HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11051996 - D15 � Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
,�
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County
'"--
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1996
8UBJECT: APPEAL BY MR. LYNN CHERRY, MR. JAY GUNKELMAN, MS. ,JULIA MAY AND MR.
ANDY NECHLING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE
ZCKING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISICN REGARDING UNOCAL'S COMPLIANCE WITH LAND
USE PERMIT CONDITION 75.
SPECIFIC REQIIEBT(S) OR RECOXXZNDATION(8) S BACIGRODND AND JUSTIFICATION
A. Deny this appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision
to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision concerning
Unocal's compliance with Condition of Approval 75 (Land Use
Permit 2038-93) .
B. Adopt Board Resolution #17-1996 attached as Exhibit A as a
basis of the Board's action.
FISCAL TMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/MASONS FOR RECOMMFNDATTONS
A. Introduction:
On July 15, 2996, the Zoning Administrator made a decision
concerning Unocal's compliance with Condition of Approval 75 of its
Land Use Permit. This decision (1) required prompt installation
and operation of two FTIR monitors, (2) extended the deadline for
submitting the Final Design of the Fenceline Monitoring Program
from June, 1996 to November 22, 1996, and (3) outlined a detailed
compliance schedule by which to monitor Unocal's compliance
efforts.
CONTINUED ON ATTACBMENT: _j_„ YEB SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR „ RECOMME ON ARD COMMITTEE
— APPROVE o OTHER
SIGNATURE(B) t
iICTION QF BOARD ON November S. 19§6APPROVED AS RECOXUMDED OTHER
1T TS. BY THE 'BOARD ORDERED that the withdrawal of the appeal
on the above matter is ACCEPTED ( see attached Appellant ' s letter ) .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
2 HEREBY CERTIFY TEAT TRIS ZB A,
QN71NIl�tOIIB (ABSENT sup. Dist. IV TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON TIE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: XINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Debbi• Sanderson 335-1206
Oriq: Community Development Department ATTESTED__ November s. i
act Unocal YHIL BATCHELOR, CLERM OF
Ms. Julia May TEE BOARD OF119UPERVX8022
Public Works-Mitch Avalon COUNTY 1VVXJ 8 TO
B EPUTY
• DS/df
bo3:2038-93.bo .`
�. lS
Page Two
On July 25, the four appellants listed above appealed this decision
by the Zoning Administrator. On August 27, 1996, the Planning
' Commission conducted a hearing on this appeal, accepted public
testimony, and unanimously denied this appeal. (Attachment C)
On September 5, 1996, the same four appellants appealed this action
by the Planning Commission. This appeal letter (Attachment B)
includes the July 25, 1996 appeal letter.
At issue is Unocal' s compliance with Condition of Approval 75 of
its Land Use Permit. Condition 75 requires` Unocal to submit a
final design of an air pollution monitoring system that is
"mutually agreeable" to the signatories of the Good Neighbor
Agreement. The appellants take issue with the Zoning
Administrator's decision to extend Unocal' s deadline for this
submittal from June, 1993 to November 22, 1996.
The four appellants are community signatories of the Unocal Good
Neighbor Agreement and are members of the Fenceline Monitor Working
Group (i.e. , the Working Group) .
This report summarizes actions and issues since the August 27, 1996
Planning Commission Appeal Hearing. Attachment C presents the
' Staff Report for that hearing.
B. Actions Since the August 27, 1996 Planning Commission Hearing
By August 30, 1996, Unocal' s purchased FTIR system was operating on
both the northern and southern fence lines. (Attachment D) . Unocal
and the Working Group met on September 3 and September 11 .
Another meeting is scheduled for September 26" (Attachments D &
E) .
C. Nature of the Appeal:
The grounds for this appeal are stated in the appellants' September
5, 1996 letter (3 new issues) and the attached July 25, 1996 appeal
letter (4 issues) . The four issues from the July 25, 1996 appeal
letter, listed below, are discussed in Attachment C:
1 . Unocal is out of compliance
2. The Zoning Administrator' s decision failed to bring Unocal
into compliance and focused instead on developing a temporary
' system.
3. The County has the authority and duty to bring Unocal into
compliance.
4. The County can bring Unocal into compliance by adopting a
schedule and monitoring guidelines developed by the
appellants.
