On January 21, 2014, the Board of Supervisors received testimony on two appeals filed in response to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Phillips 66 Propane Recovery Project. Staff's responses to the appeals are contained in the attached January 21, 2014 board order (Exhibits #6 and #16). Prior to the Board hearing, on January 14, 2014, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or Air District), submitted a letter requesting additional information in order to verify the Project’s potential impacts on public health, and to verify the projected decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. Upon conclusion of public testimony, the Board continued this item and directed Conservation and Development staff to respond to the Air District's letter. Subsequently, on June 3, 2014, the Board directed staff to recirculate portions of the 2013 Draft EIR for public review following completion of a cumulative analysis of health risks. The Board also directed staff to respond to a letter submitted to the Board by the appellants from the Attorney General to the City of Pittsburg, dated January 15, 2014, regarding a recirculated EIR for the WesPac Pittsburg Energy Infrastructure Project. The Board further directed staff to respond to specific testimony received at the hearing. The Board continued this item to September 23, 2014, December 16, 2014 and ultimately to February 3, 2015.
The portions of the 2013 EIR that were recirculated are Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy Conservation, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and the Analysis of Impacts. All the remaining portions of the 2013 Draft and Final EIR have not been superseded by the RDEIR and RFEIR and are recommended for certification along with the RDEIR and RFEIR.
January 14, 2014 Letter from the Air District and Recirculation of the EIR
On January 14, 2014, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District issued a letter requesting analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) that would be associated with the end use of recovered propane and butane, and requesting a health risk assessment (HRA) be conducted for the Propane Recovery Project. The HRA was to include verification of the Project’s toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. Also, requested was a cumulative health risk analysis of the maximum exposed sensitive receptor (i.e. daycare, schools, elderly, etc.) that would include other sources of air pollution that could contribute to human health risks, including TAC emissions from rail activities, Refinery modifications, and Interstate Highways.
The Board determined on June 3, 2014, to conduct the additional GHG and health risk analyses and, in accordance with the Contra Costa County Guidelines for administering CEQA, determined this would require that the EIR be recirculated in order to provide the public an opportunity to review the new information provided by the studies. The County CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5—Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification, states, “The County Department of Conservation and Development is required to re-circulate the EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR but before certification. New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect on the project”. The additional GHG and health risk analyses were determined to constitute “significant new information,” and accordingly, the EIR was recirculated to give the public and any interested parties the opportunity to review and comment. On October 21, 2014, the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) was released with a forty-five day public comment period that ended on December 5, 2014.
The Air District instructed the County to consider in the analysis the end uses of the propane and butane after it was sold on the market. Therefore a thorough investigation was conducted regarding these potential uses and their associated post-sale GHG emissions, and it was determined that the post-sale amount and nature of the associated emissions cannot reasonably be estimated without undertaking a substantial amount of speculation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15145, if after investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. Therefore, staff has not attempted to quantify the associated net GHG emissions and refer to the RDEIR, Section 4.5, pages 4.5-13 and 4.5-14 for summary of the results of the investigation. On December 2, 2014, the Air District stated its agreement with this conclusion.
BAAQMD’s health risk guidance was used to evaluate Project specific and cumulative health risks. That guidance recommends that cumulative health risks first be estimated by combining Project specific risks with the risks from other existing and proposed sources of toxic air contaminants. Then, the total combined health risks are compared to BAAQMD’s cumulative health risk thresholds.
The cumulative health risk analysis included health risks from Project specific emission sources. These included the new boiler (or increased use of the steam power plant (SPP)), fugitive emission sources, and increased locomotive emissions. In addition, the cumulative analysis evaluated the health risks from other existing and proposed projects in the vicinity. These other emission sources included existing refinery emissions, proposed refinery emission sources not related to the Project (such as the Marine Terminal II and III projects), transportation sources (rail and highway), and other stationary sources in the project vicinity (e.g., NuStar Terminal, Air Liquide Hydrogen Plant, etc.).
The health risk analysis found that for both Project scenarios (boiler and increased use of SPP), the cumulative cancer risk at the maximally affected residence and worker locations would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance threshold of 100 per million. Similarly, the analysis found that the maximum cumulative chronic hazard from all sources would be less than BAAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 per million.
During the public comment period, the Air District issued a letter on December 2, 2014 (Exhibit #15), stating they were in agreement with the results of the health risk and emissions analyses. The Air District further stated that the RDEIR justifies the Project's GHG emission decrease based on the anticipated change in fuel gas use. Other comments were received during the public comment period and at the Zoning Administrator’s hearing held on November 17, 2014, which was another opportunity to accept public comments; these comments have been responded to within the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report (RFEIR).
Staff Responses to Specific Public Comments Made at the January 21, 2014 Hearing as Requested by the Board
The appellants contended that the EIR should have also been recirculated based on the inaccuracy of the project description, because the Project scope does not include or address the nature of the crude oil that Phillips 66 will be capable of processing, that it does not identify and describe recent modifications to process units and operation, and that it does not describe the proposed Project’s relationship with other projects being pursued at the Phillips 66 refinery in Santa Maria. Overall, the appellants stated that the proposed Project would allow the Rodeo Refinery to process more heavy, high-sulfur crudes by rail, such as tar sands. They further cited the “Greg Karras Declaration” and “Fox Report” as evidence of insufficient amounts of butane and propane in the Refinery’s existing Refinery Fuel Gas (RFG), thus asserting that the Project is therefore dependent on a change to its crude slate in order to produce the proposed levels of propane and butane. RFG is defined as any gas generated and combusted at a petroleum refinery as a fuel used to run refinery processing units.
The Project application and RDEIR proposes the recovery of propane and butane, and the Project is based on existing levels of propane and butane in the RFG produced by the existing Refinery crude slate. Sufficient levels of butane and propane already exist in the RFG under current conditions at the Refinery. The Project was accordingly designed to give the facility the ability to capture, or recover, existing propane and butane, not to produce new or higher levels of propane and butane. Likewise, without the proposed Project, there would be no project-related decrease in Greenhouse Gas and sulfur dioxide emissions or a decrease in the number of flaring events at the Refinery.
Currently, the propane and butane that is not recovered is used as fuel for the refinery (i.e. RFG). Exhibit #12 shows the butane and propane production at 15,400 bpd (barrels per day) for August 2011. Review of similar data for January through November of 2013, (see Exhibit #13), indicates levels consistent with the levels of butane and propane measured in August of 2011. The project proponents’ proposal includes six pressurized storage tanks holding 2,500 barrels of propane each. The capacity of the removal equipment, including the amount of propane and butane, is specified in the Project’s BAAQMD permit application and within the project description as 14,500 bpd. The project description is consistent with the BAAQMD permit, and does not seek to maximize butane and propane production by an increase or change in crude oil, but proposes to recover butane and propane that already exists in the Refinery Fuel Gas stream and to replace the fuel value of these extracted gases with purchased natural gas. The project limits and equipment are clearly described within the RDEIR, and they do not imply the Rodeo Refinery will change its facility or equipment to bring in heavy tar sands or change the crude slate. Nor is the proposed Project dependent on any projects at the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery. To further emphasize that the recovery of the propane and butane (Liquid Petroleum Gas or LPG) is limited to levels of LPG currently produced, staff recommends an additional condition which requires that Phillips 66 Company shall ensure that the throughput of propane and butane be limited to 14,500 barrels per day. The text of the recommended condition is cited below:
COA #36: Phillips 66 shall ensure that the throughput of propane and butane at the LPG Recovery Unit shall not exceed 14,500 barrels per day.
The project description is complete and adequate and all aspects of the proposed Project are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record; therefore, an inadequate project description was not a factor in the recirculation of the EIR.
-
Fire District-Public Safety and Services:
Several speakers at the January 21, 2014, hearing expressed concerns regarding the ability of the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District (RHFD) to respond to fires, explosions, or other emergencies at the Refinery. These concerns appear to stem from the 2012 closure of Station #75, located at 326 Third Street in Rodeo, which is perceived to have left the Refinery without adequate coverage in the event of an emergency at the facility. In other words, there is public concern that the RHFD now has a decreased emergency-response capability, and is thus under equipped to be the first responders to emergencies at the Refinery due to the closure of Station #75. RHFD Station #75 in Rodeo re-opened on October 1, 2014; therefore, any concerns regarding the closure of Station #75 have been resolved for the present time. It is also important to note that RHFD Station #75 was not, and still is not, the first responder for emergencies at the Refinery; nevertheless, since the Refinery is in their jurisdiction, the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District automatically responds to any incidents at the facility in a stand-by or advisory capacity.
Phillips 66 generally provides its own emergency response for Refinery incidents, independent of the RHFD. Its emergency teams are trained and equipped to respond to fires, rescues, hazardous materials releases, and other emergencies that could occur at the Refinery, including any potential incidents involving the proposed Project construction and/or operations. The Refinery is also a member of the Bay Area Petrochemical Industry Mutual Aid Organization (PMAO), which is composed of more than half a dozen refineries and chemical plants whose operators have agreed to provide one another with emergency response resources in the event of a major emergency. The PMAO holds monthly meetings and conducts quarterly equipment-deployment drills, including an annual training exercise to maintain inter-facility working relationships. Assistance is also available in the event of certain hazardous chemical releases from the County Hazardous Materials, Richmond Fire Hazardous Materials, and the San Ramon Valley Fire Hazardous Materials. These agencies are automatically alerted to any incidents at the refineries.
The general procedure in the event of an emergency at the Refinery begins with the initial report of the emergency condition, such as a fire, injury, etc. A Refinery emergency is reported by dialing number 88 on the Refinery’s internal phone system or via the in-plant Refinery radio to a unit control room. Dialing 88 is the Refinery’s equivalent of calling 911. The emergency phone is answered by the Marine Terminal Dispatcher who then uses the “All Call” function to announce the type of emergency and the location over all of the Refinery’s radios and the public-address system. The Rodeo Refinery uses the Incident Command System to direct and control the emergency operations. The Shift Superintendent is the Incident Commander. The Incident Commander will conduct an initial assessment of the situation and determine if it can be handled by the Refinery’s Emergency Response Team (ERT) or if additional assistance will be required from the outside emergency-response resources.
The Rodeo refinery has 15 ERT members assigned on a 24/7 basis to respond to all types of emergency scenarios within the refinery. Once an emergency notification is made, the designated ERT members respond to an announced staging location for further instructions and deployment. In the event that additional emergency-response support is needed beyond the Refinery’s on-site capabilities, supplemental emergency responders and equipment are available from Refinery off-shift ERT members and mutual aid. As mentioned above, mutual aid is also provided by the PMAO. Additional emergency-response services are also available from the RHFD Stations 75 and 76 in Hercules and the Crockett Carquinez Fire Department. These fire departments attend annual fire training with the Refinery personnel and have a long history of working closely with the facility. The proposed project would not require the construction of a new fire station. Given that Phillips 66 currently provides its own internal fire protection and emergency-response services along with adequate emergency personnel, equipment, and response ability, therefore the project impact on the demand for fire services would be minimal.
-
Transportation of Crude, Propane and Butane Via Railroads:
Several comments were received regarding rail routes, rail car storage, and the transport of crude, propane, and butane by rail. However, the County has no authority to impose any conditions on the railroad once a train has left the Refinery. Limitations on local and state regulation of railroads (Federal Preemption) is discussed in the RDEIR in Section 3.3.2.17, Tank Cars and a summary is provided below.
Under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, no state or local government may impose laws or regulations that unduly burden interstate commerce. Because railroads are a key component of the system of interstate commerce, most aspects of railroad operations are governed exclusively by federal law. With respect to land use requirements, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) affords railroads flexibility in making necessary improvements and modifications to rail infrastructure, subject to requirements of the federal Surface Transportation Board. Congress afforded railroads this flexibility because of the integrated national nature of the American rail system and the need for uniform and consistent standards across the country. As a general matter, ICCTA broadly preempts state and local regulation of railroads. This preemption extends to “the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities . . . . [T]he remedies provided under this part with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law." The courts have repeatedly held that the ICCTA preempts state and local regulation, i.e., “those state laws that may reasonably be said to have the effect of ‘managing’ or ‘governing’ rail transportation." The ICCTA also preempts state and local regulation of the construction and operation of rail lines.
In summary, because of Federal Preemption, the County has no authority to impose any conditions on the railroad once a train has left the Refinery.
Several commenters have expressed concern the Project will include the transport of crude oil by rail to the refinery. In North America, the movement of crude oil by rail, in particular, Bakken crude oil from the Midwest and the Canadian tar sands, has increased and subsequently has become controversial due to recent incidents of exploding rail cars. In response to these recent such incidents in Canada, North Dakota, and Alabama, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made several recommendations in 2012 to require older tank cars to be retrofitted in order to meet standards enacted in 2011 that require thicker steel in new tank cars. In addition, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) has urged the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to improve tank car regulations. These proactive safety measures focus on moving crude oil by rail and the active fleet designed to carry this material. It should be emphasized, the project description does not include the transport of crude by rail.
Crude oil tank cars differ from cars that transport liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and have been retrofitted with safety devices and other upgrades in and around 2009. The Department of Transportation classifies crude tank cars as Class 111 and LPG cars as Class 112. This is information provided by AAR/RSI (Railway Supply Institute), which helps to make the rail industry safe. The main difference between LPG tank cars and crude tank cars is that LPG cars are thicker than crude cars. It should be noted that Phillips 66 already transports butane by rail.
The railroad is owned by Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR). Once cars are loaded and transferred to UPRR, whether it's incoming or outgoing cars, UPRR determines the constructive placement, which includes storage of cars on track, the railroad yard, and determination of the route taken. Phillips 66 has no direct control over operating decisions and has previously conveyed public concern to UPRR. To further encourage this communication, condition of approval #11 was placed in the Land Use Permit; it reads:
COA #11: "Phillips 66 must continuously monitor the storage of rail cars (primarily propane and butane rail cars), and as needed contact the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to request and encourage that UPRR to utilize on-site areas for storage of rail cars and to make space available on-site to the extent practicable for the storage of any propane and butane rail cars."
-
Geology and Liquefaction:
Some comments at the January 21, 2014 hearing expressed concern about the geological peer review letter by Darwin Myers Associates (DMA) dated July 13, 2012. Specifically, commenters cited the last sentence of the third paragraph on Page 5 of the DMA report which recommended that the application should not be deemed complete until a project-specific geotechnical report was prepared for the project. The implication being that since the recommended report was not prepared, a serious oversight was made in terms of the EIR’s analysis of geologic hazards.
Darwin Myers Associates is a geology consultant that is retained by the County to review the geological aspects of projects being considered. DMA typically reviews projects that are located in areas that are susceptible to seismic events, such as the Rodeo Refinery. Although DMA makes recommendations for projects, it was determined by County staff that the recommended site-specific geotechnical report was not necessary prior to deeming the application complete, since a design-level geotechnical investigation would be performed for the site areas of each proposed project component prior to construction. In a subsequent letter dated, April 10, 2014, DMA supported the County’s decision to move forward with the CEQA process without the recommended project-specific geotechnical report, because there is a large volume of existing subsurface geotechnical data for the Refinery property to adequately characterize potential geologic hazards, and also, because most of the project components are not proposed to be located in zones of high liquefaction potential.
Evaluation of liquefaction potential will be required for any site where components of the Propane Recovery Project will be constructed prior to issuance of building permits, and if determined necessary, appropriate stabilization measures will be implemented (see COA #7). The design-level investigation will include an analysis of expected ground motions at the site from known active faults. This analysis would be in accordance with applicable County ordinances and policies and be consistent with the current California Building Code (CBC), which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. The investigations would determine final design parameters for the earthwork (i.e. grading), foundations, foundation slabs, and any surrounding related improvements, such as utilities, roadways, parking lots and sidewalks. The investigations would be reviewed by the Department of Conservation and Development and the County’s consulting geologist. Additionally, appropriate grading and design in accordance with the CBC requirements and the County’s grading ordinance would be used to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on structures and infrastructure. Any fill materials would be appropriately compacted and engineered as directed by the California certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer assigned to monitor the project.
The project has been conditioned to assure that the necessary and appropriate level of geotechnical investigation and review will be employed prior to issuance of building and grading permits and during the construction phases of the project (See COAs #7 and #8). The impacts of liquefaction, seismicity, and other potential geologic hazards on the project were also thoroughly examined and considered in Section 4.4—Geology and Soils of the RDEIR, as well as in the June 2013 Draft EIR, and in Master Response 2.5—Liquefaction and Seismicity of the November 2013 Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed project will not have any impacts to geology that cannot be addressed under the County’s standard procedures at the time of the building permit review process.
-
Attorney General Letter Regarding the WesPac Pittsburg Energy Infrastructure Project, dated January 15, 2014:
The January 15, 2014 Attorney General (AG) letter addresses a Recirculated EIR for the WesPac Pittsburg Energy Infrastructure Project, which is a project to transform an inactive oil storage and transfer facility into a center for the storage, transfer, and transportation of crude oil by rail, pipeline, ship and barge, and bring new sources of crude to the Bay Area for refining. The AG letter, in summary, points out that the recirculated WesPac EIR failed to do the following:
--to analyze the significance of the local air quality impacts on the residents and the community of Pittsburg;
--to consider the effects on other Bay Area communities of refining the new crudes;
--to adequately disclose and address the risk of accidents that could result from transportation, storage, and refining of the new crudes; and
--to fully disclose and consider mitigation for the Project’s climate-change related impacts.
