Jun.14 .2017 03:04 PM lst: floor snack bar 12136877795 PAGE. 1/ Flame umlium and rectum. Thank you. Suma Peesapati (State Bar No. 203701) COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT P.0. Box 454 Laguna Beach, CA 92652-0454 Tel: 415-336-1891 CONFORMED COPY OF ORIOINALFIIED Doug Carstens (State Bar No. 193439) ?"msmm'cm Michelle Black (State Bar No. 261962) JUN 1 4 20" CARSTENS 2200 Paci?c Coast Hi hway, Suite 318 Sham Fl- ower. ?acuuve umcurctm \Dm-dehh-h-IN [~3th ?to Tel: 310-798-2400; Fax 310-798-2402 Gladys Limon (SEN 228773) COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT 6325 Paci?c Blvd, Suite 300 Huntington Park, CA 90255 Tel: (323] 826-9771 Attorney: or Petitioner and Plainn?" COMMU ITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER Case No. ENVIRONMENT, a California NonproCorporation, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF Petitioner and Plaintiff, MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE vs, RELIEF SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY [California Environmental Quality Act MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a public agency, and DOES I through 20 Inclusive, Respondents and Defendants; TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 21 through 40, inclusive, Real Party in Interest and Defendant. (CEQA): California Code of Civil Procedure ??1085, 1094.5; California Public Resources Code 21000 61529., 21168, 21168.5] Petitioner and Plaintiff, COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT or ?Petitioner?), brings this action on its own behalf, on behalf of its members, on behalf of the general public and in the public interest, and alleges as follows: FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE mqo?mnuM?owngaxm?za TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING - and DOES 21 through 40, inclusive, Suma Peesapati (State Bar No. 203701) COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT PO. Box 454 Laguna Beach, CA 92652-0454 Tel: 415-336-1891 Douglas P. Camiens (State Bar No. 193439) Michelle Black (State Bar No. 261962) CHATIEN-BROWN CARSTENS 2200 Paci?c Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90245 Tel: 3 1 0-7 9 8-2400; Fax 3 10-798-2402 Gladys Lim?n (SBN 228773) COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT 6325 Paci?c Blvd., Suite 300 Huntington Park, CA 90255 Tel: (323) 826-9771 I A tromeys for Petitioner and Plainn?' COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER Case No. ENVIRONMENT, a California Nonpro?t Corporation, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND vs. RELIEF Petitioner and Plainti?', SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 8. public Respondents and Defendants; COMPANY LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Real Party in Interest and Defendant. Petitioner and Plainti?', COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT or ?Petitioner?), brings this action on its own behalf, on behalf of its members, on behalf of the general . public and in the public interest, and alleges as follows: FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): California Code of Civil Procedure agency, and DOES I through 20 inclusive, ??1085, 1094.5; California Public Resources Code 21000 et seq? 21168, 21168.5] mumm-?mm?ocm?dc?M-hU-INHO INTRODUCTION 1. Communities for a Better Enviromnent brings this action to protect residents in the Wilmington neighborhood of Los Angeles (?Wilmington?) and other impacted communities from I the undisclosed and unmitigated public health and welfare impacts of a plan to create the largest oil re?ning center along our nation?s West Coast. Tesoro Re?ning and Marketing Company LLC (?Tesoro?) claims that its Los Angeles Re?nery (?Refmery?) Integration and Compliance Project (?Project?) would merely consolidate Tesoro?s dual re?ning operations in Los Angeles and ensure compliance with environmental laws. In truth, the Project will signi?cantly increase the amount? of crude oil at the Re?nery, and allow the company to re?ne dirtier (and cheaper) crude oil in what are already two of the most pollution-burdened communities in California?Wilmington and Carson. 2. The South Coast Air Quality Management District?s (?Air District?) Environmental Impact Report for the Project masks these underlying Project purposes, resulting in a ?mdamentally defective Project Description that violates the California Environmental Quality Act On the question of crude quantity, the EIR fails to disclose the full increase in the amount of crude oil that will be delivered to Tesoro?s marine terminal, fails to disclose the large increase in crude oil that will be moved into and out of storage, and fails to provide a clear and accurate picture of the amount of crude oil that will be re?ned at the Project?s consolidated Re?nery. 3. The EIR is equally evasive on the question of crude quality. The EIR fails to disclose that the Project enacts Tesoro's West Coast business goal of switching to extreme and unconventional crude oils, including the highly volatile, fracked crude oil from the North Dakotan Bakken shale. The evasive Project Description, in turn, infects the entire impact analysis and mitigation plan. It is undeniable that larger volumes of crude oil mean more pollution exposure to local residents, including members. And, the switch to low-quality crude only exacerbates public health impacts, not to mention accident risk, including the well-publicized risk of ?re and vapor cloud explosions. By failing to disclose these elements of the Project?s true scope, the EIR fails to disclose the Project?s true impacts and further fails to mitigate these impacts, in violation of bedrock precepts. 5 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT or MANDATE 2 3?5 bato? wqo?UIJ-x 4. Making matters worse, the EIR signi?cantly underestimates the pollution impact of its own illegally narrow Project Description. For instance, with respect to air quality, the EIR underestimates, inter alia, toxic and smog-forming emissions resulting from the Project?s modi?cations to the Re?nery?s ?ares, storage tanks, heaters, and from increased tanker ship traf?c. The EIR further fails to disclose the Project?s direct, indirect, and cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The ?awed analysis and illusive mitigation strategies further fail to protect air quality, even for those air impacts the EIR acknowledges as signi?cant. For these reasons, and in line with more than three decades of environmental justice advocacy on behalf of communities in southern Los Angeles, CBE respectfully seeks this Court?s review of substantive claims in this case. Those claims, which go to the heart of disclosure ?mction, warrant a writ of mandamus that invalidates the defective EIR, along with any associated Project approvals. PARTIES 5. Petitioner and Plaintiff COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT is a California non?pro?t environmental health and justice organization with of?ces in Oakland, Richmond, Huntington Park, and Wilmington. CBE has thousands of members in California. Many of members live, work, and go to school in Los Angeles County and in the areas surrounding Wilmington, including the City of Carson and the proposed Project site. organizational goals include protecting and enhancing the environment and public health by reducing air, water and soil pollution, and minimizing hazards in Califomia's urban areas, including the area surrounding the Project. 