Category Archives: Local Regulation

Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Phillips 66, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Maria Refinery, Take Action

SLO: Another hearing scheduled for opponents of Phillips 66 oil-by-rail plan

Repost from KCBX FM, Central Coast Public Radio
[Editor:  Significant quote: “I think that they have a strong argument in the sense that we do need every job. We do need well paid jobs. But, we’re being asked to make a choice between the long-term health and safety of our community and these specific jobs. And that’s a choice no American should ever have to make.”  – Eddie Scher of ForestEthics. Hearings will continue on February 25.  – RS]

Another hearing scheduled for opponents of Phillips 66 oil-by-rail plan

By Daniel Park, February 5, 2016

KCBX_listenThe San Luis Obispo Planning Commission wrapping up public comment Friday after hearing from hundreds of people voicing opposition to an oil-by-rail plan over a two day period.

Not everyone has been heard though, so commissioners must carry those over to the next scheduled meeting on February 25, 2016.

Opposition to the Phillips 66 plan to increase the number of trains carrying crude oil to refinery near Nipomo got a major boost Friday as well.

Phillips 66 plans to bring crude oil by train to their Santa Maria refinery. CREDIT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Opponents received a key endorsement, as the California Coastal Commission sent a letter to the SLO Planning Commission urging members to reject the proposal based on adverse impacts to the environment.

If the Planning Commission votes no and the company appeals, the proposal could eventually end up before the Coastal Commission, which has regulatory authority over coastal land use.

Supporters say the proposal’s economic benefits would outweigh the potential costs.

Phillips 66 spokesman Dennis Nuss said Friday, the plan will provide jobs and maintain the area’s energy production.

“There’s been a decline in both onshore and offshore California crude oil productions, so additional reliable sources of crude are required to ensure that the refinery can continue to meet those critical energy needs and support jobs in the community,” Nuss said.

If approved, Phillips 66 said it will hire 200 people for construction jobs, as well as 12 permanent positions in its refinery.

Opponents say jobs aren’t worth the project’s potential damage.

Eddie Scher, the spokesperson for ForestEthics, an environmental organization that demands environmental responsibility from corporations, said that the choice between jobs and the environment isn’t fair.

“I think that they have a strong argument in the sense that we do need every job. We do need well paid jobs,” Scher said. “But, we’re being asked to make a choice between the long-term health and safety of our community and these specific jobs. And that’s a choice no American should ever have to make.”

Commissioners won’t make a decision until after hearing from everyone later this month.

Phillips 66 says it will pursue other options, should it’s proposal fail.

Benicia Planning Commission, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Environmental review, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Local Regulation, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) highly critical of Valero oil train EIR

By Roger Straw, February 5, 2016

BREAKING: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) highly critical of Valero oil train EIR

SACOGThe Benicia Independent is in receipt of a Sacramento Area Council of Government letter sent on February 4, 2016 to the City of Benicia, but not as yet posted on the City’s website. The letter is severely critical of the City’s Final EIR, and calls for the Benicia Planning Commission to “provide full and adequate responses to our comment letters,” and “to fully evaluate all measures to mitigate the significant environmental impacts that this Project will inevitably have on our communities and our residents.”

The letter is signed by SACOG Immediate Past Chair Don Saylor.  SACOG represents 22 cities and 6 counties in the Sacramento area.

The letter begins by summarizing  two previous letters sent to Benicia, one in 2014 commenting on the original Draft EIR, and another in 2015 commenting on the Revised DEIR.  The 2015 letter claimed that the City did not adequately respond to their first letter.  “…we submitted a second comment letter citing the mandate in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to describe all mitigation measures that could, if implemented, minimize significant environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15 I26(c), 15126.1 (a).) We urged the City to adopt all feasible mitigation measures that will protect our communities before the catastrophic events forecast by the RDEIR occur. We noted that nearly one quarter of our region’s population lives within one-half mile of the crude oil shipments.”

This new 2016 letter continues with criticism of the Final Draft EIR, “…we appreciate that the City finally acknowledges the substantial risk to our region resulting from the crude oil shipments. However, the FEIR still fails to adopt a single mitigation measure to address the impacts of the Project and the FEIR fails to adequately respond to our letters.”