Three additional issues, from the September 5, 1996 letter, are
discussed below:
Point 1: The deadline will delay final installation
Statement of Appeal:
"The Planning Commission denied our appeal, apparently based on a
feeling that there is currently a deadline put in place by the
Zoning Administrator of November 22 for Unocal to submit a plan to
the commission and come back into compliance. However, this
deadline will delay the final installation greatly past the
deadlines of the Land Use Permit ."
Page Three
t Staff Response
The Zoning Administrator' s decision did extend Unocal ' s deadline
for submitting the final design. Several Planning Commission
members cited this deadline when explaining their decision to deny
the appeal. However, the schedule for final installation is
determined by many factors, not just the final design submittal
date. A final design that is "mutually agreeable" to all parties
is much less subject to installation delays than one imposed
unilaterally on one party or the other. Unocal has already agreed
to install FTIR monitors as part of the final design; thus, at
least a portion of the final system is already installed. Since
the Zoning Administrator' s decision has insured that two FTIR
monitors are operating while discussions continue, staff considers
the potential cost of delay in final installation to be less than
the potential benefits resulting from Unocal and the appellants
reaching agreement on the final design.
Point 2: [The decision] does not provide a mechanism for getting
over the disagreement .
Statement of Appeal
" . . .and does not provide a mechanism for getting over the
disagreement between Unocal and community members which has been a
major problem or months now. "
Staff Response:
The Zoning Administrator's decision did not instruct either party
how to resolve their differences, but created a greater incentive
to negotiate. Both Unocal and one of the appellants have reported
that progress is being made in negotiating a final design, although
some critical issue are still outstanding. It is not necessary to
provide such a mechanism if both parties are highly motivated to
resolve their differences themselves and progress is being made.
Point 3: There is no comanitment from Unocal on a final design
Statement of Appeal
"The fact that Unocal now has FTIR monitors up and running, as
required by the Zoning Administrator for a temporary system, should
not obscure the fact that there is no commitment from Unocal on how
the instruments are to be used or integrated into a final design,
which chemicals are monitored, how data is shared, etc. In fact no
final design exists at all at this time. "
Staff Response:
As noted under Point 2 above, the parties report progress in
resolving their differences (See Attachment B, the Appeal Letter,
paragraph 2 and Attachment E, Unocal 's September 6 letter) . At
the current rate of progress, the November 22, 1996 deadline
appears to be a reasonable -schedule for submitting a final design.
Expecting the parties to workout among themselves the details of
this monitoring program is consistent with the Condition of
Approval 75 of Unocal' s Land Use Permit.
D. Conclusions
Staff finds that Unocal has continued to meet the milestones set
out by the Zoning Administrator and that progress is being made by
Unocal and the Working Group toward a "mutually agreeable" final
design of the fence line monitoring system. Staff also finds that
no new information has arisen to alter the decision of the Planning
Commission. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of
Supervisor' s deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning
Administrator concerning Unocal' s compliance with Land Use Permit
Condition 75.
NOV-04-1996 14:32V. ls
P.01
11/4/96
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
Office of the Clerk of the Board
By FAX 335-1913
Dear Members of the Board,
We are delighted to withdraw our appeal to the Board of Supervisors, of Unocal's Land
Use Permit conditions' on air pollution monitoring. We have signed an excellent
agreement today with Unocal which meets with the requirements of the Land Use Permit
for a system mutually agreeable to our fenceline monitoring committee. It includes an
unprecedented variety of air pollution monitoring equipment(FTIR,Ultra-Violet,laser
equipment, and VQC point monitors)to measure about 35 air pollutants continually at the
refinery.
Therefore we assume that our scheduled appeal will be removed from the agenda
tomorrow,November 5, for the Board of Supervisors' hearing.
Thank-you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, Julia May can be
contacted as a point person at 415/243-8373.
y
Lynn Che Jay Gunkelman Julia Ma Andy Mechling
cc.Ann Cervelli
/.S
NOTICE OF THE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON A PLANNING MATTER
RODEO AREA
NOTICE is thereby given that on Tuesday, October 1,1996 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 107
of the County Administration Building, corner of Pine and Escobar Streets,-Martinez,
California, the Contra;Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold'a public hearing to
consider the following planning matters:
Appeal by Lynn Cherry, Jay Gunkelman, Julia May, and Andy Mechlink';.members of
the fenceline monitoring committee (except Unocal), and signatories and representatives-of
signatories of the Good Neighborhood Agreement, from the decision of.the Contra Costa ,
County Planning Commission on Unocal Corporation's (Applicant and Owner) Land Use
Permit (#LP2038-93), which allows the construction and operation of the Unocal
Reformulated Gasoline Project. The project includes the construction and operation of a
hydrogen plant, and the modification of three existing processing units (the pentane
handling/benzene saturation equipment, the gasoline blender and the steam/power plant). The
project also includes the construction of a maximum of 10 new storage tanks.
