TITLE
Recommendation to adopt resolution affirming the adoption by the Harbor Commission of the Final Negative Declaration for the Long Beach Generating Station Emergency Re-Powering Project; and deny the appeal of Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) and Coalition for a Safe Environment (CFASE). (Districts 1,2)
DISCUSSION
On April 2, 2007, the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners (Board) adopted Resolution HD-2358, which makes certain findings, adopts the Final Negative Declaration (NO) and Application Summary Report (ASR), approves the Long Beach Generation Station Emergency Re-Powering Project as described in the Final NO, approves the issuance of a Level II Harbor Development Permit (HOP), and authorizes the filing of the Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA.
On April 9, 2007, the Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) filed an appeal to the City Clerk on the Board's adoption of the subject Negative Declaration pursuant to City of Long Beach Municipal section 21.21.507, Appeals from Harbor Department Environmental Determinations (attached). In addition, on April 11, 2007, the Coalition for a Safe Environment (CFASE) filed a separate appeal on the subject Final Negative Declaration.
The following is a staff report prepared in support of the Board's approval of the subject Final Negative Declaration. The only issue before the City Council is the adequacy of the Final NO adopted by the Board. The approval of the subject project and the issuance of the HOP are not the subject of these appeals.
BACKGROUND
Southern California Edison (SCE) engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity at the Long Beach Generation Station (LBGS) from 1910 to 1998 when it was sold to Long Beach Generation, LLC (LBG). LBG retired the existing LBGS facility on January 1, 2005, which at that time consisted of seven combustion turbine generators (CTGs) and two steam turbine generators, with a total power generating capacity of 577 megawatts (MWs).
Due to California's taxed existing level of power generation capacity, the state's ability to meet electricity demand is severely compromised. The most critical supply versus demand imbalance occurs in the Southern California region, with the Southern California Edison (SCE) territory being the most impacted. The objective of the subject project is to allow plant modifications to provide electricity to meet regional demand during peak power use events.
On January 25, 2007, the California (CPUC) approved a long-term power purchase contract between LBG and SCE for this project (attachment 1). The decision was based on the need for new power generation capacity in the region and was endorsed and supported by the California Independent System Operator[ which is the state agency responsible for the operation and reliability of the state[s electrical transmission system.
On November 20[ 2006[ the Port of Long Beach (POLB) received an application for a Harbor Development Permit (HDP) from LBG for the subject project. The proposed project consists of the re-powering of existing Combustion Turbine Generator (CTG) Units 1 through 4 to create a nominal 65 MWs of new power generating capacity from each unitt for a combined total of 260 MWs from the entire facility. CTG Units 5[ 6[ 7[ and steam turbine generator Units 8 and 9 will not be re-powered as part of this project.
The CTG Units 1-4 will continue to be exclusively natural-gas-fired and will be fitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to meet the existing air emission control requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The project will continue to use the existing utility interconnections at the site including water[ sewer[ natural gas[ and electrical interconnections.
LBG and the Port have been working closely with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to determine permitting and CEQA requirements of the SCAQMD. On January 18[ 2007[ representatives from the Port[ LBG[ and the SCAQMD Permitting and CEQA Sections held a project scoping meeting to discuss the project's CEQA baseline[ emissions calculations[ and the health risk assessment (HRA). At that meeting[ the SCAQMD requested that the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model be used in the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to provide transparency between the CEQA analysis and the proposed draft SCAQMD Permit to Construct and Operate for the project.
A revised HRA was conducted using the HARP model per the SCAQMD's request[ and subsequently an internal memorandum[ dated February 13[ 2007 (attachment 2)[ demonstrates SCAQMD's review of the modeling of the Air Quality Analysis and Health Risk Assessment. The memorandum states that the applicant used the appropriate models with the appropriate assumptions[ grid spacing[ source parameters[ and meteorological datal and the modeling conformed to the SCAQMD's modeling requirements and procedures. These same model runs and calculations are used in the ND/ASR to determine the significance levels of air quality impacts. The results of the HRA demonstrate that the Project will not cause health risk above the Rule 1401 levels of significance.
The Harbor Department Planning Division determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore[ the Planning staff prepared a Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report (ND/ASR) for the project.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT ISSUES
The Harbor Department Planning Division had reviewed the project and determined that it required the preparation of a ND/ASR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act[ as amended. Additionally[ in accordance with the certified Port Master Plan (PMP) Guidelines[ a determination had been made that this project qualifies as a Level II project and is in compliance with the certified Port Master Plan, permitted uses of the Terminal Island Planning District, and Chapter 8 of the California Coastal Act.
On February 12, 2007, the Board authorized distribution of the NDjASR for a 30-day public review and comment period (attachment 3). All pertinent documents related to the proposed project were mailed to the interested public on February 12, 2007 (attachment 4). In addition, a public notice of the documents release was published in the Long Beach Press Telegram on February 15, 2007 (attachment 5). The comment period ended on March 14, 2007, and three comment letters were received.
Mr. Lynne Brown, the Vice-President of Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE), submitted a letter dated March 14, 2007, commenting on several topics contained in the NDj ASR including the CEQA baseline, energy efficiency, water resources, project objective and need, the project description, emissions from project construction and operations, transportation and traffic, alternatives, environmental justice, and cultural resources. The comments submitted by CARE did not necessitate any alterations of the NDjASR or the analyses contained within. The comment letter and the Port's responses to comments are attached. The response letter and the notice for the April 2, 2007, public hearing were provided via e-mail to Mr. Brown and Mr. Boyd on March 30, 2007 (attachment 6).
