy in the marine loading element of Shell's BAAQMD Shell WOR Permit Conditions, dated November S, 1984 and which sets an emission baseline for 1977 wharf loading, more than 700 tons are listed as existing emissions on Table 1, second page 3� 11. The '80 permit allows 10,950,000 barrels of gasoline to be loaded annually at Shell's wharf. This amount of gasoline represents 142 days of annual gasoline production. The 1980 EIR anticipated continued crude unloading and fuel oil loading. Had a change of use to loading nearly half the annual throughput into tankers at the wharf been anticipated, it would have been addressed in the 1979 EIR. This discrepancy must be documented by reconstruction actual material loading records for 1977 from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Division, tax record or other documented verifiable source, and applying the BAAQMD, Shell loading emission factors. 9. Public Health: An accurate emission history must be 3 Z established before health forecasting can occur. Differentiate the health affects from both projects. This section forecasts health risks from estimations included in a study by Radian, 1991. Accurate broad spectrum testing must be 33 accomplished at MMC and in the affected communities ie. (Martinez and Concord), in order to accurately model future emissions and the associated health risk. 10. Noise: The 1979 EIR forecast that "The total noise after the completion of the proposed project would be unchanged if the recommended mitigation measures were included" probably addresses the existing refinery that is much larger than approved in 1980. By bringing BAAQMD permits into line, noise will likely be reduced. This EIR has an opportunity to test and compare noise measurements existing at the time of the last major project in 1979 and noise levels in existence today. Examination of noise information recorded at Shell's noise monitoring stations from installation to present would present historic noise information. Consideration of locating noise monitors at other noise producing locations at MMC, the wharf, and in Martinez as a noise mitigation aide should be discussed. 11. Risk of Upset: This section is inaccurate as it does not.define level of Oproduction to determine risk. Gasoline loading at the wharf will increase and the risk in total must be addressed. ® 12. Transportation: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 i Shinning statistics: The EIR neglects to include a comparison of shipping activities as described in the 1979 EIR. The inconsistency of reporting either wharf loading or unloading as 3? the dominant wharf activity, between US Army Corps of Engineers, the 1979 EIR and 1980 BAAQMD permit must be explained. Wharf activities, risk to the community, conflict with recreational uses and increased shipping in Carquinez Strait meets the criteria for a cumulative impacts study. 3g Switching Coke Cars West of Martinez: The EIR (11-47) states that 13,000 additional train cars containing hazardous material Will be switched west of Martinez, and that the total cars switched will be 14,500. The present switching activity appears to have commenced after 1979, as it is not mentioned in the 1979 EIR. Describe how this switching activity came to be established, along with a history of switching and exact numbers of trains and cars to the numbers included in the 1979 EIR, plus material contained must be included. Noise and risk from switching is not and must also be addressed. Outline alternatives that would avoid Shell's use of right of way through the City of Martinez for switching activities. Is this a new use or expanded use? Martinez Shoreline Park: The EIR mentions increased rail use, but does not address the cumulative impacts of increased switching and rail use on the use of the Martinez Shoreline Park and development of a parking structure at the `cannery' site. SP is reported to be considering adding an additional siding through Martinez to accommodate the expanded switching need presented by Shell. Would building an overpass to develop the cannery' as parking, become a 'liability' issue due to the number of train cars Shell plans to switch at the Ozal switching yard? There are adequate negatiue impact indicators to discuss the cumulative impacts of switching and, increased use of the rail lines through Martinez Marina Vista Corridor �O This corridor meets the CEQA Cumulative Impacts and the many problems must be analyzed it total. Even without this project Marina Vista's many uses are in conflict. Grade crossings for trains and trucks, tank car storage on tracks alongside the road, lack of a bicycle lane, flooding near the I-680 entrance, causing the road to be impassable and motorists using the road as a short-cut to avoid backups on the approach to the Benicia Bridge create cumulative problem and risk which must be addressed in total. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;ii t i i • Is the expanded manufacturing component of the proposed projects responsible for the projected increased use of Marina Vista roadway and railway tracks? The EIR would serve the community well to examine the cumulative increased use by rail and truck traffic and consider alternatives to these cumulative problems. Marina Vista narrows to one lane heading West to accommodate trucks turning onto Mococo slowing traffic and creating risk as slow trucks make wide turns. Traffic entering Mococo must cross railroad tracks and occasionally turn into the oncoming traffic lane. The EIR does not address this problem. Alternatives to grade crossing for trucks and train/tank car traffic must be explored, along with alternate methods of transporting materials besides uehicularitrain. Tank car storage drains is unsightly now. Will it worsen if the expansion project goes through? What risk does tank car storage present. Are there existing ordinances that disallow storage on sidings? If not, can such an ordinance be drafted? Is there risk of damage from a leak to the adjacent wetlands? Can the cars be tampered with? Marina Vista connects I-680 to downtown Martinez. Table 12-2 does not accurately address reflect PM peak hour traffic at the Marina Vista I-680 M and S bound on-ramps are not included. PM peak hours must be included, differentiating between three day holiday traffic and regular Benicia bridge traffic that exits I- 680 at Pacheco to Shell and right on Marina Vista. Entry to that traffic from downtown Martinez and Shell construction traffic must be addressed. Specific mitigation for the visual blight of the Marina Vista corridor must be included in the EIR. 14. Public Utilities Water Use: Describe what percent increase water usage Shell 4� will require for each of the two projects. Explain their water storage history. 15. Visual Dualitu: Q2 Visual corridors and visual impact are not complete. The vista of MMC from the Benicia bridge is the major focus at this entrance to the County and must be addressed. Proposed mitigation must designate a landscaping and surfaces plan. The rusting tanks in need of paint and redundant and ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- discolored equipment detract from this major gateway to Contra Costa County. (4-4) Landscaping will not screen the shabby equipment visible from much of Martinez. Again surface treatment to equipment and removal of redundant equipment would significantly reduce the visual blight viewed from peoples homes. (4-6) (4-7) The proposed tanks at the wastewater treatment plant, 148 feet in diameter by 56 feet high would adversely impact the visual corridor from the Martinez marina, Benicia and homes in Martinez overlooking the waterfront. Alternate- locations or storage systems must be considered. The EIR preparers accepting "Incompatibility" with the City General Plan policy which states that the "Morth Contra Costa Waterfront Zone should remain essentially unimproved and devoted to open space. This impact would be less significant." is unacceptable. Mitigation must be offered to at least soften the existing equipment by natural looking landscaping and coordinate the equipment surfaces and structures to blend with the environment. (4-4) As the project incorporates the entire MMC site, Landscaping plans for the site are required as mitigation. Shell must maintain their property as well as most Martinez residents do The EIR would serve the community well by including a comprehensive maintenance program that includes cleaning and painting equipment and landscaping those areas visible from roadways and peoples homes to be included in the land use permit. 18. Cumulative and Beneficial Impacts: oEconomic Impact Upon Martinez 43 The EIR as approved does not adequately present environmental and economic problems affecting Martinez at this time, or how the two projects individually will impact Martinez. An accurate EIR is required to obtain a project that will benefit the community, the environment and Shell's employees. Martinez lies in the shadow of Shell. The City's economic viability already is encumbered by Shell's presence. How will worsened air, more noise, increased rail and roadway and marine traffic as well as construction related problems affect Martinez property values and business? The EIR must address this. California Courts have held than an agency cannot simply release a draft report that hedges on important environmental issues 4 4 while deferring a more detailed analysis to the final EIR that is insulated from public review. This document does less than that. It does not even present the size of the project (throughput), document present emissions to forecast future emissions in the affected community, nor is the project fully defined. Many significant components (ie. wastewater, process units, piping and ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- loading facilities) are not, but roust be reviewed as their design is incomplete. There is not an adequate review of how the new sections will go on line and worst case risk must also be addressed. Shell continues to build in what was their buffer zone, development beyond that allowed in the 1980 BAAQMD permit must be described. Mitigation Monitoring Program Because of the vastness of the 4rj project, the EIR must consider adequate mitigation monitoring programs. 8-52 D. Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, must be based on an actual emission data Response 13 - 1 "The accuracy and history of BAAQMD's regulation and permitting is not relevant to the environmental analysis of the proposed project." CEQA Guidelines state: "To be adequate, the discussion must include the following elements: (1) either (a) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, including those outside the agency's control, that have produced, or are likely to produce, related or cumulative impacts. or (b Response to comments 13-3 - Marine Loading emission data must be accomplished by verifiable testing. Factors supplied by the BAAQMD operating permit, are likely mathematically computed and do not meet CEQA requirements for accuracy. Alternatives To The Project l�J Consider locating expansion and clean fuels modifications east of the existing MMC in an area near Tosco. Consider joining Shell and Tosco's clean fuel modifications into one state of the art plant. Risk 4$ Since "upsets" are prone to occur with start-up this document must describe the start-up of new components. Location of piping and volumes of materials used and stored are needed along with an analysis of accident potential. Explore exposure of risk Marina Vista and I-680 traffic back-up during pm peak hours in case of a release at Shell. Worst case disaster potential must be described and the affected , area projected. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternatives )2 The EIR fails to adequately consider feasible alternatiues which 4 9 could mitigate the project's significant impacts, such as reducing throughput and locating refining actiuities in other areas such as the Acme Fill property. 21 EIR Report Preparers This EIR is seriously flawed as well as deficient and must be redrafted. Please list qualifications of indiuidual preparers 5® and their refining expertise. Consider deueloping a conflict of interest criteria to ensure that preparers are not biased to industry. I look forward to deuelopment of an EIR that will lead to a positiue project for all concerned. I have no objection to Shell refining more gasoline if the quality of life for the community is improued. This project prouides an opportunity to require Shell to become a regulated, state of the art non-polluting refinery, that could be an asset to the community. This potential benefit will slip by if the project goes forward as approued. cc: City of Martinez EPA ----------------------------------------------------------- . ,Y SHELL CLEAN FUELS PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Assembly Bill (AB) 3180 became law in California on January 1, 1989. This bill requires all public agencies to adopt monitoring or reporting programs when they approve projects with Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)or Negative Declarations that identify significant environmental impacts. The reporting and monitoring program must be adopted when a public agency makes its findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA: see Chapter 2.6 Section 21081.6). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. If certain project impacts extend beyond the project implementation phase, long- term mitigation monitoring should be provided in the monitoring program. PURPOSE The mitigation monitoring program has been prepared as a staff document to ensure that all required mitigation measures are completed as part of project construction and maintained in a satisfactory manner during project implementation. This program'is designed in a checklist format for ease of use by the responsible parties. The checklist identifies the individual mitigation measures and the time frame for implementation, and assigns a party responsible to implement, monitor, and confirm the implementation of the mitigation measure. A description of the elements of the mitigation monitoring program follows this section. The mitigation monitoring checklist is provided in Table 1. Appendix A provides a copy of the impact summary table. 