6. CBE has signi?cant organizational experience in protecting and enhancing the environment and public health in and around re?nery and drilling operations. members have an interest in their health and safety, as well as conservation, environmental, aesthetic, and economic interests in Los Angeles. members who live and work in Los Angeles have a right to, and a bene?cial interest in, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's performance of its duties under CEQA, including its application of CEQA requirements to the Tesoro Project. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 3 I?II?ih?on?su?In?b?ICBE members are concerned about the public health and safety risks posed by increased crude transport, storage re?ning operations from the Project, speci?cally those which result from i new, sourced crudes which will be delivered, of?oaded, stored and re?ned at the Los Angeles re?nery. CBE members who reside in the areas surrounding the Project will be directly impacted by the Project's increased storage and processing of crude oil. 8. Respondent and Defendant SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT is a regional agency created by California l-Iealth Safety Code section 40400 et seq. to regulate the ?critical air pollution problems" found in the South Coast Air Basin, including the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange, as well as portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. (Health Safety Code 40402(b). 9. The Air District is the ?lead agency? as the term is de?ned by CEQA, and is therefore, responsible pursuant to CEQA for evaluating the environmental impacts of the Project. (Pub. Res. Code ?21067.) 10. The Air District issued the Notice of Determination, certi?ed the Environmental Impact l Report, and will issue the permits to construct and operate that are the subject of this litigation. 11. The decision?making body of the Air District is the Governing Board, which is a thirteen- member Board made up of elected of?cials and o?icials appointed by elected of?cials. (Health Safety Code 40420 et seq.) 12. CBE currently does not know the true names of Docs 1 through 20 inclusive, and therefore name them by such ?ctitious names. CBE will seek leave from the Court to amend this petition to re?ect the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 20 inclusive once they have been ascertained. 13. Real Party in Interest and Defendant Tesoro Re?ning and Marketing Company LLC (?Tesoro?), is the Project proponent. Tesoro is a multi-hillion?dollar corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Tesoro conducts extensive re?ning and marketing business activity in California, including running its Los Angeles Re?nery. The Los Angeles Re?nery, as contemplated by the Project, consists of two linked VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 4 I I facilities located in Carson and Wilmington. The integration of both facilities is the subject of this 2 litigation. 3 14. CBE currently does not know the true names of Does 21 through 40 inclusive, and therefore 4 I name them by such ?ctitious names. CBE will seek leave from the Court to amend this petition to 5 re?ect the true names and capacities of Does 21 through 40, inclusive, once they have been I I ascertained. 8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9 15. CBE submitted legal and technical comment letters on the Project to SCAQMD on June 10, 10 2015, prior to the close of comment period for its Draft Environmental Impact Report. 1 1 . 16. CBE members have corresponded and met with Air District staff and members of the 12 I Governing Board to express their concerns with the increased transport, storage and re?ning of 13 I Western Canadian tar sands and North Dakota Bakken shale crudes in their neighborhoods. CBE 4 I members have also appeared before the District?s Governing Board during regular meetings to offer 15 public comment expressing the same concerns. 16 17 mandamus under California Rules of Civil Procedure 1085 and 1094.5. The interests CBE seeks 17. Any of these members of CBE would have standing to initiate this action for a writ of 13 to further in this action, namely, the protection and improvement of air quality, are within the 19 purposes and goals of the organization. CBE brings this action on behalf of itself, its members, 20 speci?cally those residing in close proximity to the preposed Project area, and on behalf of the 21 general public. 22 II 18. By initiating this action, CBE seeks to protect the health, welfare, and economic interests of 23 I I its members and the general public and to enforce a public duty owed to them by the Air District. 24 19. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles under Califomia Code of Civil Procedure 25 section 395. The action is ?led in the Los Angeles Superior Court Central Division in accordance 26 I with the Local Rules of the Los Angeles County Superior Court that require all CEQA actions to be 27 ?led in this Division. 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATB 5 20. Venue is also proper in the Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 393 and 394, which govern venue in actions against local agencies such as the Air District. 21. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21 168 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (or in the alternative, pursuant to Public Records Code section 21168.5 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085). 22. This Petition and Complaint is being ?led within 30 days of the Air District's ?ling and posting of the Notice of Determination approving the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21 167 and CEQA Guidelines section .. 15112(c). 23. CBE has complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.7 by serving a cepy of this Petition and Complaint on the Attorney General. (Attachment A). 24. CBE has complied with Public Resources Code section 21167.5 by prior service of a letter upon the South Coast Air Quality Management District indicating CBE's intent to ?le this action. (Attachment B.) 25. CBE is electing to prepare the administrative record in this case. (Attachment C.) STATEMENT OF FACTS The Community and Environmental Setting 26. CBE and its members, particularly those members who reside in and around re?neries located in the South Coast Air Basin, have long expressed their concern with re?nery operations, emissions, and potential hazards, including ?ares and accidents that result ?'orn re?nery operations. 27. Currently, the City of Carson is home to two re?nery facilities: the Tesoro re?nery and the i Phillips 66 Los Angeles Re?nery Carson facility. 28. Wilmington, a part of the City of Los Angeles that is directly adjacent to the City of Carson, is home to three additional re?neries, including: (1) the Tesoro Wilmington re?nery, located at 2101 East Paci?c Coast Highway", (2) the Valero Wilmington re?nery, located at 2402 East \Anaheinr in Wilmington, Califomia; and (3) the Phillips 66 Los Angeles re?nery. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 6 29. The Of?ce of Environmental Health and Hazards Assessment has identi?ed the City of Carson and its surrounding communities, including Wilmington, and West Long Beach, as i bearing a highly concentrated burden of health hazards resulting from various pollution sources, including but not limited to: active and inactive waste cleanup sites; heavy industrial facilities such as re?neries; hazardous waste and groundwater waste; and the presence of ozone and ozone precursors in the ambient environment. 30. This project will add pollution to some of the most pollution-burdened communities in I California. Both Wilmington and Carson are either in an area designated by California as the top 25% of most disadvantaged communities (for the Wilmington facility) or surrounded on all sides by areas designated in the top 25% of most disadvantaged communities. These communities are all also s?n 12 linguistically isolated, and largely impoverished. The combined impacts of these factors render 13 Wilmington, Carson and their surrounding areas (including West Long Beach? particularly 4 vulnerable to suffering from an exacerbated level of environmental and health burdens. 