Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11191996 - D.1 ............. Contr Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCounty` FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON °SrA coU DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1996 SUBJECT: APPEAL BY MS. DIANA PATRICK OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION TO APPROVE WITH REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO SHELL MARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY'S LAND USE PERMIT (LP962024) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the "Addendum and Technical Analysis to Shell Clean Fuels Project Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Transport of Petroleum Coke by Truck," dated August, 1996, contained in the November 5, 1996 Board Order. B. Adopt Board Resolution #20-1996 included with this report as a basis of the Board' s actions. C. Deny the appeal dated September 20, 1996 by Diana Patrick and uphold the Planning Commission decision to allow Shell to ship petroleum coke by truck. D. Adopt revisions to Conditions 5 and 11 as presented below. E. Adopt a revised Condition of Approval #7 , as presented below in Item C. 3 . FISCAL IMPACT None BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS A. Previous Hearings and Actions: On October 12, 1993 the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shell Oil Company's Clean Fuels Project and approved CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM TTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON November 19, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR LIST OF SPEAKERS VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: I IV V NOES: II ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: III ABSTAIN: None MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:DEBBIE SANDERSON - 335-1208 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED November 19, 1996 cc: Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Shell Oil Company THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Diana Patrick AND e0UNAD STRATOR BY , DEPUTY DS/df:bo3 :LP962024 .bo2 2 its Land Use Permit 2009-92. This permit allows Shell to transport coke by rail during normal operations and by truck during emergencies. On February 26, 1996, Shell proposed a change in its project to ship coke by truck during normal operations. This proposal involves no other change in Shell 's Clean Fuels Project, as described in the existing EIR, except the addition of truck washing apparatus to its Coke Handling Facility to remove pieces of coke from the trucks' top, sides, undercarriage and wheels. On August 27, 1996 and September 10, 1996, the County Planning Commission accepted public testimony on Shell's proposed change in coke transport mode. At the August 27, 1996 hearing, Commissioners asked several questions, which staff responded to in the September 10, 1996 staff report. At the September 10, 1996 meeting, the Commission unanimously adopted the "Addendum . . . " to the Shell Clean Fuels Project EIR and approved Shell's Land Use Permit #962024 to allow transport of coke by truck during normal operations. Staff reports for these two hearings summarize the issues raised and staff responses and were included with the November 5, 1996 Board Order. Included with this Board Order are all new permit conditions; highlighted text represents all changes approved by the Planning Commission in Shell's Clean Fuels Project LUP #922009. On September 20, 1996, Ms. Diana Patrick appealed this Planning Commission decision allowing Shell to transport petroleum coke by truck. Ms. Patrick submitted additional documentation on September 23 , 1996. The grounds for Ms. Patrick's appeal are evaluated below. (Staff has added paragraph numbers to Ms. Patrick's letter to facilitate discussion. ) On November 5, 1996 the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on the appeal and accepted public testimony. The Board continued the hearing to November 19, 1996 and asked staff to provide additional information on several items. This Board Order references information presented in the November 5, 1996 Board Order and highlights those issues of concerned raised by the Supervisors. B. Grounds for Appeal Ms. Patrick requested a reevaluation of the Clean Fuels Project permit (LUP922009) and the already certified EIR. Staff has concluded that this request is not related to this appeal item. Ms. Patrick also appealed the Planning Commission decision approving Permit 962404, on the grounds that (1) a supplemental EIR should be required, (2) there is insufficient traffic mitigation, and (3) an unbiased traffic study is needed. 1. Supplemental or .Subsequent EIR: Ms. Patrick questions whether an Addendum is appropriate for this proposed change. Staff Response: As explained in the "Addendum . . .", Pages 3-6 (See the November 5, 1996 Board Order) , staff evaluated the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 , and determined that CEQA requires an Addendum rather than a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR in this case because: a: ) the proposed change creates no new significant impacts and no substantial increases in existing significant impacts, b: ) there are no substantial changes in the project's circumstances leading to new significant impacts or substantial increases in existing significant impacts; or c: ) there is no substantial, new information showing: 3 • a new significant impact, • an increase in an existing significant impact, • that a previously rejected mitigation measure or alternative is not feasible, or • that new, more effective mitigation measures are now available. As required by CEQA, the "Addendum explains staff's analysis and conclusions. Staff finds no grounds to require a supplemental or subsequent EIR and thus disagrees with the appeal. This proposal involves no other changes to the Clean Fuels Project, except the addition of truck washing apparatus and the shipment of coke by truck rather than rail. All other controls and restrictions on the coking operation and on coke handling remain the same. Pages 1- 5 of the September 10, 1996 Staff Report explains how the coking operation works, how it has been downsized, and how this proposed change fits into the Clean Fuels Project. The amendment would allow Shell to ship by rail or by truck in the future. 