92220 1 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT The Contra Costa County Community Development Department will be responsible for overall implementation and administration of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for development of the Shell Clean Fuels Project. The Community Development Director will designate a Staff member to manage the Mitigation Monitoring Program. If current staffing in the Community Development Department cannot absorb the task of managing the Mitigation Monitoring Program, an independent contractor will be hired at the expense of the project sponsor(i.e. Shell). The independent contractor would serve under the direction of the Community Development Director. Duties of the Staff member responsible for program coordination,whether a permanent County staff member or independent contractor,include the following: • Conduct routine inspections, plan checking, and reporting activities. • Serve as a liaison between the County and project sponsor regarding mitigation monitoring issues. • Coordinate activities of consultants hired by the project sponsor when such expertise and qualifications are necessary to implement and monitor mitigation measures. • Coordinate with agencies having mitigation monitoring responsibilities. • Complete forms and checklists provided by the County of Contra Costa for reporting. Maintain reports and other records and documents generated by the monitoring program. • Coordinate and assure corrective actions or enforcement measures are taken, if necessary. Shell will identify appropriate staff who will be responsible for coordination with the County on the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 92220 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program REPORTING AND EVALUATION SCHEDULE Shell will report annually to the Community Development Department providing a narrative report on each of the long-term environmental mitigation monitoring items: proof of NPDES permit compliance, carpooling and vanpooling program, air quality mitigation compliance, and water conservation efforts. The narrative report will also include supporting statistical information,where necessary. The reporting requirements for implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures are indicated in the outline on the following page. The report shall be designed to simply and clearly identify whether required mitigation measures are being or have been adequately implemented. At a minimum, each report shall identify the mitigation measure or measures to be monitored for implementation, whether compliance with the mitigation measure or measures has occurred, the procedures and standards used in assessment of compliance, times and dates of monitoring, name(s) of monitor(s), and whether further action is required. The reports shall be filed with the Community Development Staff person designated as monitor. In addition to specific reporting requirements for monitoring of individual mitigation measures, the overall progress, completion, or violation of the mitigation monitoring program shall be reported annually by I the project applicant to the Director of the Community Development Department. Reports which identify successful progress on implementation of the mitigation monitoring program or successful completion of the mitigation monitoring program shall be reviewed and filed. These reports shall be available for public inspection. If a report identifies one or more violations of the mitigation monitoring program, the Director of the Community Development Department will take one of the following actions within three working days of the receipt of such report: 1) directly notify the applicant by telephone of the violation and attempt to obtain voluntary compliance 2) notify the applicant of the violation in writing and request voluntary compliance; 92220 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program SHELL CLEAN FUELS PROJECT SAMPLE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REPORTING DOCUMENT 8 To: Contra Costa County Community Development Department From: 2 Date: Condition of Approval #: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE: title of EIR Section that is applicable Impact Description: Mitigation Measure Number: Description: description of mitigation measure Submittal Party: names of persons from County, Shell, Agency, or required designate Monitoring Triggers: when the mitigation measure should be first monitored Reporting Schedule: period during which the mitigation measure was monitored and reporting occurred Monitoring Procedure: procedures used for monitoring implementation of mitigation measure standards used for assessing adequate implementation of or compliance with mitigation measure dates of site inspections names of persons conducting site inspections Assessment: assessment of adequate implementation of or compliance with mitigation measures Verification: verification of adequate implementation of or compliance with mitigation measures date of verification names of verifying official space for signature of verifying official 92220 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program 3) request that the County Monitor conduct a field inspection; 4) request that the Shell Qualified Monitor conduct a field inspection; 5) refer the violation to the appropriate agency or department; The Community Development Staff must review the annual report and provide a written response to Shell within thirty (30) days indicating whether the report is complete and satisfactory. If the report is found to be incomplete, Shell will submit the requested additional information within 30 days. If the report's conclusions or data are found to be unsatisfactory,the response letter will inform Shell whether or not technical peer review will be necessary. Staff will specify the type of additional work to be done and whether this can be accomplished by Shell staff or will require outside consultants. If Shell receives no written notification from County Staff within the 30-day period,the report is deemed complete and satisfactory. EVALUATION CHECKLIST The annual monitoring report submitted by Shell will be evaluated by Staff to determine the success of mitigation measure implementation. Table 1, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, should guide Staff in its evaluation and should be the basis for the reporting effort conducted by Shell. The evaluation checklist is designed with the following categories: Condition #: This category refers to the condition of approval number given by the County to each of the required mitigation measures. Issue Area: This category refers to the issue area as identified in the EIR(e.g. Geology,Soils, and Seismicity, Visual Quality). Mitigation Measure: This category contains the text of a summarized mitigation measure applicable to the mitigation monitoring program. In some cases mitigation measures have been combined to simplify the monitoring process. In addition, mitigation measures have been cross-referenced where recommended in the text of the measures.It is essential that during the monitoring program, the full text of the mitigation measure as stated in Appendix A is monitored for compliance. The summary of measures was prepared for ease of use by a county monitor in this checklist format for compliance verification of all measures. 