15 . 3 . Unsurprisingly, residents of the City of Carson, Wilmington, and West Long Beach 16 17 disorders and low birth weight rates in infants. experience a host of elevated health impacts including, inter aiia, asthma and other respiratory 18 32. In addition to impacts associated with the Project, there are a number of other proposed 19 projects that will impact the same area, the same residential neighborhoods and the same 20 communities. 2] 33. For decades, CBE, its members, and allied organizations have expressed concerns with the 22 disproportionate environmental burden experienced by residents of these areas and other 23 environmental justice communities throughout the state. 24 The True Scape of the Project and its Undisclosed Signi?cant Environmental Impacts 25 34. The Environmental Impact Report?s Project Description contains an unduly narrow set of 25 :l objectives that are limited to the integration of the Carson and Wilmington Re?nery operations 27 through process modi?cations. The Project Description states that the Project will ?improv[e] 28 process ef?ciency,? upgrad[e] distillate range material from FCCU PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 7 ?[c]omply[] with federal, state, and local rules and and ?[i]mprov[e] ef?ciency of water-home crude oil receipt and marine vessel unloading" by expanding barrel tank capacity. 35. Since 2013, CBE, its members and allies have expressed serious concerns with industry 1 trends to increase the transport, storage, and re?ning of more dangerous crudes from new North American domestic and Canadian sources to California re?neries, including the re?neries listed above, located in and around the Carson and Wilmington, and surrounding areas. CBE has voiced many of these concerns in comments submitted to the Air District on the Project, as well as in comments on other re?nery project proposals throughout the state. CBE, its members, and allies are particularly concerned that if the true environmental impacts of projects, such as the Project at issue here, are not fully disclosed and mitigated, residents in surrounding neighborhoods will suffer harm. 36. CBE and others have submitted extensive comments on the Project?s potential to cause 1 signi?cant environmental impacts, particularly in light of Tesoro?s plans to increase the amount of dirtier and unconventional crude oils imported by both rail and ship to all of its California re?nery facilities. In particular, the EIR's Project Description fails to disclose that the Project will enable the Re?nery to process cheaper North American Bakken and potentially Canadian Tar Sands Crude Oil, and effectuate Tesoro?s business plan to switch its crude oil stock at its West Coast re?neries. The stulti?ed Project Description obscures this key, and far more dangerous, Project purpose. The EIR also claims that the Project will have a ?small impact on crude oil and feedstock throughput . . . capability[,] increase[ing] approximately two percent or 6,000 barrels per day (bbl/day) as a result of the proposed project.? Yet Tesoro?s statements to the US. Securities and Exchange Commission indicate that Project could feed a much greater increase in Re?nery throughput?vie. the volume of crude being processed by the Re?nery complex at any given time. The failure to disclosure the true scepe of the Project?s potential to increase Re?nery Operations infects the entire impact analysis. 38. The Air District prepared and released a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study I 1 to initially identify potentially signi?cant, adverse environmental impacts associated with the 1 . VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 3 mummemN?cwmqo?uhmmwo Project. The Air District circulated the for public comment from September 10, 2014 through October 10, 2014. 39. After receiving public comments on its the Air District moved to the next step in the CEQA process?preparation of a Draft EIR. After completing the Draft EIR, the Air District circulated it for public notice and comment from March 8, 2016 through June 10, 2016. 40. On June 10, 2016, prior to the close of the comment period, CBE submitted timely comments explaining, inter alia, the following ?aws in the Draft analysis: l) the Project Description failed to disclose the true scape of the Project, including the large increase in Re?nery crude throughput and the increased reliance on cheaper and more dangerous unconventional crudes oils; (2) the EIR relied on inaccurate, unsupported, and/or otherwise illegal baselines for purpose of measuring the Project?s impact to human health and the environment; (3) the impact analyses failed to account for the additional pollution from increased ?aring and increased heater ?ring rates, and further failed to incorporate research ?ndings from the Air District?s own comprehensive study that measured emissions ?'om the refineries in the South Coast Air Basin (?FluxSense study?) and found the Re?nery?s real air emissions to be more than six times higher for VOCs, and more than 43 times higher for benzene than that reported in the and (4) the Project Description improperly piecemealed Tesoro?s modi?cations to its Vancouver Energy Terminal The Project, as a whole, represents a larger company-wide plan to transport, store and re?ne unconventional North Dakota Bakken and Canadian tar sands crude oils. In support of its comments, CBE included Tesoro?s corporate disclosures and market data indicating that Tesoro intends to dramatically increase shipments of such crudes speci?cally to its Los Angeles Re?nery. 41. In addition to legal comments, Julia May, a re?nery expert on 0313?s staff, submitted technical comments explaining that the EIR omitted analysis of Project components essential to achieving the project?s objectives. Julia May?s comments described the failure to disclose the full nature of the volatile and lower quality crude processing that would be allowed by the Project, among other defects. Other cormnents submitted on the Draft EIR echo above-stated VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 9 -- concerns. All comments submitted on the Draft EIR for the Project are incorporated herein, by reference. Despite those various commenters? well-documented concerns about the Draft legal . de?ciencies, the Air District issued and certi?ed the Final EIR for the Project on May 12, 2017. The Los Angeles County Clerk posted the Air District?s Notice of Determination for the Project on May 15, 2017. As of the date of this petition and complaint, CBE is informed and believes that the Air District has not approved any permit or any other entitlement for the project. CAUSE OF 0F CEQA (CCP 1094.5, or in the alternativg CCP ?1085; Cal. Pub. Res. Code 21168, or in the alternative. CCP 821168.51 A. ILLEGAL NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 42. CBE incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs. 43. Under CEQA, a lead agency may not ?le a Notice of Determination before deciding to carry out or approve a project. . 44. Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines states: The lead agency shall ?le a Notice of Determination within ?ve working days a?er deciding to carry out or approve the project.? (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, 1509403), [emphasis added].) 45. As of the date of this petition and complaint, the Air District has not decided to carry out or approve the Project. 