2. Insufficient Traffic Mitigation: Ms. Patrick questions whether the permit requires sufficient traffic mitigation. Staff Response: As explained on Pages 6 and 7 of the November 5, 1996 Board Order, staff has carefully evaluated potential traffic impacts and finds no significant impacts due to the proposed transport of coke by truck. Staff evaluated potential impacts on (1) traffic congestion, (2) roadway damage, (3) ramp damage, (4) roadway debris, and (5) roadway safety. Impacts were evaluated for both existing conditions and into the future (i.e. , cumulative impacts) . Staff concludes that this issue does not constitute grounds for an appeal. Key elements in staff' 's conclusions are summarized below. (For a full discussion, See the "Addendum . . , pages 15 - 18; the September 10, 1996 Staff Report, page 2 - 3 ; and the Fehr & Peers traffic analysis, in Attachment B of the September 10, 1996 Staff Report) . • Truck Limits: Shell would ship no more than 82 trucks per day average, a maximum of 100 trucks per day. • Congestion: With this additional truck traffic, the Level of Service (currently B) will not change. In the year 2010 the level of service might degrade to a level C. These levels are not considered significant impacts. • Roadway Structural Impacts: Shell 's current permit requires them to rebuild Marina Vista, from Shell Avenue east to the North Bound on-ramp, at the end of project construction, to the standard required at that time. This standard, the applicable traffic index, must reflect the additional wear and tear due to the proposed coke traffic. • Ramp Impacts: Shell's current permit requires them to contribute their fair share of the cost of rebuilding the on- and off-ramps. This share would include the additional traffic due to coke trucks. • Roadway Debris: Shell' s proposed technology uses a totally enclosed vehicle, which is sealed and washed prior to leaving the refinery. Refinery roads will be swept at least weekly. Any failure in bottom hatches is likely to occur on the refinery site, prior to entering Marina Vista. • Roadway Safety: These roadways and ramps are designed to handle trucks of this size, weight, and type. There is no reason to believe that these trucks will be involved in an 4 • Additional restrictions: Shell has agreed (and the permit would so stipulate) that coke trucks would not travel at the AM or PM peak periods. 3. Need for an Unbiased Traffic Study: Ms. Patrick asserts that the traffic study is biased, but does not provide any evidence to substantiate her claim. Staff Response: Staff has no reason to believe the study is biased because (1) Staff from two County departments (Community Development and Public Works) directed and evaluated the work and • (2) a traffic engineer, hired by the City of Martinez, independently reviewed the work and concurred with the analysis and results. See letters from Martinez dated October 14, 1996 (in previous Board packet) and August 27, 1996 (distributed at the August 27, 1996 hearing) . C. Issues Raised by the Board of Supervisors At the November 5, 1996 hearing, the Board of Supervisors asked staff to respond to the following issues: 1. Modes of Travel and Impacts: Shell proposes to ship coke by tandem trailers, weighing 38 tons when loaded. Trucks would be sealed and washed prior to leaving the refinery. Trucks would travel on Marina Vista, between the Fairview Gate and Interstate 680. Shipments would occur 20 hours a day, 360 days a year; no trucks would travel at the AM or PM peak periods. Shell would not exceed 82 trucks per day average, or 100 trucks per day maximum. This amount is equivalent to the 750, 000 tons per year production limit placed by the Air District on the Delayed Coker Unit. As summarized above under Item B.2 , Staff evaluation has revealed no significant impacts. On average, we expect eight to ten trucks per hour - half loaded and half empty. This level would be about 2% to 3% of the traffic on Marina Vista and less than 0. 3% of the traffic on I-680. 2 . Comparison of Rail vs. Truck Travel: As compared to rail, transport by truck would have a greater impact on roadway traffic congestion, roadway structures, and roadway safety, although none of these impacts are considered significant in this case. Since the trucks would travel at non-peak hours, rail transport would probably have no greater impact on air quality due to vehicle emissions. Transport by truck would probably provide fewer impacts on emissions resulting from material handling, since the County can more readily control truck technology (i. e. , covers, loading procedures, truck washing) and truck movements (i.e, truck routes and travel times) than it can control rail technology and rail car movements. Since petroleum coke is not a hazardous material, impacts on natural habitat, waterways, and human safety would be similar between the two modes of transportation. 