The remnants of Phillips 66’s Santa Maria Refinery on the Nipomo Mesa will be removed from 218 acres, but a Sierra Club appeal to protect a large buffer area stands in the way of complete demolition.
“Placing a conservation easement on this land would greatly enhance the restoration efforts contemplated in the [draft environmental impact report] and increase the chance of successful restoration of an environmentally sensitive habitat area as mandated in the county’s local coastal plan,” Conservation Committee Chair Susan Harvey of the Sierra Club’s Santa Lucia chapter wrote to the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission on Oct. 22, 2024.
Two days later, commissioners unanimously certified the final environmental report on the demolition and remediation of the refinery and approved a coastal development permit for the project that hinged on certain conditions. The Sierra Club appealed that decision in November.
Those conditions require Phillips 66 to prioritize carrying out its habitat creation obligations within a 630-acre buffer area that it also owns. The shuttered Santa Maria Refinery sits in the coastal zone within 1,650 acres that Phillips 66 owns. The buffer area rests on the west side of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
The Santa Maria Refinery was a production site for semi-refined liquid petroleum, carbon, and granular sulfur starting in 1955. It held pipelines that transported those partly processed products to the San Francisco Refinery in Contra Costa until the latter stopped processing crude oil altogether.
The energy company applied for a SLO County development plan and coastal development permit approval in August 2022 to demolish the facility. The county accepted the application in March 2023, sparking an environmental review process as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The result: a 714-page draft report released in March 2024.
The Planning Commission convened last October for discussion and permit approval after a months-long public review period.
The local Sierra Club stated that the region known as the Tosco Buffer Area must be protected to sustain the biodiversity of the dunes and provide public access.
The Tosco Refining Company entered into an agreement with the State Parks Off-Road Vehicle (OHV) Division in 1998 to protect the buffer area. Their agreement replaced a previous one in 1980 between State Parks and Unocal, formerly known as Union Oil Company of California.
“The agreement expired after five years, and the land now has no deed restrictions or conservations easements, leaving the dune habitat and sensitive plant species at risk,” Sierra Club’s Harvey wrote.
The SLO County Board of Supervisors will hear the appeal April 29.
The appeal alleged that the buffer area needs conservation because “multiple entities” are interested in converting the refinery property into an extension of the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area.
Friends of Oso Flaco Lake, the Nature Conservancy, and Surfrider Foundation also wrote to the Planning Commission in support of the Sierra Club’s letter prior to permit approval. Twenty-three letters in total urged that buffer area be placed under a conservation easement.
But county staff said all demolition and remediation activities would take place within the Phillips 66 site boundary east of the railway tracks.
Staff also said that the Tosco and State Parks agreement is unrelated to the demolition project. While the agreement initially lasted for five years, it automatically renews annually unless Phillips 66 submits a notice of non-renewal to the state.
The county also refuted the Sierra Club’s allegation that other groups were interested in using the property. The final environmental impact report stated that potential future uses of the site are unknown.
Sierra Club’s second point of appeal rests on the assumption that State Parks could acquire the land and favor off-road driving over other forms of non-motorized recreation.
The staff report stated that it was inappropriate to base land use decisions and conditions of approvals on speculative future uses.
“That development would be subject to land use permitting by the county, which would include an evaluation of the coastal access proposed by State Parks,” staff said.
This article appears in Feb 13-23, 2025.