46. The Air District?s May 15, 2017 ?ling of a Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles 1? County Clerk constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion, and/or a failure to proceed in the manner required by law. B. FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION .i 47. CBE incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs. 48. The primary goal of CEQA is to ?[e]nsure that the long-term protection of the environment. . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.? (Pub. Res. Code 49. To this end, CEQA requires that the EIR include an accurate project description, and that the nature and objective of a project be fully disclosed and fairly evaluated in the ER. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 10 u?n?o?b gum Nn?r?I?a?A? 00 50. CEQA de?nes ?project? as ?the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.? (CEQA Guidelines 15378(a); see also id. at 15003(h); Pub. Res. Code 21065..) CEQA requires ?project? to be de?ned broadly. (Pub. Res. Code 21065; CEQA Guidelines 15002(d); Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1183.) 51. In order to provide ?tll disclosure and analysis of a project?s potential signi?cant impacts, CEQA requires the lead agency to determine, early on in the environmental review process, whether a project will have a signi?cant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines 15063(c), (setting forth the requirements of an initial study).) Changes to Tesoro?s Crude Blend 52. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project involves components that have not been . disclosed in the ElR?s Project Description. Chief among these components is Tesoro?s increased reliance on unconventional crude oil. The Project Description fails to disclose whether the Project allows Tesoro to increase its reliance on North Dakotan crude ?'om the Bakken shale and/or Canadian tar sands crude at its CarsonlWilmington re?ning complex. 53. The speci?c chemicals and their concentrations in the Project?s modi?ed crude blend are required to evaluate impacts. This type of information is reported in a crude assay or ??ngerprint" of the oil. Crude assays are available to Tesoro, and are routinely collected by oil companies to evaluate the desirability of Speci?c crude oils. Yet, this information was excluded from the EIR, foreclosing meaningful public review of environmental impacts. In particular, the Project Description should have disclosed whether the Project would change any of the following characteristics of the Re?nery?s crude oil blend: a. The concentration of individual toxic compounds, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (called BTEX compounds), which can be present in high concentrations in volatile Bakken crude oil; VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 I?l b. The concentration of individual sulfur-based compounds such as mercaptans, sul?des and disul?des, which can accelerate corrosion of Re?nery equipment, and increase the risk of accident and/or foul odors. Instead, the EIR incorrectly focused only on total sulfur; c. Vapor pressure, which determines the amount of fugitive, cancer-causing and explosive, volatile organic emissions that may escape from the Re?nery?s leaky components, such as valves, pumps, and ?anges, and pumps; 54. Increased use of unconventional crudes will likely result in increased emissions of toxic air contaminants, including benzene, as well as increased emissions of highly malodorous (and toxic) compounds, such as mercaptans. The unduly narrow Project Description allowed the Air District to illegally evade disclosure and study of these, and other, potentially signi?cant impacts. 55. Increased use of unconventional crude oils also poses signi?cant, and undisclosed risks to public safety due to accelerated corrosion of Re?nery units and explosion risks, among other concerns. Undisclosed Crude Oil Throughput Increases at the Re?nery 56. The Project Description further fails to disclose the true scale of the Project?s increased throughput, or the increased volume of crude that the Re?nery will be able to process at any given I time. The Draft EIR claims that the Project will increase Re?nery throughput by merely 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day beyond the Re?nery?s pre-Project throughput level of 363,000 barrels per day. Yet, Tesoro?s December 2015 Form which it submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, states that the Re?nery?s pre-Project throughput capacity was 380,000 barrels per day. The ElR?s failure to provide a stable and accurate view of the Re?nery's throughput capacity renders the Project Description defective, as a matter of law. 57. Moreover, the discrepancy shows that the Project's true increase to Re?nery throughput andlor operations could be much higher than that disclosed by the ER, thus infecting the entire impact analysis. Unexplained Increase In the Amount Crude Oil Released From Storage VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 12 58. As ?nth?er evidence of the Project's potential to increase Re?nery throughput beyond that disclosed in the EIR, the Project involves a very large increase in volume of crude oil that will be released from storage. CBE's comments explained that the Project?s new and modi?ed crude storage allows a nearly 420,000 barrel-per-day (or, 153 million barrel-per-year) increase in the amount of I crude oil moving into and out of storage (rte. storage tank throughput). The increased volume of crude oil moving into and out of storage (nearly 420,000 barrels-per-day) will be greater than the volume of crude currently processed by the entire Re?nery (363,000 barrels-per-day). Yet, in violation of CEQA, the ER fails to disclose the fate or purpose of the very large increase in crude that will be released from the Project?s storage tanks. Tesoro can either re?ne or sell the increased volume of crude oil released from storage, thus causing undisclosed environmental and human health impacts. 59. The Air District's failure to provide an accurate project description that fully discloses, inter alia, the change in the overall crude slate and throughput at the Los Angeles Re?nery not only directly violates requirement that a ?project? include ?the whole of an action? including ?reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment,? but also masks the potentially signi?cant impacts of the Project. These defects constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion, a failure . to proceed in the manner required by law, and lack the support of substantial evidence. C. ILLEGAL PIECEMEALING 60. CBE incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs. 61. In determining whether a project may have a signi?cant effect on the environment, the lead agency must consider ?all phases of project planning, implementation, and operation,? including phases planned for future implementation. (CEQA Guidelines 15063(a)(l); Laurel Heights Umprovement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. ofCalifomia (1988) Ca1.3d 376, 396, as modi?ed on denial of reh? (I an. 26, 1989).) Thus, even if a project requires multiple discretionary approvals, the environmental analysis must analyze the impacts of the entire project, not merely the approval at issue. (CEQA Guidelines VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE l3 mummhum-ucxoa?gaKagzg 62. CEQA prohibits segmenting a project into separate actions in order to: avoid environmental review of the ?whole of the action? (Pub. Res. Code 21065); defer environmental analysis; ignore the foreseeable environmental impacts of the end result of a project; or, avoid considering potential cumulative impacts. Thus, a lead agency may not limit environmental disclosure by ignoring the development or other activity that will ultimately result from an initial approval. 