To: Board of Supervisors
From: Thomas Geiger, County Counsel
Report Title: Rescission of the Environmental Impact Report for the Phillips 66 Rodeo Renewed Project.
☒Recommendation of the County Administrator ☐ Recommendation of Board Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. RESCIND and SET ASIDE the Board of Supervisors’ May 3, 2022 certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the Phillips 66 Rodeo Renewed Project (State Clearinghouse No. 20200120330).
2. AUTHORIZE County Counsel, or designee, to file an initial return to the peremptory writ of mandate issued in Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N22-1080.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None to rescind and set aside the environmental impact report certification.
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved the Phillips 66 Rodeo Renewed Project and certified a final environmental impact report under CEQA for the project (State Clearinghouse No. 20200120330). The Board issued a land use permit for the project, allowing the Phillps 66 Rodeo refinery to be converted into a renewable fuels production facility enabling the production of diesel from renewable sources, including rendered fats, soybean and corn oil, and other cooking and vegetable oils.
Following the Board’s approval of the EIR and land use permit, Communities for a Better Environment and Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit challenging the approval (Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. N22-1080).
On August 23, 2023, the Superior Court entered a judgment voiding the EIR certification for the project but leaving the land use permit in place and allowing Phillips 66 to continue construction of the project. The Superior Court also issued a peremptory writ ordering the Board to rescind and set aside its EIR certification for the project. On October 12, 2023, the Superior Court granted petitioners’ motion to vacate the judgment and ordered a new judgment be prepared to specifically enjoin Phillips 66 from operating the project until a new EIR was certified for the project. The Superior Court did not require any other modifications to the judgment and did not vacate or modify the peremptory writ.
The recommended action will result in the County’s compliance with the writ. The County Counsel or his designee will file an initial return in Case No. N22-1080 stating that the County has complied with the writ.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The County would not be in compliance with a Superior Court writ.