CC 2015-09-22 Supplemental InfoMEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: HEATHER K. WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
DATE:
AGENDA ITEM 8.h.-SEPTEMBER 22,2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE ELM STREET DOG PARK
AGREEMENT
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
Council Member Guthrie has asked that the following information be provided for the
City Council's consideration at the September 22, 2015 meeting with regard to Item 8.h-
Consideration of Approval of the Elm Street Dog Park Agreement.
Section 12.20.080.C.2 of the proposed Dog Park Rules Ordinance (Item 11.a) contains
a provision whereby the Director of Recreation Services is given the authority to
designate City employees and Dog Park volunteers who are authorized to issue
warning and exclusion notices. In accordance with Section 12.20.080.C.2, it has been
suggested that the draft Elm Street Dog Park Agreement be modified to clarify that the
Elm Street Dog Park Association ("ESDPA") is authorized to issue warning and
exclusion notices.
As such, we propose the following revision to Section 3.H of the draft Dog Park
Agreement:
H. ESDPA is authorized pursuant to Section 12.20.080.C.2 of the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code to issue warning and exclusion notices. ESDPA will inform the
users of the Dog Park of the Dog Park rules and will initially enforce all Dog Park
rules, provided, however, that members of ESDPA shall not engage in
confrontations with members of the public using the Dog Park if they do not
voluntarily comply with Dog Park rules. In such case, City Staff and/or the Arroyo
Grande Police Department shall be contacted if formal enforcement is required.
CITY COUNCIL
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION -ITEM 8.h.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
Staff is also recommending that Item 8.h (Dog Park Agreement) be pulled from the
consent agenda and heard after Item 11.a (Ordinance) so that if there are any
modifications to the Ordinance, which need to be reflected in the Agreement, those
revisions can be made prior to consideration of the Agreement. In addition, while we do
not anticipate any modifications being made to the Ordinance once it is introduced, we
recommend the approval of the Dog Park Agreement be contingent upon the adoption
of the Dog Park Ordinance and that the Agreement not be executed until the effective
date of the Ordinance.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIANNE THOMPSON, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 11.b. SEPTEMBER 22,2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
CONSIDERATION OF COMMENT LETTERS REGARDING THE
PHILLIPS 66 RAIL SPUR EXTENSION PROJECT AND RAIL SAFETY,
AND INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER CONCURRENT AND
MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS RELATED TO OIL PRODUCTION
DATE: . SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
Attached is correspondence received regarding the above referenced agenda item.
cc: City Attorney
Community Development Director
City Clerk
Public Review Binder
Dianne Thompson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms Thompson--
Charles Varni
Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:32 PM
Dianne Thompson
No to oil trains
Would you kindly forward this statement regarding the Phillips 66 oil train terminal project by the SLO League
of Women Voters. I think it represents a very honorable, fair, and reasoned position and hope the council will
find it helpful in its deliberations this evening. ·
See you all later.
Charles Varni
http://www .sanluisobispo.com/20 15/08/11/3 7 57542/no-to-oil-trains.html
1
The Tribune
Letter to the Editor
No to oil trains
BY MARGUERITE BADER
President, Le<lgue of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo Countyi\ugust ll. 2015
The League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo County shares the concerns of many in our
community regarding the Phillips 66 rail spur project and the risks to public safety that it entails.
Increased activity resulting from this project will expose hundreds of thousands of people and large
areas of environmental sensitivity to increased risk of accident and damage.
Locally, the main rail line through San Luis Obispo County is one of the windiest and steepest in the
state, with trestles and bridges in serious need of upgrading. Schools, hospitals and homes along
the rail line in cities throughout our county would be at risk.
The serious safety issues raised by this project require that the county's planning commission and
board of supervisors insist upon full and enforceable mitigation of these risks before approving the
project. We say "enforceable" because it is unclear that county authorities can require structural
studies of and upgrades to infrastructure or enforce speed limits on trains coming through our
county.
If county officials cannot enforce mitigation of the dangers this project presents to our communities,
they should not approve the project. To do so would be to risk real harm to all of us.
Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/08/11/3757542/no-to-oil-trains.html#storylink=cpy
RECEMD
SEP 21 2015
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
September 19, 2015 · •.
RE: 9/22/15 Council meeting, Item ll.b. -Consideration of Comment Letters Regardillg
the Phillips 66 Rail Spur Extension Project and Rail Safety
Dear Mayor Hill and Councilmembers,
Thank you for taking up this issue. The Santa Lucia Chapter represents the Sierra Club's 2,000
members in San Luis Obispo County. We are pleased to convey their concerns regarding the
Phillips 66 oil by rail project.