92220 S Mitigation Monitoring Program Type: Types of mitigation measures are identified in the table and abbreviated as follows: ANN Annually until noted APP Application or Permit Process CM Construction Mitigation CUM Cumulative Mitigation Measure DPO During Project Operations FP Future Projects FPC Following Project construction ODC Ongoing During Construction OER Ongoing through Existing Regulations PBDA Prior to Submittal of Building Department Application PC Prior to Construction PD Project Design PGP Prior to Granting Construction Permits PO Prior to Operations PPM Prior to Project Modifications Submittal Party/ Professional Qualifications: In most cases Shell, the project sponsor will be responsible for conforming to the mitigation measure. In some cases a qualified professional would be required to assist the project sponsor.Some of the responsible agencies and professionals recommended in Table 1 are abbreviated.as follows: BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District C Contractor CCCBD Contra Costa County Building Department CCC-CG Contra Costa County - County Geologist CCCCDD Contra Costa County Community Development Department CCCDPW Contra Costa County Department of Public Works CCCHSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department (Hazardous Materials Section) CE Civil Engineer CEG Certified Engineering Geologist CMPD City of Martinez Planning Department CT California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) GE Geotechnical Engineer LA Landscape Architect PA Project Architect GEC_ California -Energy Commi ssi on.— RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SE Structural Engineer SH Shell Oil Company SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad TE Traffic Engineer QAE Qualified Acoustical Expert QE Qualified Engineer 92220 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program Received and Approved by: Contra Costa County Community Development Department i s responsible i for the monitoring program compliance.Shell will be responsible for the costs associated with this program. The County monitor may be either Staff or a responsible party hired on behalf of the County to direct the compliance of the mitigation monitoring program. Occasionally an agency will be solely responsible for compliance(e.g. the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or Caltrans). Monitoring Triggers: Monitoring Triggers are the time frame that monitoring is triggered and should occur. The time frames are identified with the abbreviations as shown under type of mitigation measure. Reporting Schedule: The reporting schedule is the frequency or approximate time frame in which the mitigation monitoring reporting will take place. This is the time or frequency that the receiving and approving parties will receive documentation on monitoring compliance. The abbreviations used in this category will also correspond to those time frames shown under the type of mitigation measures. Compliance Action: This is the action for which the submittal party is responsible. Typically, the project sponsor or its designate will prepare documentation to be submitted to the County, and in some cases to a responsible agency where noted. Verification of Compliance: Verification of Compliance is to be filled out by the County Monitor based upon the documentation provided by the project sponsors, their agents (qualified individuals), responsible agencies, or through personal verification by the County Monitor. MITIGATION MEASURES The mitigation measures in Table 1 have been combined and shortened to streamline the mitigation monitoring process. The full text for each of the environmental impact mitigation measures to be monitored over the duration of the project is contained in Appendix A as well as in the Final EIR. All mitigation monitoring shall be conducted based on the full text of the mitigation measure as stated in Appendix A. FUNDING AB 3180 does not provide a specific funding mechanism for implementation of mitigation monitoring and reporting programs. However, public agencies have the authority to levy charges, fees or assessments to pay for the program,just as they currently do for the preparation of EIRs. For the 92220 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program Clean Fuels project, the applicant, Shell,would be responsible for the costs of mitigation monitoring. The conditions of approval require that Shell be financially responsible for implementation of mitigation monitoring. 92220 8 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST V r M ✓ O U � � u ilii 'a U a Ice O 0= N m el O C 'r yfi 43 w eU d G ... m O •� e4 y � ��m pp C � J3 C V a 41 rt O O v is o le oa u U .4 u u UU u U cz u u V P. V 1 1'4 U3 06 16 C4 Z R. u 'aa Q. u c. -a 0 6) 44 Jri AA IIm, M 4 ,. Al 0 E�- • o T A G Q IX 0 At � A Q C] U A LU1 U U U U U OC Q U vsi 40 W ; aoa 0 (y� v G C ,b ¢• m C � A iy � d m .� � . U F uo u $ 3 °O S a F ba V. So IL O v', � p as '� 5i a � (a � �.; T � ��u �opo �� r�,, c�i•� 4, OD r N. :S � N � u N N ce 4 CY.A �,z ffil t IR o s t ba DA 'r. as 10 to In s o � e o a � •a - > U V y, l 3� `r •� yu es o " N 33 oC N •y = 3 0 u � u o i c a ✓ a �c y E' c o ° o u .'. 3 moo". fs- m u i •� ✓ v i G ,,,,, v o w ,p o .fi A W 7 U rn i p G T..�� i� �. � � ,N„ C 'y •6 v G `p°°R O H a G � � '� �� o a �o � ,�, u o oA �,� � c 3o�`aUN o a• � � Sk Q � a o •n v o w w �U U U ,a d o 2 d 6 A y tai S° G a H 3v o m U U v ►_` U U U U ss a � a y d w T O Oo O � � � tee: � =�•� J o '� � w a o „ � ee •: 'e � u � � •a oo � � d u :: � N 'C Y ply J��'may., V•C7 � .� •J"' �,. � J Vyy�� �Y � •.°•i � DO�7 i o N > O � O � p Geb O � �i SOD:� O '� �' ap; ,q N �' `bD�� � � O.i1 sub •� SffiiL Ssi � ;ii�a�r y E' oo co o U .r, r, w o q n � � a C w w 0 0 U U � a g C4 U � a. a a> w cc a rj o wap •0 < 0 a Cc � E w � y M a fi a °'• �w •p n c c U � qa Uv U U U d 3 4• � s 0, h � q � S a � I'm M w w = .0 N N '�' N w a! 0.4 C: 404 a> tao y � w oro u � a: ,wC ro C •� a O O a a � in > qua 9 e v ON e ^. 6 c c s w a o '3 g a g u as 5 a S a v w cgo e c°~°, -t y r'a o 9 �apo � � • w ^ '$ytap - I c �' a U Y+ .✓' w C US a = N,N o n o _ G •a - e •p V � 0 z �3 u o V e G V O m � t � m Gy G 9 4 bD �P i •�•7'v an O '7 i A •� .•�p G O• •tai �j•4 O �'. i.'G 0� L �^ '� G � r G r U $`� .r a V :b G •y ')fit OM w •� � u � .