Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041994 - 2.2 a TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1994 SUBJECT: SHELL CLEAN FUELS PROJECT' CONDITION REVIEW SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECUMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICA'T'ION RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPT process to provide public opportunity to comment on implementation of Use Permit conditions. FISCAL IMPACT: Costs included within permit fee. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: As part of its approval of LUP 2009-92 for the Shell Clean Fuels project, the Board of Supervisors included the provision that decisions, regarding submittals for Conditions of Approval #12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 35, shall be placed on the Consent Calendar of the Board s subsequent meeting for ratification, unless removed from the Consent Calendar for further deliberation. The first such request for approval came before the Board on its Consent Calendar on June 6, 1994. At that meeting, the comment was made from the public that there wasn't advance notice of the matter being placed on the agenda. The matter was referred to staff who set a Zoning Administrator meeting the following Monday with notice to persons interested in the Use Permit. The meeting was held with no attendance by the public. (continued on Page 2)CON INUED ON ATTACIiMFwr- X YES SIGNATURE:4c— — a�-rm _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINIS1RAl'OR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE on-IFR SIGNA'11URE(S): ACITON OF BOARD ON October 4 , 1994 APPROVED AS RE'COMME'NDED x OTHER See attached text fzpr Board discussion and definition of process. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERIVY TI-IAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) ENTERED ON THE MINUTT?S OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED October 4 , 1994 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAIL BATCI LELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPER ORS3 COI 1 ADMINISTRATOR VA dg BY4 ,DEPUTY shcllcoa.bo Contact: Val Al©welr(646-1620) CC: County Administrator County Counscl GMEDA Departments Shc1l Oil Company Shell Clean Fuels Project October 4, 1994 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued): The matter was returned to the Board on the following Tuesday, June 14. Following ratification of the Zoning Administrator's action, a memo was requested from staff on what future process would maximize participation without causing delays or problems. Staff developed the following process: L Following the staff review of the Shell submittal, a staff report, draft Board Order, and a public meeting notice is sent to the interested public. 2. The Zoning Administrator would hold a public meeting within eight to _. ten days of the noticing. 3. Following''the public meeting, the staff report and Board Order are finalized and submitted to the Board. The Board packet will include any correspondence received by the Zoning Administrator. Current Schedule: 1. Staff reviews submittals. 2. Board Order submitted twelve days prior to meeting. 3. Board ratification. Proposed Schedule: 1. Staff reviews submittals. 2. Draft Board Order, staff report, and noticing twelve days prior to meeting. 3. Public meeting held eight to ten days after noticing. 4. Board Order and staff report finalized and submitted to the Board five days priori to their meeting. 5. Board ratification. Shell has objected to this process indicating that this goes beyond the Conditions of Approval and subjects them to increased jeopardy for approval. One comment was that they would be subject to forty mini-use permits. Shell recommends that extended notice be given for the Board of Supervisors Consent Calendar and if there is interest, the item can be removed from the Consent Calendar and discussed at that time. Should controversy occur, the matter can be scheduled for a Zoning Administrator meeting with a report back for the following consent Calendar. This approach may be disruptive for staff workflow, however, staff does not have serious objection. The intent of the original Condition was to provide a tighter review of Condition compliance. Either process accomplishes this purpose. Text of item 2 . 2 from October 4, 1994 Supervisor Powers : Item 2 .2 . Adopt the process providing a public opportunity to comment on the use conditions in the Shell Clean Fuels Project . I only have one speaker on that item and maybe staff has a report . Val Alexeeff : Yeah, briefly, Shell as you know had a use permit approved for their clean fuels project and as part of that use permit they were to come back when certain conditions were implemented for the Board to in effect check off the conditions and the point of that was to give opportunity to people in the community to talk about how the conditions were being implemented. When the matter first occurred after the use permit was approved, a number of people from the community mentioned the fact that they didn' t have adequate notice and they wanted to look at the conditions and to study some things and some additional issues were raised. The Board at that point, referred the matter back to the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator conducted a meeting with the neighborhood which didn' t have any attendance from the people who were concerned yet it came back to the Board and the Board authorized the condition. Then the Board asked staff to come up with a procedure that would expand the amount of public involvement in reviewing the conditions. Staff has had several discussions with Shell . Staff has come up with a procedure and Shell has come up with an alternative feeling that they would be placed in unreasonable jeopardy if every time they had to implement a condition there was in their words a mini-public hearing, so you have before you the staff report with the two options and staff is looking for direction from the Board to implement this condition. Supervisor Bishop: For some unbeknown reason, I do not have the staff report and I think Supervisor Smith had requested at the time that the Clean Fuels Project came before the Board to have my recollection was, maybe you have a better recollection of what you requested, but I know that there was particular elements there relating to noise reduction and I don' t have a recollection at this time of what those things were but they were rather critical to the people who gave testimony at the original public hearing, Mr. Alexeeff, and my recollection also was that only through a public hearing process that provided some input for input from the public, did they feel that their concerns would be addressed and this has been many, many months . What has happened to those conditions. I mean my understanding there was some urgency when they were on our consent calendar that those be treated that day and it has not been back to us . What has happened with those conditions . I'm curious . Val Alexeeff : Okay, what happened on the last go round is the conditions came before the Board, they were sent back, Zoning Administrator scheduled a meeting with notice, came back the following Tuesday which was the next day after the Zoning Administrator' s meeting, made a report and at that time the Board went ahead and