SACRAMENTO BEE: Refining company reportedly backs away from California oil train lawsuit

Repost from The Sacramento Bee

Refining company reportedly backs away from California oil train lawsuit

By Tony Bizjak, December 22, 2016
Valero operates a major oil refinery in Benicia.
Valero operates a major oil refinery in Benicia. Photo: Manny Crisostomo

Valero Refining Co. appears to have backed away from its threat to sue Benicia over that city’s refusal to allow the company to bring oil to its bayside refinery via trains.

Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin said she received a phone call earlier this week from a Valero attorney telling her the Texas-based oil company has decided it will not challenge the city in court over the city’s refusal to give Valero a building permit for an oil transfer station.

Valero officials could not be reached for comment Thursday morning.

The project would have involved transporting up to two 50-car oil trains a day through Northern California, including downtown Sacramento, Roseville, West Sacramento and Davis en route to Benicia.

After four years of sometimes rancorous debate, the Benicia City Council voted unanimously in September to reject Valero’s permit request. Several council members said they acknowledged expressions of safety concerns from residents and leaders in the Sacramento region, but focused their decision on local safety concerns in Benicia.

The city issued findings that the project “would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons residing and working in the adjacent neighborhood, and detrimental to properties and improvements in the vicinity.”

Valero officials initially called the city’s refusal illegal. “There are no legal grounds on which to deny Valero’s permit application,” a Valero attorney said in a letter to the city the week after the council vote.

City officials said they girded for what they feared would be an expensive lawsuit, and took the unusual step of publicly asking oil shipment opponents for financial help should a lawsuit be filed.

On Monday, Benicia City Attorney McLaughlin said she got a “courtesy call” from a Valero attorney, Diane Sinclair, telling her the oil giant wants to maintain good relations with Benicia. The Valero Refinery, on a hillside east of downtown, has been in operation since 1968. Valero is the largest employer in the city.

“(She) said they have decided not to sue the city,” McLaughlin said. “They want to maintain good relations with the city. They didn’t want to have this damage that.”

Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson said she is pleased by Valero’s decision to put an end to the saga, and called Valero a valuable member of the community.

“I look forward to the promise of those good community relations now that we can put this ill-advised project behind us,” Patterson said in an email to The Bee. “There are many opportunities for us to work together” on air quality and sustainable development issues.

Crude oil train projects have become controversial in North America in recent years. Fracking technology has opened vast new oil fields in North Dakota and elsewhere, leading to dramatic increases of shipments via train.

The increase has led to repeated train derailments and explosions. The worst of those accidents killed 47 people in a Canadian town three years ago.

Federal transportation officials have attempted to increase oil train safety via stricter regulations, but officials in cities along rail lines, including Sacramento, say federal officials have not done enough.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments, which includes county and city leaders in the region, sent several letters to Benicia during the deliberations, supporting that city’s legal right to say no to Valero, if it chose to, and pointing out concerns about rail safety issues.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article122444099.html#storylink=cpy

BREAKING: Valero gives notice that it will NOT sue Benicia

By Roger Straw, December 21, 2016
[Later: see also, the Sacramento Bee story.  – RS]

Benicia City Attorney announces that Valero Refinery will not sue over the City’s decision to deny Crude by Rail proposal

benicia_logoDuring announcements early in the Benicia City Council meeting last night, City Attorney Heather McLaughlin announced that Valero Refinery’s attorney has advised that the refinery does not intend to take the City to court over its decision to deny Crude by Rail.

Below is a 1½ minute video clip of City Manager McLaughlin’s four announcements on December 20.  The Valero announcement comes 4th, the final announcement.  (Note that Google Chrome viewing of City video is spotty – best viewed on Internet Explorer.)  A transcript of McLaughlin’s announcement follows below.

Transcript of Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin’s Dec. 20 announcement regarding Valero’s notice that they would not file suit against the City of Benicia:

On the final item,”CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION” – on the Valero case.  I put this one on here because I had word from the Valero attorney that they were thinking about filing suit against us on the Crude by Rail project.  But … I’m so happy, it’s like a best Christmas present ever…  yesterday, that Diane Sinclair called and said that they were not going to file suit against the City because they want to maintain positive relations with the City.  So I thanked them for their courtesy, in letting us know ahead of time that they were planning on it, and also letting us know ahead of time that they weren’t going to do it.  So that really eases up the work load on staff.  So thank you.

Video of the entire Council meeting may be viewed on the City’s website at http://benicia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=829.

Benicia Election Results – FINAL COUNT, 12/2/16, Reception & Swearing In on Dec. 6

By Roger Straw, December 2, 2016
[Editor: The sweep of local elections by three candidates who strongly opposed Valero Crude By Rail is to be celebrated. Our next four years in Benicia will hopefully be witness to a new majority on Council, with a vision for progressive values.  – RS]

Solano County seal (400x400)The Solano County Registrar of Voters issued a FINAL day’s end report at 4:50pm Friday 12/02. Mayor Patterson has won re-election. Steve Young has been elected and Tom Campbell has been re-elected to the City Council.

A public reception for incoming and outgoing elected officials will be held at City Hall, 250 East L Street, at 6 PM on Tuesday, December 6, followed by a swearing in ceremony and a Council vote for Vice Mayor at the Council meeting.

ep-vjot-h_2016-11-05
Elizabeth Patterson

Mayor Elizabeth Patterson‘s margin of victory over challenger Mark Hughes nearly tripled since the original count, increasing from 109 votes on the morning after the election, to 332. Hughes phoned Mayor Patterson on the day after the election to concede.

Steve Young & Tom Campbell, Benicia City Council
Steve Young & Tom Campbell

City Councilmember-elect Steve Young was the top vote-getter by a margin of 292 votes over
second-place re-elected Tom Campbell and 808 votes over unseated Councilmember Christina Strawbridge. Traditionally in Benicia, the Council candidate with the most votes becomes Vice Mayor until the next election cycle. Congratulations, Vice-mayor-elect Young !

monica-brown-229
Monica Brown

Solano County Supervisor-elect Monica Brown defeated Mike Ioakimedes by 3616 votes (18463 Brown to 14847 Ioakimedes).

Here is a table showing Benicia details, taken from Steve Young’s website:

City Council (top two are elected)
Candidate Total votes Vote % Election day Vote by mail Pro-visional
Steve Young 6720 26.82 2022 4472 226
Tom Campbell 6428 25.66 1788 4479 161
Christina Strawbridge 5912 23.59 1604 4134 174
Lionel Largaespada 4099 16.36 1233 2718 148
George Oakes 1805 7.20 565 1173 67
Write-in 96 0.38 33 59 4
Over Votes 16 2 14 0
Under Votes 6334 2121 3733 480
Mayor
 Candidate Total votes   Vote % Election day  Vote by mail  Pro-visional
Elizabeth Patterson 7548 50.96 2216 5056 276
Mark Hughes  7216 48.72 2202 4761 253
Write In 47 0.32 15 32 0
Over Votes 1 1 0 0
Under Votes 893 250 542 101