The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05071996 - D8 t TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: APRIL 30, 1996 SUBJECT: REPORT REGARDING THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE CROCKETT IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE UNOCAL REFINERY SAFETY AUDIT AGREEMENT SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Accept this report from the GMEDA Director regarding the relationship between the Unocal Refinery Safety Audit Agreement and the conditions of Unocal' s land use permit relating to the Good Neighbor Agreement (Conditions 77 and 78) . 2 . Affirm that Unocal' s compliance with Condition #77 and 78 of their land use permit is to be determined by the Zoning Administrator as provided by their permit, and that the Refinery Safety Audit Agreement does not grant this authority as stated in the letter from the Crockett Improvement Association. 3 . Affirm that although the County supports the Good Neighbor Agreement, the County is not a signatory to the agreement and does not have enforcement authority. To the extent that several of the terms of the "Agreement". are also conditions of the land use permit, the Community Development Department is monitoring Unocal' s compliance with those permit conditions and can initiate revocation proceedings against Unocal for failure to comply with the land use permit conditions . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER S I GNATURE (S) ACTION OF BOARD ON May 7 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER 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, CDD (5-1237) ATTESTED May 7, 1996 cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF GMEDA THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Administrator ANA CO ADM S TRATOR County Counsel BY , DEPUTY VA:CK:aw Ck(2)1996\unoca1.bo �i RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) 4 . Affirm that Zoning Administrator' s review of the submittals for Conditions 77 and 78 are limited to approval of the "Agreement" and cannot be extended to a review of the implementation of the document. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The February 19, 1996 letter from the Crockett Improvement Association expresses concern that the Safety Program Audit Agreement gives the Zoning Administrator the "sole discretion" to determine whether Conditions 77 and 78 of the Unocal land use permit have been satisfied. The letter lists concerns with Unocal' s implementation of Good Neighbor Agreement terms addressing the continuing treatment of Good Neighbor Clinic patients for catacarb related symptoms and the completion of a health risk assessment . Conditions 77 and 78 require Unocal to negotiate a Good Neighbor Agreement in good faith, and to submit the signed agreement to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval . The only change provided by the Safety Program Audit Agreement is that this decision be made after a public hearing. The Safety Program Audit Agreement does not change the authority of the Zoning Administrator with respect to the permit conditions . The Unocal permit does not provide for County oversight of the implementation of the Good Neighbor Agreement. On the contrary, Condition 78 provides that once the Zoning Administrator has approved the signed agreement, Condition. 78 is removed from the land use permit . Several of the Good Neighbor Agreement terms are also requirements of the land use permit . Although the County does not have enforcement authority over the implementation of the Good Neighbor Agreement, the County does have authority for issues to the extent that they are included as conditions of the land use permit . The Crockett Improvement Association letter lists concerns regarding the fenceline monitoring program. This issue is also a condition of Unocal' s land use permit. The permit requires that the final design of the monitoring system which is to be agreed upon between Unocal and signatories of the Good Neighbor Agreement, be submitted to the County Planning Commission. We expect the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the issue in April or May. The Zoning Administrator has not yet approved the signed Good Neighbor Agreement which has been submitted by Unocal . Pursuant to the Board' s request for the Zoning Administrator to hold a public hearing prior to a decision, we expect to hold the hearing within the next six weeks . LLd {o r1len w O Ilk. n PO Box 132 Crockett CA 94525 RECEIVED February 19, 1996 Since D Board of Supervisors FEB 2 2 0% RECEIVED Contra Costa County 651 Pine street CLERK BOARD MAY - 7 1996 Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRA Dear County Supervisors: CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA Co. RE: SAFETY PROGRAM AUDIT AGREEMENT, UNOCAL REFINERY On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Crockett Improvement Association, we wish to express concern over Para- graph 18 of the .Safety Program Audit Agreement between the County and Unocal. The Good Neighbor Agreement (G.N.A. ) is a highly complex contract which is far from completely fulfilled by Unocal. One of the most potent factors which is helping to move the G.N.A. along is the Land Use Permit, specifically conditions #77 & 78. One area of specific concern is the final design of the fenceline monitor system. The G.N.A. , Section VII, states that design and testing will be done by Unocal. In a preceding paragraph there is the statement that the system must be - "�mmutu�a�lly agreeable to the signatories of this agreement and the County". In an recent meeting with Unocal management, there was an indication that they may design a system without remote sensing technology. This was vigorously protested at the time, but no resolution was forthcoming. Obviously, this is an area where the leverage of COA #77 & 78 may be of significant benefit in avoiding potential arbitration/litigation. Another major area of concern is the continuing treatment of Good Neighbor Clinic patients for catacarb-related symptoms. There has been a protest of the follow-up procedures which has not been. conclusively- settled. Third, the C.I.A. .questions the satisfactory completion of the health risk assessment required by the G.N.A. , Section I. The funding of the independent expert to represent the community was terminated on December 15, 1995. The. final health risk assessment was not issued until almost a month later. Our expert representative thus had no opportunity to properly assess the final report and has .not been able to advise the community on what the report means. These are three of many areas of local concern. It is -.��..,:�� urif,ort nate thatjthe Safety Program Audit Agreement should give sol=e- dscretidon to the Zoning Administrator to determine whether COA #77 & 78 have been satisfied by Unocal. Should the Zoning Administrator prematurely remove the pressure to comply with the G.N.A. , therewill be an increased likelihood of contractual d-ispute ;between.,;G.N.A. signatories and Unocal. We believe that the Board of Supervisors bears ultimate responsibility for protecting the public interest in Crockett. Although we look forward to working with the Zoning Administrator . in the upcoming public meetings, we would hope that any potentially adverse decisions could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, who should not abrogate their responsibility. Sincerely, Kent G. Peterson J y Gunkelman Secretary, C.I.A. Signatory, G.N.A. 787-1850 787-1216 -.. cc: Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Dept. Zoning Administrator Request to Speak Form ( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) C vlete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' maxum before addressing the Board. Name: I,Pl lr ftnegsn/y rhorte: GlS F//?S7- AU,_ �,; Ct�vCki�'r' 1 am speaking for myself_or C. J�. A , *Am" of o�an�sitioN CHECK ONSJ g ` i e3, wish to speak on Agenda Item #_ S My comments will be: general ,&lorpgainst I wish to speak on the subjed of 1 do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: