Bentley öüü mmd Gmm ffirwm$mmtr

Transcription

1 0ctober I 9, 20 I 7 Planning Csrnrnüssion l.learing Bentley öüü mmd Gmm ffirwm$mmtr ümse N{. FJ- '5-,: I lï;t Resource Management Agency, Planning Division Kristina Boero, Senior Planner Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Michael Villegas, Air Pollution Gontrol Officer County of Ventura Planning Commission Hearing PL Exhibit 41 - Staff PowerPoint

2 Vicinity Map 2

3 Land Use and Zoning Designations Project Site Zoning: OS 20-ac, OS 40-ac, OS 160-ac General Plan: Open Space Portions of project site within Scenic Resource Protection Overlay zone Surrounding Area Open Space residential (2,337 feet from flare) Adjacent to City of Ojai city limits Adjacent to Soule park Highway 33 about 7,880 feet west of existing oil and gas facilities 3

4 Distance to Offsite Residences 4

5 Existing oil wells 5

6 Well Summary Oil wells drilled 1861 to 1983: 3 wells active 6 idle 26 abandoned: Prior to 1944: to 1975: : : 1 6

7 Bentley Oil and Gas Facility Existing Bailey Tank Farm 7

8 Bentley Oil and Gas Facility Bailey 4 well Gas Flare 8

9 Bentley Oil and Gas Facility B & B 2 well Bailey 9 well 9

10 Project Description Continued Oil and Gas Production Additional Years of Operation 20 New Wells 0 Existing wells 9 Full-time flare operation (New) Vegetation Removal Yes No Expansion of Disturbed Area Max. tanker truck traffic (one-way trips/day) (No limit in current permit) Hydraulic Fracturing Acid Well Stimulation No 2 No No 10

11 Project History and Environmental Review CUP No. 37 (BOS 1949) Prior to CEQA CUP No (PC 1984) EIR certified on January 9, 1986 EIR analyzed 32 new wells on 8 new drillsites (Not drilled) CUP LU (PD 2011) Consolidation of CUP 37 and CUP 4159 operations CEQA Exempt 11

12 Environmental Review of current proposal Addendum to 1986 certified EIR Addresses issue areas pertinent to the proposed project (i.e. continued operation of an existing facility) CEQA Baseline Setting Environmental conditions present at the time the PL application was submitted (Nov. 5, 2015) 12

13 Environmental Review (continued) Visual Resources No change in existing visual character of oil and gas facilities Facilities not prominently visible from public viewing locations No new wells, drillsites or vegetation removal Biological Resources No new impacts on protected species (i.e. red-legged frogs) Red-legged frog BMPs included in conditions of approval Bridge over San Antonio Creek built in 2014 Noise No new wells or other facilities proposed No increase in the generation of noise 13

14 Environmental Review (continued) Traffic and Circulation No increase in project-related truck traffic New limit of 2 truck trips per day (Mon-Sat) established No change in the approved truck haul route No record of tanker truck accidents in 30 years Traffic on SR 33 at Creek Road intersection decreased since Air Quality NOx emissions from full-time flare use limited to less than 5 pounds/day GHG emissions 865 MTCO2e/year: Less than significant No significant health risk to Ojai residents 14

15 Environmental Review: Summary Issue Area: Air Quality Biology Noise Traffic Visual Impact: Less than Significant No new impact No new impact No new Impact No New Impact 15

16 Planning Director Decision and City of Ojai Appeal July 18, 2017: Planning Director grants modified CUP July 28, 2017: City of Ojai files appeal Appeal Issue Areas 1. Traffic safety and circulation 2. Safety of full-time flare operation 3. Air Quality impact due to Full-time flare operation 4. Inconsistency with Ojai Valley Area Plan policies 16

17 Appellant s Grounds of Appeal The grounds of appeal are summarized in the following slides. The complete grounds are included in the Staff Report. Ground of Appeal No. Issue Area Planning Commission Staff Report Page No. 1 Traffic Safety and Circulation 11 2.a Full-time Flare Use and Pipeline Transport 2.b Full-time Flare use Safety and Fire Hazards 2.c GHG Emissions 16 3 & 4 Inconsistency with the Ojai Valley Area Plan & 22 17

18 Ground of Appeal No. 1 Traffic Safety and Circulation Summary Designated truck route is dangerous Staff analysis based on 1986 statistics does not take into account last 31 years of accidents on this route No indication of how frequently trucks use this route Increase in population over next 20-years, and past accident history indicates that accidents in this area will increase Late night trucking will alleviate traffic safety impacts 18

19 Staff Response to Ground of Appeal No. 1 Traffic Safety and Circulation No change in approved truck hauling route No increase in truck traffic New limit of 2 one-way trips per day (Mon-Sat) established 2015 Traffic volume: Creek Road between the project site and SR 33: 3,000 ADT *SR 33 at Creek Road: 21,300 ADT Facility truck traffic (2 ADT) constitutes only 0.009% of traffic volume 19

20 Staff Response to Ground of Appeal No. 1 Traffic Safety and Circulation CALTRANS Accident Reports ( ) - Creek Road / SR 33 intersection: No tanker truck accidents 65 total accidents during 10-year period 23 accidents in 9:00 am to 3:30 pm period (Mon-Sat) Accident rate: Once every 158 days or 2.3 times per year Between 6,200 and 9,400 tanker truck turns made at SR 33 / Creek Road intersection without incident in last 30 years Change to late night fluid transport is unwarranted and would result in new impacts This ground of appeal is without merit 20

21 Approved Truck Haul Route Primary Route: Creek Road south to State Route 33 Alternative Route: Creek Road to Hermosa Street to State Route 33 south 21

22 Ground of Appeal No. 2.a Full-time Flare Use and Pipeline Transport Summary No cumulative analysis of the full-time flare use No explanation why the flare is proposed on a full-time basis No explanation of previous flare prohibition Impact of full-time flare use has not been studied 22

23 Staff Response to Ground of Appeal No. 2.a Full-time Flare Use and Pipeline Transport Flare use consistent with NCZO Oil Development Guidelines Pipeline Feasibility Analysis: 2015 gross annual revenue from oil and gas production: $76,000 Cost to install pipeline: $2,875,000 and $4,400,000 No connection to nearby offsite proprietary pipeline Nearest common-carrier pipeline more than 5 miles away Lack of easements Not practical or economically feasible to convey gas in a pipeline This ground of appeal is without merit 23

24 Ground of Appeal No. 2.b Safety and Fire Hazards due to full-time flare use Summary Safety and feasibility issues not analyzed for full-time flaring Full-time flaring will increase fire risk 24

25 Staff Response to Ground of Appeal No. 2.b Safety and Fire Hazards No substantial evidence that full-time use of the existing flare constitutes a potentially significant fire hazard Flare enclosed within a steel cylinder Flare is located 2,337 feet from nearest offsite residence Subject to a Fire Code Permit This ground of appeal is without merit 25

26 Ground of Appeal No. 2.c GHG Emissions Summary No analysis of full-time flare use Alternative methods or advances in in technology have not been addressed Flaring of gas full-time will result in increased CO 2 emissions 26

27 Staff Response to Ground of Appeal No. 2.c GHG Emissions Increase in flaring will increase air pollutant emissions, including GHG Total volume of gas burned = Consumer gas demand + Volume of gas flared _ Volume of gas diverted from flaring for consumer use GHG Emissions: 865 MTCO2e/year APCD-recommended Threshold of Significance: 10,000 MTCO2e/year This ground of appeal is without merit 27

28 Ground of Appeal No. 3 and No. 4 Inconsistency with the Ojai Valley Area Plan Summary Any project that meets OVAP Threshold of Significance requires an EIR Utilizing default APCD Mitigation Measures that render air quality impacts less than significant is in violation of CEQA No quantitative analysis of air quality impacts There is no way that the applicant can limit NOx emissions to 5 lbs. per day. There is no analysis of how that can be done or enforced by the County 28

29 Ground of Appeal No. 3 and No. 4 Inconsistency with the Ojai Valley Area Plan Summary Failure to analyze current and past emissions history Relying on and deferring analysis of air quality impacts by use of County-wide mitigation measures (through implementation of AQAGs) ignores geographic and topographic realities of the Ojai Valley Failure to analyze anticipated natural gas amounts from the wells will lead to unknown and increased emissions County did not follow strict interpretation of OVAP air quality policies. 29

30 Staff Response to Ground of Appeal No. 3 and No. 4 Inconsistency with Ojai Valley Area Plan New project-related emissions are addressed (Permit would authorize future operations) CEQA Baseline: Operation of nine existing oil wells 2 one-way truck trips per day Project change: Full-time use of flare 30

31 Staff Response to Ground of Appeal No. 3 and No. 4 Air Quality General Plan and Ojai Valley Area Plan Ojai Valley Area Plan Policy : 5 lbs. per day Threshold of Significance (NOx and ROC) General Plan Policy : Air quality impacts required to be assessed per the AQAGs. the emissions from equipment or operations requiring APCD permits are not counted toward the air quality thresholds In June 2016 and November 2016, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors made findings that relied on County General Plan Policy and the provisions of the adopted AQAGs. Oil wells and flares permitted by VCAPCD are not subject to the 5 lb/day Threshold Flare emissions to be limited to less than 5 lbs. per day Existing flare capacity (max. throughput) is 3 lbs/day NOx Flow meter installed on flare to facilitate monitoring of flare emissions Inspections by VCAPCD and Planning Division This ground of appeal is without merit 31

32 GHG Thresholds of Significance 10,000 MTCO2e/year: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBAPCD) County of San Luis Obispo Ventura County APCD (cited) 1,000 MTCO2e/year: County of Santa Barbara Project GHG emissions: 865 MTCO2e/yr 32

33 Heath Risk Representation Health risk representation prepared by VCAPCD, using Air Toxics Hot Spots Prioritization Procedures Prioritization conclusion: Proposed project has priority score of less than one for cancer, non-carcinogenic (acute), and non-carcinogenic (chronic) Prioritization score below one = facility not considered to have the potential to pose a significant health risk Prioritization is not routinely performed for a small, remotely located oil and gas project. The health risk representation was prepared to respond to the concerns of the City of Ojai 33

34 Planning Commission Hearing Notification Mailed Notification Property owners within 300 feet of the site City of Ojai Interested Parties Electronic Notification City of Ojai Interested Parties USFWS and DOGGR Legal Advertisement Ventura County Star 34

35 Recommended Actions 1. CERTIFY that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the staff report and all exhibits thereto, including the EIR Addendum, and has considered all comments received during the public comment process; 2. APPROVE the EIR Addendum (Exhibit 38) as satisfying the environmental review requirements of CEQA; 3. MAKE the required findings to grant a modified CUP pursuant to of the Ventura County NCZO, based on the substantial evidence presented in Section C of the staff report and the entire record; 4. GRANT modified CUP No. PL , subject to the conditions of approval (Exhibit 37). 5. DENY the appeal in its entirety, and decline to refund any appeal fees; and, 6. SPECIFY that the Clerk of the Planning Commission is the custodian, and 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA is the location, of the documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. 35

36 Questions 36

37 Additional Information 37