� �,� ,� � �gu � a� ,0 3 p ip^(/� D� p �q v �•G p 4' G ' i '� � O ijf � F� P:I cam•+ a W w N �4 at 5 c O V o. c L U 6.c $ A o E cc o cc V c �w ° U ro � r h e° U Axe oncz � acia�i � ej 3 Ua o a ° U U E U UII �-� cc eo ;� -- � ti .may eC 4. u. a. Rt cd 4. W V V V U V C i O N U Q 61 _ L= O 4.O •0 11) fY >, C C G G Cc 9 '> E y= ' G p� w muuu000 ?uvuuC") waa c CA o A d UA A 0. ¢ o¢aUVU UU vUUUC�7 .¢-laaa � � � Ewdd i U O . c E a> C O '��" C � U �,� � •� O rn p. C p v� •� ^� :b ong C 06 d on «+ `� Q v ami Cd V onA ? oUAC� �w a O 04 tw ono c. o 0 0 0 0 ¢ ¢ UUAwwOOa ¢tw aaa. a, a a .$ E a o ZO UUap a = o p „ Z:a Oa. p. a. awm UAC70a a E- oG ¢ ¢ UUAwwOOa aaaa, a 9k ts a 71 to PR All %DID lit A ec 4 IAO 09 a oa 1-13m 7- to 00 la jr 40 e M G, G � $ wlG , as 0 0 up r el •ry,�V1 « !�' N G a ct I JA ru « mss+ Jv Al SA B . � �,�� mom► �.� ri .r'� ��.tG�Q�D Si���{} a o o a o � y��xu cr `A 3 � /"� �°y+ � ('� � •C v r C G ,Ci Qy '" C � � � Qp��'" . 4 H 0 —10 0 C:) O�AA 10 -4f Ise 'rL (3'- 0 0 as t-'.OR 0 -61 ja 0 so . cA - o Va ✓ Vt ZP X0 A ok tu Vo OA Via ta -a 2 I& JA Ja OR S. *5 JOS , -0-0 to, N d C-4 Y 2 .. M Q a � r ss u, w v SaiLr3 a _ t Nil. s Al IL a� '838 � . oma ' c' ax 9p ,a g eo IL,* au l a g w a � IL � A r ' a .� a�• •�•v wi"OQ". v �a � to C-3 G XR AR 0 0 CA 10 wo VA vi x 0, o. loft (a R ts WaA .0A 0- 0 s- w lit % Is S 0 -Soo gA .0 t% 0- �o - t OR OA 4 gAs Sq 4po O ik luvs .- to .0, O ,a 01 .01 VA INV VS* A to lip d Z Q_ 4 � Sq r vAu N � r.► O 'q 4 � r • o✓ I•t. a c N yea �. 1 $ 0 w° - . � ��✓� aL. tS w 8 toss G A 7 ✓ 4 Va ' N C F'" C-A .40 cg Is 03 as 'A 00.,12* �� $ p z- I st Sf, o. Ir6 .� lrmls al es I ob V r I Via I a. o2 S.s 0 ,ts C--I —0 cg iai A I L 40 0 .2 gas 05 all. IL —.0 Or co 17- 8 ae 1.9 to a Sq- 0- ob a A ki C.- IV4, .1 C-1 O wo aSO o go 0,0- s 10.0- o Vs Al. lot a o..s a I OW a -0 s 191 A tal e- va 0 o #>*I*P 0 S- L A. A IS ` 100 C!A e L N sa' N 3 Z ) 41 F. � •� u W 4 E.G La �' M Q•� � iy� r9G![C�/�� yj� ~ Qa M Q,� ••L' WFry �j '�7 ,�, W � �' � _• N �� 1.+ Z err 7� y � '•_ W a" m "a �.R ae x•- t o a aq.a o c. sp, 0 = goo a 81 aa_g r} a. a gO Q P •7 �y Q"« H N JA 0 W « L" JA 4 Qe MAI o ' �'' •.a � a .Q p a a-z � 4 a c E is yr 1 c� N ri yy y� V N ~ • c� � its � $ • Big .i 1 ai CD P+ ,- ,�j psi re Q O a �e7 00 ? O N W c+-A 00 lit OR �• a to OR ' Q 7tl V +Qy ay 7• . p 0 M St 0 V- a a ee A•w yy w G � pp 0 9 9� i ads a •� Yi G lo N• .� a � �p VI �'am O ell N � H ay JS 14� x lop ISO SON% q tx • C, Vi -pl, A .0 A S IP,Q A ab A .12 S V-S ob b Z d d � 1 cg 6 o c iz p �! +C G a a � ` o z so x ab ul x d' a � ab 6c w too rG a Is $ w � LQr alb > "' G C �� �•d tt � �wN•sD � �.�ro � � N O F ab h c Q a. c� � e S w z z z z ab as o. It I a 8 �g w Ale V '` 79 u •o a •� d4 a ri C4 C-1 dn En C-4 -ef- TO to cg sk 00 At cc .60 PS- it -0 0, IS 0. Se B.4 - S 0 00 -do OA ro °v �a ��y �w a ' �w� it 1-00 ve -on 0 ?. so. r6 vn 'Ott) 0 .0 28 0-1-010 '810*46ja 00 11 aa 'ILI At *A I S PA O Vi JS OA S~�. *A !a .q ws -0 to. AS U0 e-cu: 00 r1l � �- Z �' � o � d Z G $x Z � � 3 6 e _ �� � M :��.� � � � � N y -y � � �+ '3 � '� �` •� Z� F d d O � � d s � x � +ri "'' �e � r .G O a C � G � � � � '��Cp Ly v.+ � OD � A � � � "rte �X60 Nl y� Y� ��bih � .i3 V1 .. 7i H � '� �` � G +• .� ..+ �i M w i� a � a >» o � �p`•C ., � � �' � .. H � Ny F c� CL a C C .0pp C Cca Cr. Js g a a 0 CL z z z z d d a a e a a c C a ego as a � 5i0 00 Big 41 pp ... N ~ sl Id m a u y i y a a{T G cc a m Y 06 < d N oz � a Z Z Z N d auo 5 � .0 ° o W W A h y W .�Jj q -878 4 R N = Y'b d � o .8v p E � .v;=o u u u •� €o18IR 0 0 o a 8.5� z z z ° 8 E e c a o a s a cc V2 fA fA VI (n .00 45 coa sl Y O. . egb o Mgg Y 78 ye e° 1 is 8. � o � Fc �. .1 a � Y « � � � c. ., 3 A d C4 c 8 $Z M ..-- N c`3 N 4 N ar Q C' V1 a O 87 L. u ,� e � .1 pt c 2too Q F 4 is rte• •�•� v c V r� dAllf zs cc � •c� � g��••ate':o � u.^�� 0 0 C° E WLIa. c e. 0 V E � caaw � F ' h V 4 0 All Ci O „+, CL C�•C allzi gyp, ' s c a 5 g gip. aCl •4 Q43 — C a� Va 5 v 10F � y ;; d—•° 5 '�• 'O �•� q .� Q{i G2 iC?O�ti � ' CaQ 5 � E°° ' °'m8a� .ra Is Li 12 1p a � a $ .� x � 0.9 ea- rA too js tat ljrA iA -al oa o -Vs of g �� � N IX. %al s 9ASSIL O �p Z- Ln ina06 a Y « v Z Cf • �'� •o a''e�Y a a ��� � g � a ° o � a« a3 aa� go u ., Qg � '� � Q �u-� � gae � �a.8e°oeao �' o � mc,:3a,oa yp. wfi' � o$a Eaaaee°i"�c ' aCg � �w � aaeYe o w'$ p � 23�a ew � e�io �.. a C u ° � •o Y o s.9 r a� ° m�• $ ua l cis � �$�D•GC �p,a _-4 s •Q . �m F? 8 u X32et Now a$o a Ow a $ .••aa � Y < o � 3V� � Y ..•.r7 .-��., o..C3V� �S � � t/1 E�.9 8 �' S 6841 � � et��� a a_� e•g .s ON ^ � W� $ o 1 g C � � a C a�Q o.'3Xa" C•Qo � d � •� ,Q o u He � S8 opo o E pe ° .G u Y 8 '� ii •v g d �c„b 08& E' � N x Ln a � � t� d tog- .0 o p m- .� Q 11 00:00 a¢I I I i Joi Al a u a i A Er p•�,9 �:c� �E �a as "' V + Q C w 961 m 0Q Olin 642 AA a1 .� . .3` 2" Aa �a a usao 71 H r, a r Q Q ' tT` Z o E its co to d p p m a a t w W � z Nf O p�� �•` p a`Od as �, .. ,. 2 Aft OAS d Sa u M a c m �Jij 4 : CL � 8• � ~ate 'A a�y�flo �� Qoo '� o �M � o 0 � x , c � all I lit Jt Hui& a a' a z aazws o Ji 04 OA r r Y a tz s PA ir t Tm. 21 �� � is I L .0 W3 os -0; as CJ N_0 C4 6. logo. gg. so Q'? ift CA 40 1143, ZIP t.1A ��� $o o G y, o �,'�S On fAA W I-P C-11 M d N N a 8 a a s � o gto V) r a ae in �+ v 3 a B .8 f! a }s d I i • s IM 12, a �� IIF N a ° oOw a E• Cn to Nn enc Vs 6 *IS *1.4 012 -00) PA .00 A al Us S 0 ee —0 Ad- .IA 1 -s-5 t 4 N* or.- C-4 o C-1 toe r) too a 0 Ck la B V i,.� % SOA oG flf o VAO 1pm Ow got IzA A. t Ix 1-.1 Z 2 2 a s� o o � r" r S o 3 33 wot @ , � ,, 5 ' hasoitv ,l a sor5l 'Oen � r � a� a�� � ✓ d�v "' ! U p" � � N 4 r Z a a a 0 W z z z z eJ c•i 1%1 h h h 06 06 pf Al bC0 A'iEMa ar ° Ss �pp�.� � pp W g pp •j.O• iiiiiY a.�.O o a 00 a a6v a S > V a a 0 > w es. > �j w��8 . 0 a 2 ci ri 11) h C h C v, C N C `oE oZ N a Q O �a a u � m�•o dw� c � � m u u c d ;, .wC gG V m M Wd 40 Z u aC3Ao 9 e w aa .`r° '•' �0 ''� ., �i �•7 0'E •F O V C� W O F•Fj s •,,,.00 a $ a � cc c •� � w a � aeaH •o�r co E m FgE _ E w a 9 aEi uu 3.1 C CL O C •CC R. p9 W y•.QC 1O .ODa V 0 10 o Gas IL� go tG cc IS 15 $ Q e c del .`i�, gg e a a0 18, �� I.ae°:Q arc,5h $ up4 E o U.�" vti1O c c •o °� � w A Z z ci `� Z c � D to y w O .r PC w w w U y a, O o cl _ w w R00 m c3 0 0 �` $ " c X is �t cis �.�� $ Q a _ ON _ p U ell 421 o u� w u8 ` e 4 S 0 � a ,.jCP m pr+r10 a00 H v� %A d V N1 3 � g � Ao.'cao'$-' a o•y g w 9t! d O N a eau u g: o. C «w ea 0 �d Lfl 00 i A °' g �, c.� pa 3� •� «.. a.9 06 _i H G4i t+ � C4 .� a c w T�+ p„�a>4 C. 4 F '" cli 410 IAo lot,ro- col, tit lot . ,10 .5 Via sk roh V$0 Vic 4 M tc . sl ds -31 to A 4 Z 0 1`. Y •J d '3 w ?_ H{ � m � VA E" o tg ✓ O O rA -Ila-1 Q s . vs Ia.t l - t Ilt l Al $- " Lk 19' h6el t/ff. Yle�lile 1721 Alhambra Ave. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 867 Martinez, CA 94553 a Telephone (510) 2294320 RECEIVED �October 4, 1993 � 6 � CLERK BOARD OF SUP E RRV<< CONTRA COSTA CO. J Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Applicant: Shell Oil Company Project: Clean Fuels Manufacturing Plant Hearing Date: October 12, 1993 Dear Supervisors: Although I do not oppose the construction of the proposed Shell Clean Fuels project, I believe that the Environmental Impact Report has not met all the requirements and that additional conditions must be attached to approval of the project. The following are areas of the Environmental Impact Report project which appear to be defective. 