The location of the subject land is within the unincorporated territory of the County of
Costa,- State of California, generally identified belviv (a more precise description may
be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County
Administration Building, Martinez, California):
A site on approximately 25 acres of the 1,000 acre Unocal San Francisco Refinery, in
the Rodeo area.
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someope else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Date: September 16, 1996
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
arbara S. Graf, ty Clerk
f :
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY r►C ,,`�v®-- —
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ® ' U.S.POSTAGE
651 Pine Street, Room 106 'ipz0'96
Martinez, CA 94553 = 0 3 2 4 8
A } PB N'-TER
6857478
__ 1p yFG
cc �b�'
RECEIVE® FIRST CLASS _�Al"L��2
=3. Wo,ooh 01 q0
7 NOTICE OF HEARIRG,,, ie
SEP 2
CLERK BOARD OF SDPERVISORS 357 225 010
CONTRA COSTA CO. Arnold & Lupe Romero
1349 5th St
Rodeo;' CA -94572
PROOF OF PUBL4cATION
NOTICE OF A
PUBLIC HEARING.
BEFORE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COSTACOUNTYE30ARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON A
County of Contra Costa PLANNING MATTER
! am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the RODEO AREA
h
County aforesaid; f am over the age Ot eighteenNOTICE
gey , onDY
TSA , OCTOBER 1,
and not a party to or»Interested In the above-entitled 1996 at 2:00 P.M. in Room
107 of the County Admin(s-
matter, tration Building, comer of
Pine and Escobar Streets,
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times, Martinez,California,
Co nri,the Boa goof
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- Supervisors will hold a public
fished at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City Of'Walnut hearing a consider the fa-
lowing planning matters:
Creek, County of Contra Costa, 94598. Appeal by LynnCherry, Jay
Gunkeiman, Julia May, and
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper he enceline mcnoring
of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County committee (except Unocal),
Of Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of and signatories and repre-
sentatives of signatories of
`October 22, 1934. Case Number 19764- the Good neighborhood
Agreement, from the decl-
sion of the Contra Costa
The notice, of which the annexed is ap rinted copy(set in County Planning Commission
on Unocal Corporation'sp-
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published In piicant and Owner)Lands..
Permit (#LP2083-93), which
each regular and entire Issue of said newspaper and not ape anon of lowsotlnietUno'cai and
Re-
In any supplement thereof on the following dates, to—Wit: formated Gasoline Project.
The project includes the on-
� q�} i{ ` struction and operation of a
`.i1 .....'... .....•..........•..•.........I...................���u. hydrogen plant, and the
modification of three existing
processing units(the pentane
all in the year of 19..%. handl(nglbenzene saturation
equipment, the gasoline
er
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the blender and the prosteject
also in-
plant}. The project else in-
foregoing Is true and correct. dudes the construction of e
maximum of 10 new storage
tanks,
Executed at Walnut Creek, California. The location of the subject
site is within the unincorpo-
rated territory of the Coupnty
Qr} th
.... , d y o f J.• 1 9 96•' of Contra Costa,State of CaF
r� / / ! Ifomia, generally identified
.l. s!�........r.. ...... ..(. e de-
scripItanamayobeexamned n
the Office of the Director of
Signature Community Development,
County Administration Build-
Contra Costa Times Ing,Martinez,California):
P.O. BOX 4147 A site on approximately 25
Watnut Creek CA 94596 acres of the 1,000 acre U-
Walnut San Francisco Refinery,in
(510) 935-2525 the Rodeo area.
If you challenge this matter in
Proof of Publication o(: Court,you may be limited to
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that pub- 1 raising only those issues youor someone else raised at
+theublic hearing described
fished) I in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to
the County at,or prior to,the 1
Public hearing.
Date:September 16,1996
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of
the Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By:Barbara S.Grant,
Deputy Clerk
Leggal OCT 8618
PubllSh September 19,1996
+O 3�qt