63. There is substantial evidence in the record that the Air District failed to analyze other projects related to the Project and therefore, improperly piecemealed its analysis of the Project?s potential, signi?cant environmental impacts. 64. More speci?cally, the failed to incorporate Tesoro?s Savage Vancouver Energy Terminal expansion as part of the Project. As proposed, the VET piece of the Project entails the creation of a terminal at the Port of Vancouver, Washington, which would ?receive an average of 360,000 barrels of crude oil per day by rail . . . then load the oil onto marine vessels for Ii1 transport.?' This crude-byurail to oil tanker VET project will increase importation of cost-advantaged North American crudes to Tesoro?s Los Angeles Re?nery and other West Coast re?neries. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the VET notes that the VET is intended to serve the growing E3 demand of West Coast re?neries for mid-continent crude oil amidst the declining availability of the more expensive Californian and Alaskan oils that have historically been used by Tesoro?s Los Angeles Re?nery. 1 65. The Project's dependence on, and interrelationship with, the Tesoro VET is admitted in Tesoro's investor reports, which state that the Project's purpose is to allow Tesoro to remain competitive by increasing processing of unconventional crude oils from the North American mid- continent at its Los Angeles Re?nery through use of the Tesoro Savage Terminal. The May i Technical Report also includes many other places where the Project relies on the Tesoro VET. The impact of the increased greenhouse gas emissions from the VET piece of the Project?s crude oil lifecycle affects California?s environment. Tesoro Savage Draft Environmental Impact Report, Executive Summary (ES-2), available at: (Last visited on June 13, 2017.) VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE l4 66. The EIR improperly omitted disclosure, study and mitigation of the Project?s crude oil lifecycle, which includes the extraction, transport, export and/or re?ning of unconventional crude oils. Other undisclosed pieces of the project include: a) Expansion of the Pipeline at the Marine Terminal to the Storage Tanks; b) Tesoro Logistics Operations; c) Offsite Hydrogen Baseline Sales and Sales of Hydrogen; and, d) San Pedro?s Butane Storage Tanks. 67. The Air District's failure to consider the foreseeable impacts that will result from the processing and re?ning of signi?cantly larger volumes of distinct crude slate at Tesoro?s Los Angeles Re?nery violates prohibition against piecemealing, or alternatively, fails to account for the Project?s cumulative impacts. Because the piecemealed approach masks the Project?s potential signi?cant impacts, the defective EIR represents a prejudicial abuse of discretion, as well as a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. The Air District's piecemealed review - further lacks the support of substantial evidence. D. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE PROPER BASELINE 68. CBE incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs. 69. The signi?cance of a project?s environmental impact is measured from the baseline. CEQA de?nes baseline as the ?physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist . . . at the time environmental analysis is commenced.? (CEQA Guidelines 15125(a) [emphasis added].) The EIR fails to provide a stable or proper baseline for the volume or quality of pre-Project crude oil that has been ?owing through the Re?nery. 70. As for crude volume, the EIR illegally evades disclosure of the amount of crude oil that will be delivered to, and processed by, the Re?nery once the Project is implemented. The failure to disclose basic baseline information on crude oil shipments, storage tank throughput and Re?nery- throughput evades disclosure of the Project?s true scope and environmental impacts. The EIR initially fails to disclose any baseline and post-Project throughput and capacity information for the marine terminals that serve the Project, even though the Project signi?cantly increases the unloading rate of crude oil at these terminals. The EIR then fails to provide a clear or accurate baseline description of crude oil storage tank throughput, despite the fact that the Project will double the VERIFIED PETITION OR WRIT OF MANDATE l5 Re?nery?s storage capacity. Finally, the EIR fails to provide a proper baseline for Re?nery throughput, thus completing the cycle of obfuscation with respect to potential increases in the amount of crude oil entering, and being processed by, the Re?nery. 71. The ElR?s evasive approach to crude quality baseline is equally de?cient. The EIR failed to provide speci?c crude quality baselines for both the Carson and Wilmington re?neries. In particular, the EIR failed to disclose the speci?c geographic origin and amounts of domestic and imported crudes used by the Re?nery dining the El'R?s baseline period. The EIR further failed to provide other basic information about the Re?nery?s baseline crude oil characteristics, such as the density (or, API gravity), metal content, percentages of speci?c sul?lr-based compounds (such as mercaptans, sul?des, and disul?des), vapor pressure, benzene content, total acid number, volatility or waxiness, among other crude oil characteristics. 72. Without the above-mentioned crude quantity and quality baselines, the public is unable to verify the accuracy of the impact analyses and ultimate conclusions, thus thwarting CEQA's basic informational Moreover, as a result of these errors, the EIR minimizes the new impacts of this Project and fails to mitigate signi?cant impacts. 73- Next, the ElR?s air emissions baseline is ?awed because it improperly includes emissions ?'om the Wilmington Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit and thereby arti?cially in?ates the air quality baseline. Because the FCCU shutdown was a condition of approval prior to, and independent from, this Project, the air quality baseline should have re?ected the environmentafl conditions as they will exist without the FCCU in operation. 74. The EIR also improperly in?ates the baseline(s) in its air quality analysis by including . exceedanccs of Re?nery permit limits in the baseline description. 75. The EIR next in?ates the baseline for assessing ?uid catalytic cracking and ?are emissions, as well as emissions of sui?Jr dioxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and greenhouse gases by failing to analyze the Re?nery?s actual process rates. Actual process rates provide a transparent view of the Re?nery current crude quantity and quality, thus forcing the required disclosure of the Project? potential to increase those process rates and accompanying VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 16 mqamumm-aoxoa-TSSGESEZS i pollution. In other instances, the EIR improperly uses current maximum permit limits as the baseline. The California Supreme Court has rejected the Air District's use of a Re?nery?s maximum permitted capacity as the baseline for a CEQA impact analysis and held that the Air District must use a Re?nery?s actual emissions as baseline. 