The Propane Recovery Project proposes to store and transport propane by rail and to recover additional amounts of butane; the Refinery currently ships butane by rail, but not propane. The Propane Recovery Project will utilize the Rodeo Refinery’s existing Refinery Fuel Gas (RFG) produced from the existing Refinery crude slate, and is not dependent on a new crude slate or any changes to the existing crude slate. The design and removal of equipment and the amount of propane and butane that can be removed is specified within the BAAQMD permit and has been inserted into an enforceable condition included in the draft permit prepared by the BAAQMD. Furthermore, the volume is specified as 14,500 bpd and is based on actual samplings and measurements of propane and butane in the RFG at the Rodeo Refinery in 2011. A summary of those measurements is attached as Exhibit #12; a review of similar data in 2013 shows levels consistent with the levels of butane and propane from 2011 (see Exhibit #13). In contrast, the WesPac project proposes to modernize and reactivate an existing oil storage and transfer facility in Pittsburg, California. The WesPac facility would receive crudes from various sources for storage and transfer to various customers. The Propane Recovery Project is not refining new crudes to recover additional LPGs; Phillips 66 is proposing to utilize the existing RFG produced by the existing crude slate to remove existing quantities of butane and recover existing quantities of propane.
-
Once-Through Cooling System:
A few of the comments made at the January 21, 2014 Board hearing related to potential impacts on water quality and biologic resources due to increased use of the Refinery’s once-through cooling (OTC) system. The OTC system is the current process in which Phillips 66 uses salt water extracted from the bay to reduce the temperature and cool off process streams, then discharging the water back into the bay. The use of the OTC system was analyzed in Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 4.10.5(a) of the June 2013 Draft EIR, and further clarified in Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 4.7.5(a) and Biological Resources, Section 4.2.5(d) of the RDEIR, which concluded that any OTC system impacts to biologic resources or water quality will be less than significant, because the increased use of the OTC system would not require any new construction or expansion of the existing system. The increased use would be accommodated entirely by the existing five pumps and equipment, and would continue to operate within the Refinery's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions, as determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
-
Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion (BLEVE):
Several commenters at both the January 21, 2014 Board hearing and the November 17, 2014 Zoning Administrator public comment hearing expressed concerns about propane and butane explosions, especially in the form of a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion. A boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion could occur when sealed tanks of liquid or gaseous hazardous materials are exposed to fire, which may cause excessive pressures within the tank, combined with weakening of the tank walls. The sudden failure of the vessel and rapid vaporization and expansion of its contents is termed a “BLEVE." A Quantitative Risk Analysis was performed to address the concerns regarding propane and butane explosions, and the results are presented in Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.6.6(a) of the RDEIR, and the risk associated with the proposed Project’s transport of propane and butane was found to be less than significant.
The analysis evaluated potential impacts, including whether the project would affect risk levels within the Refinery and in locations well beyond the Refinery boundaries. As described in RDEIR Section 4.6.5, Consequence Analysis Methodology, to describe the worst case hazards at the Refinery, a consequence modeling program developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was used to determine the maximum potential impacts of the current hazardous material processing and storage in the Refinery, as well as those associated with the proposed process unit and storage equipment. Results of this analysis are summarized in RDEIR Section 4.6.5.7, Summary of Maximum Hazard Zones. Figure 4.6.1 identifies the Worst Case Hazard Zones for the existing Refinery layout. The hazards and risks associated with rail car BLEVEs of propane and butane were included in the rail risk assessments in both the 2013 DEIR and RDEIR.
The RDEIR concluded that the overall risk increase due to the additional transport of butane and propane by rail is not materially higher than the current baseline risk associated with the current butane transport activity at the Refinery. Consequently, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
Some commenters questioned the methodology used in the BLEVE analysis and suggested a specific methodology, as presented in a conference paper (Roberts, 2000). It should be noted that the same exact methodology used in the conference paper cited by the commenters was used for the RDEIR analysis. The conference paper even referenced the developers of the methodology (Martinsen and Marx, 1999) who, in fact, work as experts within Quest Consultants Inc., the very hazards firm who prepared the BLEVE analysis for the RDEIR.