1. The EIR fails to investigate alternatives to the project which would have a lesser impact on the environment and/or impact a significantly smaller population. 2. The EIR is not complete in that there are areas of future construction or planning needed to complete the project which have not yet been finalized or addressed in the EIR. 3. The EIR fails to address alternative technologies presently available, these include but are not limited to different valves, pumps and tanks. 4. The EIR does not address plant security. 5. The EIR does not adequately address the consequences of a catastrophic failure or disaster. The areas not addressed are leaks or explosions resulting from earthquakes, an airplane crashing into the site, or sabotage. 6. The EIR does not adequately address the economic impact on neighboring properties. 7. The EIR does not inadequatelyaddress the issue f the use and storage of MTBE and other toxics. S. The EIR does not adequately address the issue of releases asa result of the failure of any equipment. Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa October 4, 1993 Page 2 r 9. The EIR does not adequately address the issue of wear, tear and maintenance. 10. The EIR does not adequately address the training of emergency response personnel, both the applicants and local authorities, to emergency situations that will arise. 11. The EIR fails to address notification procedures to the general public in the event of either a catastrophic or other failure. 12. The EIR fails to address procedures to be used to quickly identify toxic releases. 13. The EIR fails to adequately address the increased emissions that will result in decreased air quality in the vicinity of the project. Any analysis of future air cjuality 'should assume that vehicles in the area of the project will be using the new clean fuels, even if the project is not built, and the applicant should not be allowed to use these decreased emissions as an offset or credit to increased emissions from the plant. 14. The EIR fails to address the need for inspections by non-partisan experts on a regular basis. I am particularly upset that the Clean Fuels Project does not include any projects to mitigate the severe economic impact the project will have on the City of Martinez, the downtown Martinez businesses and neighboring residents particularly inn the following areas. a. The plant will increase emissions in the immediate area if we do not credit any reduced tailpipe emissions from the new fuel. Even if this is not a public health concern, it will severel impact on the value of the neighboring properties. This impact will be even more severe should the State require a residential property seller to disclose information about neighboring sources of pollutants and, cancer causing chemicals and emissions. b. Downtown Martinez is in a severe economic decline. The vacancy rate for commercial and business property is high. Most local businesses are not making a reasonable profit and in fact many are just closing up. The expansion of the Shell facility will only create more problems in getting businesses to locate in the neighboring and downtown areas. C. Although there will be a substantial increase in local property taxes, this will not benefit the neighboring and downtown areas any more than the County and City in general. In fact it is conceivable that unless some is done to counteract the negative effect that the Shell project will have on the downtown and neighboring areas, the property taxes generated by the properties located in this area may decrease (or fail to increase as much as they would without thepro ect) in an amount greater than the increase generated by the Spel� project. Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa October 4, 1993 Page 3 d. The project construction and operation will create additional traffic on Highways 680 and 4, Marina Blvd. , Pacheco Blvd. , Howe Road, and Morrello Ave. Simply adding more traffic signals is not adequate. More signals will only create more traffic congestion and vehicle emissions. I therefore request that the matter be continued until such time as a new Environmental Impact Report is prepared which fully addresses each and every issue I have raised anad you have had an opportunity to invevstigate mitigation measures for the economic impact the project will have on neighboring residents and businesses. Thank you for your attention and concern. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter please call me. Ath rs, evine rl.ltr re: H-.V OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 11th Floor Martinez, California 94553 DATE: October 11, 1993 TO: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Supervisor Tom Powers Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Sunne WY eak FROM: Claude L. Van Marttant County Administrator SUBJECT: DIANA PATRICK APPELL OIL COMPANY EIR Diana Patrick dropped the attached pages from the Shell Oil Company EIR off at my office on October 8, 1993 and asked that they be provided to you in advance of the hearing October 12, 1993 on her appeal of Shell ' s EIR. She wanted to particularly call your attention to these pages . CLVM:amb van10-28^93 Attachment cc: Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director 1 � c a a E a m a E is w ntCIS rt► x E ou a U y a m o x x 18 CO -P, 1 Q qy c 1f) IU .., C,) V ,O •G { p�_. �j ,U fes,) r ,/,/j." �I I r�J rr co ? U ai U rn rn m a vi'i . ,,�,,.� :j 0. � C1 � •�»� I ;; r W717 ] l j :::••zz.. c: f0 O=0 IL G a1C 'a tip f Oi f G 0 r � / •1q � � t Q 4p CL a L7 Z (l} tl Will (D e , %it a •' �� / � ak ����i �°r '+ •c `'• �„ C ! is Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project _ Draft M - 3.Project Description Page 3-38 1. C,/C6 Isomerization Unit The new CS/C6 Isomerization unit would consist of Decyclohexanizer and C5/C6 Isomerization sections. The Decyclohcmnier in conjunction with the CS/C6 Isomerization would destroy benzene, a carcinogenic compound, and increase the octane number of the light gasoline components by forming branched molecules from straight chained molecules (Le., n-pentane to isopentane and n-hexane to isohexane). The Decyclohexanier is a distillation column that separates cyclohexanes and other benzene precursors from naphtha. This decyclohexanized stream is then used as feed for the existing talyst Reformer Unit. Isomerization saturates the benzene removed in the Decyclohexanier and improves octane without forming aromatics. The resulting isomate stream is then used as gasoline blending stock. The simplified flow diagram in Figure 3-8 depicts the typical flow of materials through the Isomerization unit. The C5/C6 Isomerization Unit would include two prominent columns which are approximately 200 feet in height by 14 feet in diameter; and 130 feet in height by 6 feet in diameter, respectively. Figure 3-8. CS/C6 Isometrization HEAVY GASOUNE FROM i EXISTING SATS GAS PLANT I NAPHTHA FROM EXISTING NEW ISOMATE FOR SRHT FRACTIONING UNITCS / Cs ISOMERIZATION GASOLINE BLENDING CRACKATE FROM NEW HEAVY CRACKED GASOUNE UNIT i; HYDROTREATERowl is PURPOSE. 