76. The EIR ?rrther failed to provide transparent, data-based baselines for the Re?nery?s pressure relief valves and flares. The failure to provide proper baselines for these elements of the Re?nery led to erroneous conclusions of no increase in emissions, despite the fact that the Project signi?cantly increases the amount of process gases that may be sent to the Re?nery?s ?ares at any given time. 77. The ETR erroneously concludes that no environmental impact will result from increasing the ?ring rates of key Re?nery heaters, including the DCU PIC-100 (Delayed Coker Unit Heater) and the No. 51 Vacuum Unit Heater. This incorrect and illogical conclusion resulted ?ow the Air District?s failure to provide transparent, data-based baselines for those two or any heaters. When these heaters experience higher ?ring rates, it means that associated Re?nery unit?the Delayed I Coker and Vacuum Unit?is processing a higher volume of crude oil or other intermediate product, and is thus producing more pollution. 78. The EIR also failed to provide a proper baseline with regard to this Project?s impact on global warming. Instead of providing a transparent baseline for measuring the Project?s greenhouse gas emissions, it simply makes conclusions about the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. 79. Without proper baselines for the above-stated aspects of Re?nery operations, the EIR lacks support for its signi?cance determinations. The Air District?s failure to provide legal and/or accurate baselines for purposes of measuring Project impacts constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion, a i failure to proceed in the manner required by law. The Air District?s above-mentioned baseline descriptions also lack the support of substantial evidence. E. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE PROJECT ?8 SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 80. CBE incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs. VERIFIED PETITION FOR. WRIT OF MANDATE l7 The EIR estimates the Project will have operational volatile organic compound emissions of 401 . 5 pounds per day (?lbs/day?) ?more than 7 times greater than the Air District?s 55 lb/day signi?cance threshold. Thus, the Project plainly results in signi?cant VOC emissions. Yet, the EIR fails to disclose the Project?s signi?cant VOC emissions, stating instead that the use of emission reduction credits will reduce the Project?s VOC emissions to less than signi?cant. This analytical approach is incorrect because pollution credits constitute a mitigation measure that can be identi?ed only a?er a ?nding of signi?cant impact has been made; those credits are not part of the Project itself and thus cannot be used to escape a signi?cance ?nding under CEQA. Due to this incorrect analytical approach, the Air District improperly evaded requisite signi?cance ?nding for VOCs and improperly precluded consideration of alternative mitigation strategies that may be more effective than the use of pollution credits as mitigation. Moreover, a Project?s mitigation measures must be contained in an enforceable mitigation and monitoring plan. The proposed VOC pollution credits are not part of the Project?s enforceable mitigation and monitoring plan. 82. Similarly, the EIR improperly relies on early installation of pollution control equipment, selective catalytic reduction technology, to improperly evade disclosure of the Project?s true nitrogen oxides emissions. The EIR improperly relied on entirely unenforceable, ?early,? compliance projects under the Air District?s RECLAIM program to claim emission reductions for Yet, Tesoro could later sell the credits it generates from early compliance, or even use the credits to offset other emissions increases, which would provide no pollution bene?t to the region. In short, Tesoro must surrender its pollution credits to claim those credits as mitigation under CEQA. 83. Further, the EIR misleads decision-makers and the public in assuming that the shutdown from the Wilmington Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit shutdown will achieve emissions reductions. In fact, Tesoro plans to keep 491.63 of pollution credits to increase emissions in the ?iture. The above analytical de?ciencies and misuse of pollution credits improperly evade disclosure of the Project?s true emissions of VOC and pollution, thus violating CEQA. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 8 I I 84. The approach to estimating emissions from Speci?c Re?nery units, such as heaters was ?mdamentally ?awed due to, inter alia: 1) failure to use the same averaging period for baseline emissions and post-Project emissions; 2) failure to properly consider startup and shutdown emissions; and 3) failure to disclose the modi?ed units? post-Project maximum daily emissions after and by relying instead on average daily emissions to measure post-Project emissions increases. 85. The EIR also underestimated the Project?s potential to increase ?aring, and the reSulting emissions ?'om increased ?aring. The EIR fails to disclose that the Project?s new pressure relief valves will increase the amount of process gases that can vent to the ?ares at any given time and increase ?aring events. Pressure relief devices and ?ares are designed to emit large volumes of gases in short time frames, creating the potential for large increases in concentrations of pollutants into surrounding communities with each ?aring event. The EIR fails to disclose the potential emissions increases that will result from the Project?s introduction of more than 30 new Pressure Relief Devices. 86. The EIR fails to disclose the environmental and public health impacts of the Project?s true increase in crude oil volume being delivered to the Re?nery?s marine terminals, and ?owing through the Re?nery?s crude oil storage tanks and the Re?nery itself (throughput). 87. The EIR also fails to disclose the Project?s signi?cant climate change impacts, claiming instead that the Project will result in reductions of GHG emissions. As a threshold matter, the EIR fails to identify the Project?s greenhouse gas emissions as direct and indirect impacts, and instead relegates its analysis of this issue to a purely cumulative impact analysis. This analytical' approach is incorrect and unsupported by fact or law. . 88. As for direct Operational emissions, the EIR signi?cantly underestimated GHG emissions a: from the Project?s modi?cations to key ?red sources, including Re?nery heaters, furnaces and boilers. 89. Moreover, and contrary to the Air District?s own mandate, the EIR fails to analyze the Project?s lifecycle GHG emissions. In adapting an interim 10,000 metric ton per year interim signi?cance threshold for GHGs, the Air District?s Governing Board mandated that in ?determining VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 19 mumm-huwr-?O?Dooumu-RWMHO whether or not GHG emissions from affected projects are signi?cant, project emissions will include direct, indirect, and, to the extent information is available, life cycle emissions during construction and operation.? By failing to analyze direct, indirect, and lifecycle GHG emissions, the Elk ?inadequately and inaccurately analyzes the GHG impacts from the Project. 90. The claim that the Project would have bene?cial GHG impacts is wholly unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence. Even if the Project were implemented exactly as described, Tesoro anticipates trading GHG allowances for the emissions reductions, resulting in no . cumulative bene?t at all. The EIR incorrectly describes the Project as having climate change bene?ts, thus undermining the document's informational purpose. . 