3 . Truck Design and Technology: At the November 5, 1996 hearing, questions were asked concerning reliability of the technology proposed by Shell and the County's recourse if either the technology proved to be inadequate or if Shell changed the technology in the future. To address these concerns, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the following revised Condition #7, to replace the one approved by the Planning Commission. This revised condition includes additional safeguards related to the type of truck technology. 5 COA 7: Trucks transporting coke from the Shell Refinery delayed coker shall utilize the technology presented by Shell in its October 29, 1996 letter to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The petroleum coke shall be totally enclosed in a manner to prevent the release of coke particles to the atmosphere. Prior to leaving the Shell' s coke handling facility, the tops, sides, undercarriages and wheels of these coke trucks shall be washed. Alternatively, Shell may demonstrate to the satisfaction to the Zoning Administrator that another truck design or that other methods for loading, covering, and/or cleaning coke trucks are functionally equivalent and provide equivalent environmental protection. In its Annual Report, required by Condition of Approval #78 of Shell 's Clean Fuels Project Land Use Permit 922009, Shell shall demonstrate compliance with this condition. The report shall at least include the average and peak numbers of truck vehicles traveling per day, the technology in use, accidents resulting in the release of coke on public roadways and on the Shell property, response to these releases, and evidence that Marina Vista has remained free of petroleum coke debris. RESOLUTION NO. 20-1996 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL - Shell Martinez Refining Company (Applicant & Owner) Land Use Permit LP962024, Martinez area Ms. Diana Patrick (Appellant) WHEREAS on October 12, 1993, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shell Oil Company's Clean Fuels Project and approved its Land Use Permit 1922009, allowing Shell to build and operate the Delayed Coker Facility and to ship petroleum coke from this project by rail during normal operations and by truck during emergencies; and WHEREAS on February 26, 1996 Shell Martinez Refining Company submitted an application to the County to amend its project description for the Clean Fuels Project, to allow the transport of clean fuels project coke by truck during normal operations; and WHEREAS the County staff evaluated this application and in accordance with Section 15164 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental .Quality Act prepared an "Addendum and Technical Analysis to the Shell Clean Fuels Project Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Transport of Petroleum Coke by Truck"; WHEREAS after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on August 27, 1996, and continued to September 10, 1996; whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS at the September 10, 1996 hearing the County Planning Commission adopted the aforementioned "Addendum . . . " and approved Shell's Land Use Permit #962024 to incorporate the changes specified in Attachment A to the September 10, 1996 Staff Report, allowing Shell to ship petroleum coke by truck during normal operations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission ADOPTED this "Addendum . . . " and APPROVED the Shell Permit 1962024; and Page Two Resolution No. 20-1996 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for these actions are as follows: 1. The proposed transport of Clean Fuels Project petroleum coke, as restricted by the Land Use Permit 1962024, would create no potentially significant environmental impacts and would not create substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact. 2. None of the conditions specified in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 has been met since adoption of the Shell Clean Fuels Project on October 12, 1993, and thus a supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required. 3 . The transport of this petroleum coke by truck would be restricted to non-peak hours and the maximum number of coke trucks would not exceed 82 shipments per day on average with a peak of 100 trucks per day. - 4. The types of trucks to be used and the management and handling of these vehicles will prevent degradation of local roadways due to coke particles or coke dust. BE IT RESOLVED that the forgoing APPROVALS were given by vote of the County Planning Commission in a regular meeting Tuesday, September 10, 1996 as follows: AYES: Commissioners- C1ark,Terrell,Guncheon,Gaddis, Hanecak, Wong NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - Pavlinec ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appellant, Ms. Diana Patrick has appealed the decision of the County Planning Commission to the County Board of Supervisors for public hearing and determination. ATTEST: r Harvey E. Bragdon, Secret ry of the Planning Commissi n, County of Contra Costa, State of California DS/df bo3 : 1p962024 .res ADDENDUM LIST OF SPEAKERS ITEM D. 19 NOVEMBER 19, 1996 The following persons presented testimony on the appeal by Ms . Diana Patrick from the County Planning Commission Board of Appeals decision to approve with revisions and amendments to Shell Martinez Refining Company' s Land Use Permit (LP 96-2024) : Diana Patrick, 1310 Marina Vista, Martinez, appellant; Tom Peters, 1280 Escobar Street, Martinez; Steve Kaspar, 29 Goree Court, Martinez; Mike Menesini, Mayor, City of Martinez, 525 Henrietta Street, Martinez; Mary Perez, 3134 Pine Street, Martinez; Ron Espinoza, 305 Sunnyslopes Drive, Martinez; Ron Banducci, Shell Refining Company, Martinez;