1 ' DESTROY BENZENE INCREASE OCTANE i .i r� ��' ' (Site Plan Reference #1) Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project Draft E s 3. Project Descripri, Page 3- 12. Delayed Coker Unit i The purpose of the new Delayed Coker Unit is to upgrade Vacuum Flasher bottoms (pitch or equivalent) and recycled byproduct streams to produce coke and lighter fuels, such as gasoline,jet fuel, and diesel. As can be seen in Figure 3-7, the new Delayed Coker Unit would become a cornerstone in the processing of heavy, high-sulfur, petroleum compounds to higher value products. This unit is in keeping with Shell's objective of upgrading heavy fuels and thus maintaining existing gasoline production levels while producing reformulated gasoline. A simplified flow diagram of this unit is given in Figure 3-19. The Delayed Coker Unit would be the most prominent new facility in the proposed project. The Delayed Coker Unit would have two significant features — the coke drums with an associated drilling structure, and the coke barn. The first feature would consist of six vertical drums in a single row surrounded by a support structure approximately 120 feet tall with a combined length of 180 feet and width of 30 feet. Located on top of the drums would be a structure to support hydraulic drilling equipment required for decoking operations. The drilling equipment would be approximately 130 feet tall, making the combined height of the drums and drilling structure approximately i 250 feet. To the west of the Delayed Coker Unit would be the coke barn, which would accumulate coke product for shipment. The coke barn would be the largest i structure associated with the Clean Fuels Project. The barn would be similar Figure 3-19. Delayed Coker Unit PITCH (CRUDE BOTTOMS) FROM EXISTING CRUDE UNIT i PETROLEUM COKE BOTTOMS FROM EXISTING NEW _. CATACYTIC CRACKING UNIT DELAYED CODER i RESIDUAL FROM EXISTING UNIT UGHTER FUEL INTERMEDIATES LUBE AND IMPORTED j PURPOSE: UPGRADE BOTTOMS STREAMS TO PRODUCE i 'PETROLEUM COKE AND INTERMEDIATES OF LIGHTER FUELS SUCH AS GASDL-IN ` FUEL AND DIESEL { (Site Plan Reference #4) ' J , i, Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project Draft EIR 3 Project Description Page 3-48 r. 11. Coker Gasoline Splitter Column The primary purpose of the new Coker Gasoline Splitter Column is to split gasoline into heavy and light gasoline to facilitate further processing. The new Coker Gasoline Splitter Column would process the gasoline stream coming from the existing Flexicoker® Unit and new Delayed Coker Unit, and provide separate light and heavy gasoline streams to the new hydrotreaters for further processing, as shown in Figure 3-18. This unit is in keeping with Shell's objective of upgrading heavy fuels and thus maintaining eAsting levels of gasoline production while producing reformulated gasoline. The Coker Gasoline Splitter Column would have one prominent column which is approximately 110 feet in height and 7 feet in diameter. It would be located (rte within the area of the Delayed Coker Unit (Item 4 on Figure 3-3). i -- Figure 3-18. Coker Gasoline Splitter Column 'LIGHT INTERMEDIATE GASOLINE GAS OIL FROM EXISTING FLEXICOKER NEW COKER GASOLINE HEAVY INTERMEDIATE SPLITTER COLUMN GASOLINE PURPOSE: SPLIT GASOLINE INTO HEAVY AND •� LIGHT GASOLINE FOR FURTHER PROCESSING (Site Plan Reference #4) MW w1i . .vim;: Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project Draft ELR 3.Project Description Page 3-47 i 10. Hydrogen Plant-3 I, The new Hydrogen Plant would produce hydrogen that is needed for the new isomerization, hydrotreating, and saturating units. Hydrogen is made by 1 reacting hydrocarbons with steam in the presence of a catalyst at elevated temperatures. This process is depicted in Figure 3-17. A major component of the new Hydrogen Plant would be a reaction furnace. Its most prominent structure would be a stack which is approximately 200 feet in height and 13 feet in diameter. The new Hydrogen Plant would be similar in appearance to the two existing hydrogen plants. t Figure 3-17. Hydrogen Plant-3 f COKER DRY GAS FROM HYDROGEN EXISTING FLEXICOKER AND NEW DELAYED COKING UNIT NEW HYDROGEN PLANT #3 CARBON DIOXIDE PURPOSE- MAKE URPOSEMAKE HYDROGEN NEEDED FOR REFORMULATED GASOLINE PRODUCTION T L L - L (Site Plan Reference #2) , r L t Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project Draft Elft 3.Project DesaiPnon Page 3-46 9. Distillate Hydrotreater The new Distillate Hydrotreater would remove sulfur and nitrogen compounds from the coker products, including jet, diesel, and catalytic cracking unit feed. This unit plays a key role in intermediate processing of streams from the new Delayed Coking Unit as well as the existing Crude Unit and Flexicokere (see Figure 3-7). Removal of sulfur and nitrogen compounds from product streams contributes to sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emission reductions offsetting emissions from the new facilities. Figure 3-16 illustrates the streams moving into and out of the new Distillate Hydrotreater unit. The Distillate Hydrotreater Unit would have three prominent structures which are two columns and the stack associated with the heater. The columns would be approximately 120 feet by 6 feet and 110 feet by 11 feet, respectively, for height and diameter. The stack would be approximately 150 feet in height and 6 feet in diameter. Figure 3-16. Distillate Hydrotreater BOTTOM CUT FROM EXISTING CRUDE UNIT NAPHTHA LIGHT GAS OIL, HEAVY GAS OIL AND EXTRA HEAVY GASNEW JET FUEL INTERMEDIA OIL FROM EXISTING FLl_XICOKER DIESEL INTERMEDIATE LIGHT GAS OIL AND HEAVYDISTILLATE GAS OIL FROM EXISTING HYDROTREATER FEED TO EXISTING DELAYED COKING UNIT CATALYTIC CRACKING UNIT .R. PURPOSE: REMOVE SULFUR AND NITROGEN COMPOUNDS (Site Plan Reference #3) , Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project Draft tltt 3. Project Description Page 3-44 7. Catalytic Reformate Bottoming Column The Catalytic Reformate Bottoming Column is included in Shell's Clean Fuels Project to meet the new T-90 and T-50 specifications for reformulated gasoline by removing heavy components from reformate (a gasoline additive). This unit would be located in the area of the Butane Isomerization Unit (near Item 18 on Figure 3-3). Figure 3-14 depicts the flow of materials in and out of the Catalytic Reformate Bottoming Column. The Catalytic Reformate Bottoming Column consists of one prominent column which is 110 feet in height and 6 feet in diameter. Figure 3-14. Catalytic Reformate Bottoming Column HEAVY R£FORMATE FROM LIGHT REFORMATS EXISTING CATALYTIC REFORMATE UNIT NEW CATALYTIC REFORMATS ' BOTTOMING COLUMN HEAVY COMPONENTS TO NEW DISTILLATE" SATURATION