Over 1300 of you have already signed the Safe Benicia petition. If you have not yet signed, please do so now. Fill in your info below. Then add a comment or just click on ADD YOUR NAME at the bottom.
BREAKING: San Luis Obispo Planning Department recommends DENIAL of proposed Phillips 66 oil trains terminal
By Ethan Buckner, January 25, 2016
Click here for info on transportation to the hearings & rally.
Extraordinary news this afternoon out of San Luis Obispo, California, where Phillips 66 proposed to build an oil trains terminal at its refinery on the Nipomo Mesa.
Ahead of critical county Planning Commission hearings on the project, the SLO County Planning Department released their staff report recommending denial of the project. This document is pretty unprecedented from municipal or county planning staff, who in most cases serve as conduits for industry and placaters of public concern. This document reflects a bold assertion of principles of public health, safety, and climate protection over corporate profit. At the bottom of the email, I’ve pasted the main arguments the county is using to recommend denial.
Come hearing time on February 4 and 5, local activists and allies across California will converge on SLO to make sure that Planning Commissioners listen to their own experts and overwhelming public opposition and stamp in this project’s denial. For those of you able to join us in SLO, here’s some info on transportation to the hearings & rally.
The Planning Department’s recommendations do not come out of nowhere. Over the past two years grassroots activists in SLO and beyond have catalyzed a powerful campaign that’s engaged thousands of Californians and enrolled dozens upon dozens of cities, counties, school boards, unions, and campuses to pressure SLO County to deny this project. This recommendation is an affirmation of our collective power.
Many thanks for all your tireless work, and hope to see you in SLO on February 4 and 5!
In solidarity,
Ethan
—
1. The Department of Planning and Building has found the Project to be inconsistent with several goals and policies of the following plans:
a. Coastal Zone Framework for Planning
b. County’s Conservation and Open Space Element
c. Costal Plan Policies d. Safety Element
e. Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance
f. South County Area Plan
2. The Project would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public and the residents of San Luis Obispo County due to the increase of hazardous accidents as a result of the Project.
3. The Project includes a significant and unavoidable environmental impact with regards to cancer risk (air quality) for the population near the proposed rail spur.
4. The Project includes a significant and unavoidable environmental impact with regards to diesel particulate matter (air quality) due to an exceedance of the SLOCAPCD CEQA threshold.
5. The Project would result in 10 significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (agricultural resources, four which are air quality, biological, cultural, hazards, public services, and water resources), with regards to the mainline rail operations within the County as a result of the Project. Planning Commission Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit #DRC2012-00095 / Phillips 66 Company Page 6
6. The Project would result in 10 significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (agricultural resources, four which are air quality, biological, cultural, hazards, public services, and water resources), with regards to the mainline rail operations beyond San Luis Obispo County and throughout the State.
7. There is a lack of specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project that outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as would be required to approve the Project pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.
The City of Benicia published a Public Notice in the local newspaper today, announcing the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The notice also gave details on upcoming public hearings. Relevant excerpt on upcoming dates:
PUBLIC HEARING The City of Benicia Planning Commission will hold a formal public hearing to receive comments on Monday, February 8, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. to consider the Final EIR and a Use Permit for the Crude by Rail project. In anticipation of the number of speakers, additional Planning Commission meetings to receive comments are scheduled for February 9, February 10 and February 11, 2016. These additional meetings will only be held as necessary to hear public comment – if all members of the public who wish to speak on the FEIR and the Use Permit have been heard, for example, during the meeting on February 9th, then no further public comments would be heard during subsequent meetings. All meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Benicia City Hall, located at 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510.
The FEIR is now available on the City’s website and linked here on the Benicia Independent’s Project Documents page. Please set aside time immediately to review the document and prepare your comments for the City. There are only 34 days between release of the document today and the Public Hearing on Monday, February 8.
I was pleased and somewhat surprised when 3 of our local/regional newspapers reported on Benicia Valero’s Crude By Rail proposal in their end-of-year coverage. (See column at right.)
The environmental reviews in Benicia have taken so long that the process seems tedious and increasingly uninteresting to the public not to mention the media. Add to that the fact that we haven’t had a massive oil train explosion with gripping video images since early in the year (when we had 5 in less than a month). Media ho-hum.
Even the latest major derailments with spills (2 in Wisconsin on a weekend in early November) didn’t provide much more than a blip in West Coast media coverage. No fires, no big video coverage, no ratings, not newsworthy.
BENICIA HERALD
Summary of 1/1/16 article
Our Benicia Herald has undergone serious setbacks following a mass exodus of its editor and reporters in September of this year. So I was happy to see today’s story by reporter Nick Sestanovich, “2015 in review: Crude-by-rail debate enters fourth year.”
Sestanovich did a good job. He begins with a very brief project summary, and in the same first paragraph adds, “However, strong opposition by residents and environmental groups triggered a debate that still goes on to this day.” Thanks, Nick – reality makes the news in Benicia!
Later in the article, Sestanovich points out the deficiencies noted in the Revised DEIR, “’significant and unavoidable’ environmental impacts, including direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, the increase of nitrogen-oxide levels in the Yolo-Solano region and increased threats toward protected wildlife species.”
He also gives approximately equal space to Valero’s claims for the project and opponents’ critique: “…opponents of the project contend that the project would increase air pollution, fuel climate change, increase greenhouse gas emissions and would be very dangerous in the event of a train explosion- particularly in the wake of an oil train explosion in Quebec shortly after the project was announced as well as numerous others since.”
Sestanovich also did some original research with an update on US Rep. Mike Thompson’s Crude-by-rail Safety Act, writing that “As of press time, the bill has not made it past committee, and government transparency website GovTrack.us believes it hasa 4 percent chance of being enacted.”
At the end of Sestanovich’s article, he refers readers to the City’s website for more information. Too bad he didn’t also send them here to the Benicia Independent!
VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD Summary of 12/28/15 article
Benicia Planning Commission meeting in September. The public comment hearing on the Revised Draft EIR for Valero’s Crude-by-Rail project drew a full-house crowd in the Benicia City Council Chambers. MIKE JORY — TIMES-HERALD FILE PHOTO
It was a welcome surprise that Irma Wijojo, reporter for the Vallejo Times-Herald, included Valero Crude By Rail in her 12/28/15 story, 2015: Benicia sees changes, development.
The article shows a nice photo of the September Benicia Planning Commission hearing and gives nine paragraphs on the crude by rail proposal. I recall that Widjojo attended and reported on the hearing then. She writes, “Hundreds attended the meeting voicing their support and opposition to the project.”
She goes on to point out that “The Revised DEIR concluded that project would cause ‘significant and unavoidable’ impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials.”
Nice, only I wish she could’ve covered the ongoing work of Benicia opponents of the project. We’ve been busy and productive all year – aren’t we part of the story?
FAIRFIELD DAILY REPUBLIC Summary of 1/1/16 article
Today, Fairfield Daily Republic reporter Kevin W. Green posted one in a series of stories about 2015: Top Stories of 2015: Valero crude-by-rail plan chugs along Solano political tracks. Green summarizes Valero’s proposal without any critique, quotes City Planner Amy Million and describes the governmental processes surrounding the environmental report. He finishes by detailing some of State Senator Lois Wolk’s good work on oil train safety issues, as well as that of U.S. Rep. John Garamendi. Local and regional opponents were not a part of the story.
Our Benicia Herald has undergone serious setbacks following a mass exodus of its editor and reporters in September of this year. So I was happy to see today’s story by reporter Nick Sestanovich, “2015 in review: Crude-by-rail debate enters fourth year.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.