91. The Air District further failed to disclose the signi?cant hazard risks that will result from the Project?s switch to unconventional crude oils. Substantial evidence in the record shows that lower quality crude oil carries a greater risk of corrosion of re?nery components. Re?ning lower quality crudes, in some instances, can lead to dangerous levels of hydrogen sul?de gas, which is acutely hazardous and corrosive. Because of this, re?neries that process unconventional crude oils often must use scavenging agents, but these also lead to accelerated corrosion of Re?nery equipment. I 92. Bakken crude oil can cause transfer problems in marine vessels and re?nery storage tanks due to its potentially high paraf?nic content. To address this waxiness, multiple chemical diSpersants would be needed for smooth transfer and realization of full throughput. The potential for use of . chemical dispersants should have been identi?ed in the BER to assess the impacts and hazards of their use. Waxy crude content can also cause unwanted ?coking" inside re?nery vessels, thereby fouling equipment and increasing risks of upsets. 93. Bakken crude is also extremely volatile due to its large concentration of natural gas liquids, which include methane, propane, butane, ethane, and pentane. These compounds are susceptible to volatize, burn, or explode when they come into contact with sparks in an accident, and can easily form ?reballs and vapor cloud explosions, known as boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions Substantial evidence in the record thus shows that the Project?s switch to Bakken crude signi?cantly increases the risk of these types of explosions. These explosions can be fatal, as VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 20 WOO-JON was the case at Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in 2013, when a freight train tran5porting Bakken crude derailed, killing nearly 50 people. Additional accidents associated with the transport of Bakken crude have occurred in Oregon, North Dakota, Alabama, and other locations. Because of the immense ?ammability risk, the US. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material . Safety Administration requires additional testing and characterization for Bakken crudes, as well as additional handling procedures. Yet, these critical mitigation measures were omitted from the analysis due to the document?s failure to identify the Project?s signi?cant hazard risks. The accident risk of Bakken crude is so high that railcar accidents have persisted, even after safety measures have been put in place. 94. The EIR conducted a ?re hazard analysis to determine whether accidents involving the modi?ed storage tanks would result in signi?cant impacts, but this analysis was inadequate. The EIR selected a heat ?ux signi?cance threshold of kilowatt-hour per cubic-meter-per-hour at which point one would experience a serious injury from thermal radiation. Yet, the EIR failed to analyze other signi?cant impacts of a ?re, including explosions (BLEVES) and inhalation of smoke and toxics. Additionally, the EIR did not evaluate ?re hazards for onsite receptors, even though re?nery workers would be the most exposed to risk. According to substantial evidence in the record, any person located between the accident site and the reported impact distance would experience a signi?cant impact. At a heat ?ux of 5 a 10% injury would be experienced, which is signi?cant. The failure to analyze the hazard from ?re to re?nery workers (onsite receptors) fell far short of informational disclosure requirements. I 95. The EIR further underestimates the risk of ?re at the Project?s crude oil storage tanks. Substantial evidence in the administrative record shows that ?re hazards ?om the new crude oil tanks would be signi?cant. In an accident, the amount of crude oil involved would increase, because of the Project?s increased storage capacities and throughput. If an accident were to occur while the tanks were being ?lled, more than just the capacity of one tank could be spilled. The EIR, in its worst-case scenario analysis, however, only considers the maximum capacity of each tank, and thus, fails to evaluate the ?re risks of the Project?s total increase in crude oil storage, particularly due to VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 21 I the tanks' close proximity to one another, and the risk of earthquake in the region, which could cause 1: multiple failures and ?res, and limit access to emergency response. 96. Assuming the two 300,000 barrel tanks were involved in a pool ?re, the blast zone would encompass Alameda Street, outside the Wilmington Operations boundary, and reach a public highway. Additionally, because of the close proximity of the tanks, a pool ?re from one or both of these tanks could spread to other tanks. This, however, would not necessarily be the worst-case scenario; if the tanks were ?lled with Bakken crude oil, it is possible that a ?ash ?re, rather than a pool ?re could occur, which would cause far more signi?cant impacts. 97. Additionally, the worst-case scenario calculations for the tanks assumed that all of the tanks would be ?lled with the same petroleum product. This, however, is misguided, since the tanks could be ?lled with different products. The hazard calculations then are inaccurate, as the distance to the chosen heat ?ux'threshold depends on many factors, including the qualities of the speci?c crudes involved. Lastly, the ?re hazard analysis for the tanks is based on a wind Speed of 20 miles per hour however, in Long Beach, wind Speeds can be much higher. This could enable vapor clouds to travel long distances where they could then ignite. 98. The EIR ?uther failed to consider the ?re risks associated with pipeline accidents, ship accidents, and loading and unloading of lique?ed petroleum gas and ?trther failed to properly consider the smoke and inhalation risks to human beings in the event of an accident. 99. Substantial evidence in the administrative record also shows that the EIR failed to properly account for marine vessel emissions, including crude oil tanker ship emissions, which could increase as a result of the Project. 100. The EIR further failed to disclose the Project?s health risk (cancer, acute, and chronic) information by pollutant. The signi?cantly hindered the public?s ability to review the reasonableness of the health risk assessment. 101 . Importantly, according to the Air District?s own FluxSense study, which the Air District released before ?nalizing the EIR, the Re?nery?s VOC emissions, which include vapor emissions released ?'om storage tanks and leaky Re?nery components, and include carcinogens such as VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 22 benzene, are severely undercounted, by a factor of 6.4. Substantial evidence in the record, including the newly released FluxSense study, shows that even under the incorrect assumption that the Project will increase throughput by merely 6,000 barrels per day, the Project?s VOC emissions are signi?cant. More speci?cally, the corrected VOC emissions ?'om that underestimated 6,000 barrel- per-day increase, alone, amount to more than 312 pounds per day, which is nearly six times higher than the Air District?s signi?cance threshold for VOCs. The EIR thus fails to disclose the signi?cant air quality and public health risk associated with the Project. 102. The Air District?s FluxSense Study similarly shows that the storage tank VOC emissions are severely undercounted, by a factor of about 6.5. Substantial evidence in the administrative record shows that VOC emission estimate from the Re?nery?s storage tanks is 1,422 pounds per day, rather than the 49.09 pound per day estimate provided in the EIR. The corrected VOC emissions estimate is 25 times higher than the Air District?s 55 lb/day signi?cance threshold for VOCs. In violation of CEQA, the EIR- failed to disclose the Project?s signi?cant VOC emissions. 