We must point out that the drafts of both recommended letters, as written, aie out of date.
The policy recommendations on rail safety recommended by the California League of_ Cities
were developed in February 2015, during the drafting process for the new federal rule. The
Department of Transportation released its final rule on tank car safety on May 1. Hence, staff's
"draft comment letter as suggested by the League of California Cities" is four months too late.
We also point out that the League's recommendations to the Dept. of Transportation that the new
40mph speed limit for high-hazard trains be mandated in all areas and that the new federal rule
"mandate electronically controlled braking systems," "quickly phase out unsafe tank cars" and
"provide more information to first responders" were ignored or rejected when the rule was
finalized. Railroads will be allowed to take up to ten years for the phase out and retrofit or
replacement of unsafe tank cars, and can take up until 2021 to install electronically controlled
braking systems. A new 40 mph speed limit has been set only for "high threat urban areas."
Forty miles per hour is more than twice the rated "puncture velocity" of even the new tank cars
that the DOT will (in some cases) eventually require. Oil trains carrying millions of gallons of
explosive crude will continue to travel at 50 mph across North America except in a small number
ofthose "high threat urban areas," none of which are in San Luis Obispo County. The new safety
rule gutted public notification requirements, removing an existing requirement that citizens and
emergency responders be informed about where these trains are running and when.
We suggest that it would be futile to send the proposed letter to the Secretary of Transportation,
as it constitutes recommendations for inclusion in a federal rule that has already been adopted
and which largely rejected those recommendations. As the new federal rule does not alleviate the
concerns that have arisen around the proposed Phillips 66 project, it would be best for the City to
focus instead on local action it can take on behalf of your citizens regarding the potential impacts
of the project.
In this regard, the draft letter to the County Planning Commission needs to be updated. The dated
references to support for the League of California Cities' rejected recommendations and urging
their i.J1clusion in the fmal rule should be removed. Also, the draft letter from the City of Pismo
Beach attached to your staff report and referred to in staff's own draft-letter ("The City joins with
the community of Pismo Beach regarding heightened concerns about rail safety and potential
environmental threats ... ") is not, in fact, the letter that Pismo Beach is sending to the· Co~ty. At
1
its September 15 meeting, the Pismo Beach City Council agreed that Mayor Higginbotham
should send a revised draft of the letter to the County, stating her opposition to the project unless
all of the eleven Class 1 "significant and unavoidable" environmental impacts identified in the
Revised Draft EIR can be mitigated.
We suggest the City follow this common sense conditional approach to this issue. This would
entail revising the draft letter to the County Planning Commission, striking the last paragraph
("We appreciate the magnitude of the task the Planning Commission has in reviewing the Project
and we trust that rail safety aspects will be weighed appropriately during your consideration")
and replacing it with a specific request. Urge the Planning Commission to deny the project unless
it can assure that full and enforceable mitigation ofthe project's safety issues will be
implemented and that all Class 1 environmental impacts will be mitigated.
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
Andrew Christie, Director
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
2
MARILYN S HANSEN JD
PO Box 3073
Slie{{ Beacli California 93448
Sptember 16 2015
City of Arroyo Grande FAX: 473-0386
City Clerk
City Council
Community Development Department
300 East Branch
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
~EC~IViED
SEP 2 ·1 ·'Jr;'-. ,£., .. :)
:CITV(Of A'mOVOQAoo;~ :
Cm!!Mm;mv tl£1-~f'E!'·IT .~
Request for the City to Urge the County of SLO, for a Decision of
Denial of the Phillips 66 Rail Extension Project
To: THE CITY COUNCIL & OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE,
I own the land and buildings at 160-174 Station Way, Arroyo Grande.
This is an urgent request for the City of Arroyo Grande to send written
correspondence to the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors, expressing concerns about the safety impacts of the
increased frequency of oil trains along freight line corridors, and a specific
request for the county to deny the project.
We just had a devastating pipeline oil spill at Refugio Beach, and
pipelines are far safer than trains.
For the entire California Central Coast, the Phillips 66 project poses a
direct risk to the public safety and environment.
In addition to possible train derailment and explosion, the proposed
oil train facility will create unacceptably significant and unavoidable levels
of air pollution, including toxic sulfur dioxide and cancer-causing
chemicals. . fJ _; / (Jbd1~cwrJ f'A~p7VIgj~ T~Aif)/!
jhof ;!lev~ ,yJo 0/wV"
. 12. \p/11 ~/<
Manlyn Hm:se;
0
fp£ar/, O J)O vJ jT ~ 1 f 1
J Jefl~r ~~
Sincerely,