It should also be noted that, as stated in RDEIR Section 4.6.2.1, Regional and Local Setting, BLEVES are extremely rare. As an industrial facility that handles hazardous chemicals, the Refinery must be constructed and operated in accordance with certain codes and standards, which are enforced via administrative mechanisms such as internal audits, design reviews, and building inspections. Operations at the Refinery are subject to extensive regulatory and safety controls (RDEIR Section 4.6.2.2, Regulatory Setting), to limit the probability of such an event, and a comprehensive emergency response system is in place to ensure public safety.
Speakers: Paul Adler, Manager of Public Affairs, Phillips 66; Roger Lin, Counsel for Communities for a Better Environment(CBE);Greg Karras, Senior Scientist for CBE; Janet Pygeorge, President of Rodeo Citizens Association (RCA)(handout attached); Pamela Peck, resident of Rodeo (handout attached); Aimee Lohr, Phillips 66; Ella Marie Kallios, Roberts Companies; Steve Bell, Carpenters 152; Dr. Anthony Hodge, resident of Hercules; Madelyn Morton, resident of Rodeo (handout attached); Tariq Norris & Maurice Range, YMCA of the East Bay-West Contra Costa branch; Reverend Susan Champion, C.R.U.D.E. & Sierra Club and Christ the Lord Episcopal Church; Culoz Davis, resident of Rodeo; Bob Bustos, resident of Pittsburg; Tom Griffith, Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition; Matt Siddall, Optimization Manager, Phillips 66; Janet Callaghan, RCA; Andres Soto, CBE, BSHC; Carol Pinson, resident of Martinez; Paul Karsh, resident of Martinez; Michael Aaron Karsh, resident of Martinez; Judith Sullivan, Benicia for a Safe and Healthy Community Steve Nadel, Sunflower Alliance; Charles Davidson, Sunflower Alliance, 350 Bay Area, Sierra Club North Bay; Ann Puntch, resident of Rodeo; Ratha Lai, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter; Jack Russell, resident of Benicia; Marilyn Bandet, Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community; Guy Cooper, resident of Martinez; Charles Lemmon, Phillips 66; John Coleman, CEO Bay Planning Coalition; Paul Miller, employee Phillips 66 and resident of Contra Costa County; Alina Ave, employee Phillips 66 and resident of Contra Costa County; Bill Pinkum, 350 Bay Area; Bill Nichols, Martinez Environmental Group; , Nancy Reiser, C.R.U.D.E; Nick Despota, Sunflower Alliance; Valerie Love, Center for Biological Diversity; Ethan Buckner, Forest Ethics; Shoshana Mechsler, resident of Kensington ; Carmen Gray, resident of Rodeo ; Rachel Koss, Safe Fuel & Energy Resources California.
Clover Mohm, resident of Rodeo, did not wish to speak but left written comments for the Board's consideration (attached).
CLOSED the public hearing; ADDED Condition of Approval #36 “Phillips 66 shall ensure that the throughput of propane and butane at the LPG Recovery Unit shall not exceed 14,500 barrels per day”; MODIFIED Condition of Approval #5 to read “Phillips 66 shall deliver and execute an indemnification agreement between Phillips 66 and Contra Costa County”; MODIFIED Condition of Approval 1.b. to read:
a) Application and materials received on June 22, 2012
b) Recirculated Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report and appendices, dated October 2014 and January 2015
c) Portions of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report and appendices, dated June and November 2013
d) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated October 2014
and ADOPTED Resolution No. 2013/37 with the minor technical corrections made today, which
1. ACCEPTS the County Zoning Administrator’s recommendations to certify the 2013 Draft and Final EIR, including the entire Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR), consisting of the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) dated October 2014, and Recirculated Final EIR (RFEIR) dated January 2015.
2. ACCEPTS the County Planning Commission’s recommendations as outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-2013.
3. CERTIFIES the 2013 Draft and Final EIR, including the entire Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (REIR), consisting of the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) dated October 2014, and the Recirculated Final Draft (RFEIR) dated January 2015; and CERTIFIES that the Board has reviewed and considered its contents, that it is adequate and complete, that is has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, and that it reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. The Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based.
5. ADOPTS the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-2013, which includes the CEQA findings, Growth Management Standards, and Land Use Permit findings, as the basis for the Board’s action.
6. ADOPTS the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7. DIRECTS the Community Development Division to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
and APPROVED additional Condition of Approval that Phillips 66 will deliver within 60 days of approval of the Land Use Permit a signed and negotiated Community Benefits Agreement requiring Phillips 66 to pay up to $4,255,000 to the County to fund a grant program for physical improvements and/or program developments or enhancements in Rodeo and/or Crockett.