The letter concludes with five detailed examples of “the inadequacies and misstatements in the Responses to our comment letters.”

Taken together, these inadequacies point out what may be understood as “fatal flaws,” indicating that the EIR should be revised and recirculated yet again, or thrown out for a fresh start.

Or … as in my opinion, the project should simply be dropped.

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Local Regulation, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

BREAKING: City of Davis urges Benicia to refuse to certify Valero oil train EIR

By Roger Straw, February 5, 2016

BREAKING: City of Davis urges Benicia to refuse to certify Valero oil train EIR

City_of_DavisThe Benicia Independent is in receipt of a City of Davis letter sent on February 3, 2016 to the City of Benicia, but not as yet posted on the City’s website. The letter is severely critical of the City’s Final EIR, and calls for the Benicia Planning Commission to decline to certify the massive 3-volume document.

If Benicia declines to certify the EIR, Valero would have to revise the environmental study yet again, or withdraw.  Many believe that Valero would instead appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the Benicia City Council in hopes of a more favorable hearing.

The Davis letter is signed by Assistant City Manager Mike Webb, who writes, “These trains will travel…on the UPRR main railroad track which runs through the city of Davis, immediately adjacent to the Davis downtown area and to residential areas. The rail line also runs immediately adjacent to the University of California Davis campus.”

The heart of the letter reads, “Davis requests that Benicia reject the adequacy of the Final EIR (FEIR), decline to certify the FEIR, and send it back to staff to fully analyze mitigation measures for safety, as set forth in Davis’ and SACOG’s earlier letters and then to impose the measures suggested by SACOG and Davis, as well as any additional measures that are feasible.”

Webb calls upon Benicia to act responsibly: “As we have seen occur in other communities, a derailment and the potential for fire, explosion, and train upset is real and should not be ignored. It is the obligation of public agencies to safeguard all their communities to the best of their abilities.”

The letter continues with highly critical comments about the EIR, “Davis submits that the Final ElR is legally inadequate….When a lead agency disagrees with a comment, the response must address comment in detail. The lead agency must provide a good-faith, reasoned analysis; conclusory statements without facts are not adequate. The FElR fails to meet this  standard.”

Giving two detailed examples of the FEIR’s failure to address Davis’ previous comments, the letter concludes, “Benicia and Valero have the authority and ability to adopt measures that will be effective. The City of Davis again urges Benicia, for the safety of all the residents of this region, to reject the Final ElR as inadequate under CEQA and to analyze and adopt the feasible mitigation measures that are available in order to reduce the significant adverse impacts posed by this Project.”

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Local Regulation, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

BREAKING: Yolo County urges Benicia to mitigate impacts before approving Valero oil train project

By Roger Straw, February 5, 2016

BREAKING: Yolo County urges Benicia to mitigate impacts before approving Valero oil train project

Yolo_CountyThe Benicia Independent is in receipt of a Yolo County letter sent on January 26, 2016 to the City of Benicia, but not as yet posted on the City’s website.  The letter is severely critical of the City’s Final EIR, and calls for the Benicia Planning Commission to insist on measures that would offset significant environmental, health and safety impacts to communities along the Union-Pacific rail line.

Jim Provenza, Chair of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors writes, “Although the City’s revised analysis correctly acknowledges that the project will have significant impacts to communities along the Union-Pacific rail line, the County is concerned that these significant impacts are not sufficiently mitigated. Indeed, the City eschews its responsibility to consider possible mitigation measures on the incorrect premise that any such efforts would be preempted by federal law.”

The letter goes on to reference a letter sent to Benicia by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), in which the legal case is made that such mitigations are not preempted by federal law.

The letter concludes, “In light of the significant impacts identified in the Revised Draft EIR, we ask that the City of Benicia reconsider its position on preemption and not approve the project until the impacts are mitigated. SACOG’s October 30, 2015 letter provides mitigation measures that are both feasible and necessary to lessen the impact on our local communities. Without these mitigation measures in place, the project should not be approved.”