UNIT PURPOSE: ` MEET NEW GASOLINE DISTILLATION POINTS (T90 AND T50) REQUIREMENTS s (Near Site Plan Reference #18) _» �Lcan ruels Project Draft 3.Project Descnz Page 6. Cracked Gasoline Bottoming Column The primary purpose of the new.Cracked Gasoline Bottoming Column is to remove heavy components from heavy catalytic cracked gasoline to meet the new T-90 and T-50 specifications for gasoline. The heavy components removed by the Cracked Gasoline Bottoming Column would be sent to the new distillate hydrotreater for further processing into jet and diesel fuel, and/o; gasoline blending, as shown in the simplified flow diagram in Figure 3-13. The Cracked Gasoline Bottoming Column's prominent features would be a column and a stack. The column is approximately 110 feet in height by 9 feet in diameter. The stack, which is associated with the heater, would be w approximately 150 feet in height and 4 feet in diameter. This unit would be located in the area of the Butane Isomerization Unit (near Item 18 on Figure 3-3). Figure 3-13. Cracked Gasoline Bottoming Column HEAVY INTERMEDIATE GASOLINE CATALYTICALLY CRACKED STREAM TO NEW DISTILLATE GASOLINE FROM EXISTING NEW HYDROTREATER OR CATALYTIC CRACKING UNIT TO GASOLINE BLENDING CRACKED GASOLINE BOTTOMING COLUMN a PURPOSE: MEET NEW GASOLINE DISTILLATION POINTS (T90 AND T50) REQUIREMENTS (Near Site Plan Reference #18) } Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project Draft EIR 3 Project Description Page 3-42 5. Gasoline Hydrotreaters Two new gasoline hydrotreaters are required to meet new sulfur and olefin specifications of gasolines. One hydrotreater would treat light cracked gasoline and the other would treat heavy cracked gasoline. The hydrotreating process uses hydrogen in the presence of a metal oxide catalyst to remove sulfur and nitrogen. To a Iesser degree, it also converts unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins) to paraffins. Figure 3-12 illustrates material flow through the new gasoline hydrotreaters. The new gasoline hydrotreating facilities would consist of a Light Cracked Gasoline Hydrotreater and a Heavy Cracked Gasoline Hydrotreater. The prominent feature for both units would be a stack associated with each heater. The Light Cracked Gasoline Treater would have a stack which is approximately 150 feet.in height by 2 feet in diameter. The Heavy Cracked Gasoline Hydrotreater would have a stack which is approximately 150 feet in height and 3 feet in diameter. Both units would be similar in appearance to the existing Cracked Gasoline Hydrotreater. Figure 3-12. Gasoline Hydrotreaters LIGHT GASOLINE FROM THE NEW LIGHT NEW ISOMERIZATION CRACKED GASOLINE TREATER UNIT FEED NEW HEAVY GASOLINE FROM THE GASOLINE NEW COKER GASOLINE HYDROTREATERS TREATED GASOLINE FOR SPUTTER COLUMN GASOUNE BLINDING PURPOSE: MEET SULFUR AND OLEFIN SPECIFICATIONS (Site Plan Reference #16 & #20) 'cow, Y1 Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project Draft EIR 3. Project Description Page 3-40 3. Alkylation-2 The new Alkylation Unit would produce alkylate, a high octane, low vapor pressure gasoline blending component that contains essentially no olefins, aromatics, or sulfur. The absence of olefins, aromatics, and sulfur in Aylate corresponds to a gasoline with reduced health risk from carcinogenic aromatics, and 'unproved air quality due to reduced sulfur oxides and volatile organic compound.emissions, all objectives of the reformulated gasoline requirements. Alkylate is produced from light hydrocarbons that cannot be blended in , gasoline due to their high vapor pressures. These light components are produced in the upstream catalytic cracking and coking processes. Te Alkylation Unit would include four prominent columns which are approximaely 200 feet, 170 feet, 155 feet, and 135 feet tall. The Alkylation Unit would also receive material from the existing alkylation unit (see Figure 3-7). The flow of materials to and from the new alkylation It is depicted in Figure 3-10. Figure 3-10. Alkylation Unit PENTANES (C$) FROM NEW LIGHT CRACKED GASOLINE TREATER PROPANE (C3) TO LPG an- ow- BUTANES (C4) TO NEW ISOBUTANES FROM NEW NEW BUTANE ISOMERIZATION UNIT BUTANE ISOMERIZATION UNIT ALKYLATION PENTANES C3 / C4 STREAM FROM UNIT #2 ALKYLATE FOR NEW DELAYED COKING U T GASOLINE BLENDING low- PURPOSE. IMPROVE OCTANE HELP MEET REID VAPOR PRESSURE REQUIREMENTS (.(Site Plan Reference #17) Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project ,raft F.IR 3 Project Desallp on 'Page 3-41 r I 4. Butane Isomerization i The new Butane Isomerization Unit would convert normal butane (C4) to isobutane (iC4). Isobutane is a feed stream required for the alkylation process. Thus the new Butane Isomerization unit is an intermediate processing step in the production of high-octane, low vapor pressure alkylate, which is a necessary component of reformulated gasoline. A simplified flow diagram of the Butane Isomerization unit is shown in Figure 3-11. r The Butane Isomerization Unit would include two prominent columns. The _ height and diameter of the columns would be approximately 200 feet by 13 feet and 100 feet by 6 feet, respectively. Figure 3-11. Butane Isomerization NORMAL BUTANES FROM EXISTING ALKYLATION UNIT ISOBUTANE FOR AND NEW ALKYLATION UNIT NEW ALKYLATION BUTANE ISOMERIZATION - PURPOSE: PREPARE FEEDSTOCK FOR ALKYLATION- (Site Plan Reference #18) Shell Oil Clean Fuels Project Draft EIR 3 Project Description Page 3-39• + 2./Light Cracked Gasoline Treater , The purpose of the new Light Cracked Gasoline Treater is to remove.pentanes and pentenes (CS) from existing gasoline blendstocks and to prepare the pentanes and pentenes for the alkylation process. Pentanes and pentenes must be removed from the catalytically cracked gasoline to meet new Reid Vapor Pressure specifications for reformulated.gasoline. The lower Reid vapor pressure required for reformulated gasolines corresponds to a less volatile gasoline that would reduce evaporation of Volatile organic compounds to the atmosphere, thereby reducing ozone formation. The Cracked Gasoline Depentanizer contained within the Light Cracked Gasoline Treater unit would _ recover pentanes, amylenes, and lighter components from the light gasoline and send them to the treating sections. This new unit would also remove sulfur-containing compounds (mercaptans) and diolefins prior to processing in _ the new alkylation unit located downstream. A simplified flow diagram of the Light Cracked Gasoline Treater is shown in Figure 3-9. The Light Cracked Gasoline Treater Unit would include one prominent column which is approximately 180 feet in height and 9 feet in diameter. �. Figure 3-9. Light Cracked Gasoline Treater LIGHT CATALYTIC CRACKED GASOLINE FROM EXISTING CATALYTIC CRACKING UNIT AND NEW GASOLINE NEW PENTANES TO NEW — SPUTTER COLUMN LIGHT CRACKED ALKYLATION UNIT GASOLINE TREATER PURPOSE: _ PREPARE STREAMS FOR ALKYLATION y HELP MEET REID VAPOR PRESSURE REQUIREMENTS REMOVE MERCAPTANS (SULFUR COMPOUNDS) AND DIOLEFINS (Site Plan Reference #19) i