Mr. Jesse Marquez, the Executive Director of the Coalition for a Safe Environment (CFASE), submitted a letter dated March 14, 2007, which was largely verbatim to the letter submitted by CARE. Additional comments contained in the CFASE comment letter included: inadequate public notification, inadequate public comment period, public costs, and warranty, guarantee, and insurance issues. The comments received by CFASE did not necessitate any alterations to the NDjASR or the analyses contained within. The comment letter and the Port's responses to comments are attached. The response letter and the notice for the April 2, 2007, public hearing were provided via e-mail to Mr. Marquez on March 30, 2007 (attachment 7).
Mr. Greg Holmes, Unit Chief of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), submitted a comment letter dated March 13, 2007. The comments received were regarding NRG's responsibilities if ground surface were broken during project construction. However, ground surface will not be broken as a result of the project. The comments received by DTSC did not necessitate any alterations to the NDjASR or the analyses contained within. The comment letter and the Port's responses to comments are attached. The response letter and the notice for the April 2, 2007, public hearing were provided via e-mail to Mr. Holmes on March 30, 2007 (attachment 8).
Due to comments received, Harbor Department Planning staff recommended that a public hearing be held prior to the adoption of the document, although it is not expressly required by CEQA in this case. Accordingly, Harbor Department staff requested that the Board hold a public hearing and receive public comments with respect to the project. In addition, a public notice of the documents release was published in the Long Beach Press Telegram on March 26, 2007 (attachment 9). The project hearing was described in the "Public Hearing Summary" (attachment 10) and provided to the Board as part of the April 2, 2007, staff report.
Prior to the Board meeting on April 2, 2007, both CARE and CFASE provided letters of opposition to the Board's proposed action and alleged CEQA and Brown Act procedural violations. The comment letters were reviewed by staff and the City Attorney's Office and it was determined that the comments were similar to the comments received by Harbor staff during the 3D-day public review period. Several interested parties provided comments during the public hearing, including representatives from CARE, CFASE, and LBG. Upon closing the public hearing, the Board considered staff's recommendations and adopted the resolution (attachment 11) and unanimously approved the Final Negative Declaration/Application Summary Report and the issuance of a Level II Harbor Development Permit.
On April 4, 2007, CARE provided an additional objection letter to the Board's approval of the subject project (attachment 12). Accordingly, the City of Long Beach Attorney's office reviewed CARE's letters of April 2 and April 4, 2007, and prepared a response letter clarifying the Harbor Department's and Board of Harbor Commissioner's actions, and determined that all regulatory requirements had been conducted pursuant to both CEQA and the Brown Act (attachment 13).
On April 9, 2007, the Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) filed an appeal to the City Clerk on the Board's adoption of the subject Final Negative Declaration pursuant to City of Long Beach Municipal section 21.21.507, Appeals from Harbor Department Environmental Determinations (attachment 14). In addition, on April 11, 2007, the Coalition for a Safe Environment filed a separate appeal on the subject Final Negative Declaration (attachment 15).
STAFF ANALYSIS
After reviewing the appeals from both CARE and CFASE, the Harbor Department has determined that all applicable policies and procedures were carefully and diligently considered and followed. Both CARE and CFASE have claimed that they were not properly notified of the Board's consideration to approve the subject Negative Declaration and the project. Harbor Department staff disagrees with the assertion that CFASE did not receive proper notification and has attached the list of agencies, organizations, and Interested Parties that received a copy of the Notice of Preparation letter and copies of the draft Negative Declaration and Application Summary Report as part of the February 12, 2007 distribution. Mr. Marquez contacted Harbor Department staff in early February 2007 and requested to be placed on the distribution list. Based upon Harbor Department records, Mr. Marquez was sent a Notice of Preparation letter and a CD which contained copies of the draft Negative Declaration and other supporting documents.
Mr. Michael Boyd, President of CARE, has also made similar claims that CARE was not properly notified of the Board's consideration to approve the subject Negative Declaration and the project. The Harbor Department never received a written request or a verbal request from CARE to be added to the official distribution of the draft Negative Declaration. Although CARE was not part of the Harbor Department's distribution list, LBG did in fact provide a copy of the draft Negative Declaration to Mr. Boyd which he received via UPS on February 21, 2007 (attachment 16). Mr. Boyd claims in his appeal letter that he did not receive the draft Negative Declaration for review until March 12, 2007.
In conclusion, the City Attorney's office, as stated above, provided a response to CARE's additional appeal assertions that the Harbor Department violated both CEQA and the Ralph M. Brown Act requirements. The City Attorney's Office has determined that the overall CEQA and permitting process was conducted in a consistent and thorough manner, which exceeded the public participation process as required by CEQA and the Brown Act. The Board of Harbor Commissioners were presented with the same facts and information presented herein to support their decision to approve the subject project. Finally, on April 6, 2007, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) issued a final Permit to Construct for the subject project (attachment 17). The SCAQMD used the Final Negative Declaration to support the issuance of their permit.
TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
[Timing Considerations]
FISCAL IMPACT
[Fiscal Impact]
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve recommendation.
BODY
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH AFFIRMING THE ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF AND ALSO ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LONG BEACH GENERATION STATION EMERGENCY REPOWERING PROJECT AND MAKING FINDINGS RELATING THERETO
Respectfully Submitted,
Richard D. Steinke
Executive Director
Harbor Department
NAME |
APPROVED: |
TITLE |
|
|
|
|
GERALD R. MILLER |
|
CITY MANAGER |