passed on the conditions . Supervisor Bishop: Great . Val Alexeeff : Now, we have another set of conditions coming up that will be reviewed and what we have before you are not those conditions but an effort to come up with a process under which those next set of conditions will be considered. Supervisor Bishop: But it does include a Zoning Administrator' s public meeting. Val Alexeeff : We have that as a proposal . Supervisor Powers : Okay, any other questions, comments. We do have one speaker and I've lost your card so you' ll just have to come forward and speak. And state your name for the record. I think I handed it in already but I'm not sure. It could be buried under piles of things here and I apologize sir. Joel Harmon: Yes, Good Morning, I'm Joel Harmon with Shell Oil Company. We have had several meetings with staff about this particular proposal and in staff' s report to you, they mention that they do notpihave any serious objection with our proposal which I will mention in a minute. And that either process accomplishes the 'ipurpose that was in the original condition that is to provide a tighter of review of the condition compliance and Shell' s proposal d s that the Board formalize the procedure that we followed in June, specifically, Shell' s proposing that the staff give advance special notice to those members of the public and/or organizations that have shown an interest in the Clean Fuels Project, that the matter will appear on the Board' s consent calendar on a given date. We then propose that if members of the public appear at 'the hearing and if they convince the Board that they have concerns regarding Shell' s compliance with the conditions before the Board, the matter, at the discretion of the Board, will be removed from the consent calendar and continued for one week. The Monday before the continued hearing date, a public workshop would be held on the conditions which would be attended by the staff, Shell and any interested members of the public . SeveralGreasons for this . First of all, we believe that this complies wit'''h the language that is set forth in Condition number 4 . This is a condition that was just about a year ago today which has already been mentioned. Secondly, we feel that this would not cause any undue delay. There is a time urgency here . If you have been out to the area of 680 and Marina Vista, this area that we call a forest of cranes and seen all of the construction going on there, we have accomplished a lot since January of this year, but we still have a lot more to accomplish and we do have some deadlines that we have to meet, so we feel our process willallow that . We also believe that in most cases, it is very unlikely that the public will have any desire to comment on the matters that will appear on the Board' s calendar. For example, some of the things that will come forth concern noise and at this early stage, we will come forth with matters that a qualified noise engineer has done the proper calculations that there will not be an effect from noise from a particular unit . Later in the process, we will have to verify that . So, we will have to physically go out and measure the noise, but at this early stage, we' re just talking about a matter of having the calculation certified. That type of process we feel will not cause for a public meeting. Well, for these reasons Shell strongly believes that the addition of the advance notice on the consent calendariand a formalization of the procedure used by the Board at the last hearing, that the express language and intent of Condition Number 4 of the Clean Fuels Project will be met . The public' s inteii rest in learning about Shell' s compliance with the condition would be satisfied should the public demonstrate such an interest land the approval process will remain consistent with the time demands of the Clean Fuels legislation. Have any questions? Supervisor Bishop' : So, you do object to the proposed schedule . Looking at the proposed schedule, I'm looking at twelve days notice and then ten days after noticing the public meeting and then well actually no we' re talking about 17 days if you go through the process and then it goes on to the Board. Under the current schedule, it talks about review submittals in the Board Order, but there'I's no place in there about noticing the public . I mean how is the public supposed to know what' s going on or are they not . Joel Harmon: Well the items that are placed on the consent calendar, a mailing list containing the names of those people who expressed an interest during the Clean Fuels Process and I forget exactly how the list is constructed but they would be notified that these itemsi,will be on the consent calendar and then if they show up and say we would like to discuss these items with your concurrence thenwe will schedule a public workshop for the i following Monday.';,, But if those people notified have no interest , then we would go forward with the item. Supervisor Bishop: And what kind of notice would you provide to them. Just the regular notice that a consent calendar does . Like five days . Joel Harmon: I'm not sure about the time . I thought we talked about a week in advance. Val Alexeeff : We could construct a special form. Supervisor Bishop: Yeah, I just you know, it' s Supervisor Smith' s district 'but I've got to be real candid with you. I think the proposed schedule, it is not that time, the time constraints don' t, seem to be that onerous and I just have some problems with no !!opportunity for public input at a ZA meeting at least . Thank you. Supervisor Smith: Well, my concern was I wanted to make sure that there was more awareness of what was going on with regard to the conditions that were being reviewed and potentially approved on the consent calendar related to this Clean Fuels Project and I like the idea of 'Chaving the Zoning Administrator involved and holding a publiclmeeting. I think that we can probably solve some of the time '!,requirements by some rather simple modifications of the way thatwe agendize things . What I was thinking in terms of was more along the lines of making sure that the notice for these issues goes out a week before the normal requirement, so that typically we require items to be placed on the consent calendar 12 daysibefore the Board agenda and that we could require that there be a notice sent out a week before that since none of these are going to be by surprise. And then have the ZA have a hearing on the Monday before the Tuesday that the Board has this agendized on the calendar such that there' s an opportunity for two public hearings, one on the Monday with the ZA and the second at the Board meeting the next day if the item needs to come off the consent calendar. And that would in my mind give plenty'!of warning and plenty of opportunity for comments and concerns to be raised and the item would remain on the consent calendar so that it could be approved either with the consent calendar ',if there were no objections or concerns or separately if concerns were raised. Supervisor Powers : Okay. That understood, Val . Okay, that' s a motion and is there a second to that (Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motllon) . There' s a motion and a second. Any further discussion. Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed. Passes unanimously. d