103. VOCs include carcinogens, such as benzene. The FluxSense study revealed that Tesoro has historically underestimated the Carson facility?s benzene emissions by a factor of 43. Substantial evidence in the record shows that the corrected benzene emissions ?'om the Project will result in signi?cant cancer risks, reaching as high as 55 in one million, in contrast to the 3.7 in one million cancer risk reported by the EIR. The Air District?s signi?cance threshold for cancer risk is 10 in one million. 104. The Air District?s certi?cation of the EIR for the Project without fully analyzing the Project?s signi?cant environmental and public health impacts constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion, fails to proceed in the manner required by law, and does not have the support of substantial evidence. F. FAILURE TO CONSIDER AND DISCLOSE SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 105. CBE incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 23 26 - 106. CEQA requires that the lead agency analyze the cumulative effects of a project. (Pub. Res. Code? 21083(b)(2); CEQA Guidelines {3 1506401).) 107. A cumulative impact is an impact created as a result of the project when evaluated together with other ?past, present, and reasonably foreseeable? future projects causing related impacts. (CEQA Guidelines 15355, 15064.) 108. In performing a cumulative impacts analysis, the EIR must assess the signi?cance of the incremental addition of a project to the combined individual effects of one or more separate projects. (CEQA Guidelines 15355.) 109. Where a project?s socioeconomic impacts may affect the physical environment, an agency should consider those impacts. (CEQA Guidelines 15131.) ?Where a physical change 1 is caused by economic or social e?'ects of a project,? an agency should consider that change just as it considers ?any other physical change resulting from the project." (CEQA Guidelines . 10. The EIR falsely concludes that there is a not a signi?cant cumulative impact related to the operation of the Project, in addition to other nearby projects. In so concluding, the DEIR relies on false assumptions. For instance, the DEIR incorrectly assumed that the Southern California International Gateway Project will result in major emissions reductions in the project area. The SCIG project is a near-dock intennodal railyard proposed to be built in Los Angeles adjacent to west Long Beach. The Air District successfully challenged that SCIG project in Los Angeles Superior Court by arguing, among other things, that the BER for that project could not assume that operation of the railyard would necessarily reduce operations and pollution at another already existing railyard. The Air District further prevailed in its challenge to that emissions reductions estimates for the SCIG project. Having prevailed in its challenge to that project?s emission reduction estimates, the Air District cannot rely on those same emissions reductions here. Although the FEIR conceded the error, and removed the erroneous SCIG-related pollution reduction from its analysis, the FEIR surprisingly failed to change its ultimate conclusion of no signi?cant ctunulative VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 24 environmental impact. The EIR relied on the false assumption that unless there are signi?cant direct project impacts, there cannot be cumulative operational impacts from a Project. That analytical leap is not supported by law or the facts in the record. 1 1. In fact, substantial evidence in the record shows that after removing the improper claims of emission reductions from SCIG, the cumulative air quality impacts for the Project, combined with SCIG, are signi?cant for VOCs, carbon monoxide sulfur oxides particulate matter with a diameter of less than ten microns and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns More speci?cally, without the unsubstantiated SCIG reductions, the cumulative impact of these pollutants amounts to: 646.97 lbs/day of VOCs, 825.15 lbs/day of CO, 332.01 lbs/day of 3.63 lbs/day of 80x, 340.46 of PMIO, and 51.37 lbs/day of PM2.5. The resulting, undisclosed emissions increases for VOCs, CO, PMIO exceeds the Air District?s CEQA signi?cance threshold for each of these four air pollutants. .- 112. The Air District?s action certifying the EIR, without properly analyzing and disclosing the Proj ect?s signi?cant cinnulative impacts constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion and failure to proceed in the manner required by law. That action further lacks the support of substantial evidence. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, CBE prays for judgment as set forth below: A. For a writ of mandate or peremptory writ that is issued under the seal of this Court and that directs the Air District to: l. void the EIR for the Project; 2. set aside and withdraw any and all approvals of the Project; 3. refrain from granting any approvals for the Project unless and until the Air District complies with the requirements of and 4. recirculate a revised EIR for public review and comment. B. For entry of preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Air District and Tesoro ?'om carrying out, implementing, or otherwise acting in furtherance of any of VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 25 mummemn?ioomna'GKaSSE any aSpect of the Project until after the requirements of CEQA have been ful?lled. C. For a declaratory judgment stating that the Air District violated CEQA by approving the EIR with an inaccurate and misleading project description and for certifying the EIR without ?rst complying with D. For a declaratory judgment stating that the Air District?s EIR and the NOD ?led on May 15, 2017 are void ab initio, or otherwise invalid and of no legal effect; E. For a declaratory judgment that the EIR is inadequate and that the Air District violated CEQA by approving and certifying the F. For a declaratory judgment that the Air District?s failure to prepare, consider, and approve or certify an adequate environmental analysis under CEQA is arbitrary and capricious; G. For Petitioner?s fees and costs, including reasonable attorneys? fees and expert II witness costs, as authorized by CCP 1021.5, and any other applicable provisions of law on its claims regarding the Air District?s unlaw?rl certi?cation of the and - H. For such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. 'l VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 26 n?p?n?n NHO June 14, 2017 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Respectfully submitted, Suma Peesapati (State Bar No. 203701) COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT PO. Box 454 Laguna Beach, CA 92652-0454 Tel: 415-336-1891 Doug Carstens (State Bar No. 193439) Michelle Black (State Bar No. 261962) CHATTEN-BROWN CARSTENS 2200 Paci?c Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90245 Tel: 310-798-2400; Fax 310-798-2402 Gladys Lirn?n (SBN 228773) COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT 6325 Paci?c Blvd., Suite 300 Huntington Park, CA 90255 Tel: (323) 826-9771 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plainttf COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT 27 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, declare that I am the Southern California Program Director for Communities for Better Environment (CBE), the petitioner in this matter. I have read the above Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint and know the contents. I am informed and believe that the matters in this petition and complaint are true and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the petition and complaint are true. i I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this Thirteenth day of June, 2017, in Huntington Park, Los Angeles County, California. Darryl Molina Sarmiento By