Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

KAT BLACK: Listing of over 64 orgs, public agencies and officials on record with major concerns or opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, April 6, 2016
[Editor: BSHC Chairperson Kat Black spent her entire 5 minute public comment at Monday’s hearing listing over 64 entities (below) that have raised serious questions about the adequacy of the EIR and/or the wisdom of granting Valero a use permit.  The list is most impressive, substantiating the April 4 public hearing comment of Davis Environmental Attorney Don Mooney, who said in his 25 years of reviewing 200-300 matters such as this, he has never seen such uniform and widespread opposition.  – RS]

Organizations, Public Agencies and Public Officials on record with major concerns or opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

Comment Before the Benicia City Council
By Katherine Black
April 4, 2016

Good evening Madam Chair and Members of the Council. My name is Katherine Black and I am the Chairperson for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.

I have spoken on many occasions against this project before the Planning Commission on various topics, so my comments are already in the record. I just wanted to read a list of organizations, public agencies and public officials that have either had major concerns or have spoken out directly against this project. This is a partial list and are in no particular order. They are:

1. Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
2. Solano County
3. The Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts, which consist of

1. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
2. The Butte County Air Quality Management District
3. The Feather River Air Quality Management District
4. The Placer County Air Pollution Control District
5. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
6. The County of Shasta
7. and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

4. University of California, Davis
5. California Office of Spill Prevention & Response, and the California Public Utilities Commission
6. Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Amtrak)
7. California Department of Transportation
8. San Francisco Bay Keeper
9. Safe Fuel and Energy Resources – California
10. Fischer Communications
11. Cool Davis
12. 350 Sacramento
13. 350 Bay Area
14. 350 Marin
15. Communities for a Better Environment – both legally and technically
16. Natural Resources Defense Council – both legally and technically
17. Phil Serna, Sacramento County Supervisor
18. Iron Workers 378 – who withheld support, which is significant because Valero had previously held their community forums on this at their venue
19. Stand – formerly known as ForestEthics
20. The Sierra Club
21. The Center for Biological Diversity
22. Sacramento Area Council of Governments (aka SACOG), and which is an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento Region. Its members include the counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba and the 22 cities within, who are:

1. Auburn
2. Citrus Heights
3. Colfax
4. Davis
5. El Dorado County
6. Elk Grove
7. Folsom
8. Galt
9. Isleton
10. Lincoln
11. Live Oak
12. Loomis
13. Marysville
14. Placer County
15. Placerville
16. Rancho Cordova
17. Rocklin
18. Roseville
19. Sacramento
20. Sacramento County
21. Sutter County
22. West Sacramento
23. Wheatland
24. Winters
25. Woodland
26. Yolo County
27. Yuba City
28. Yuba County

To continue with the list:

23. Yolo County Board of Supervisors
24. Martinez Environmental Group
25. Richmond Progressive Alliance
26. Global Community Monitor
27. Expert Dr. Petra Pless, from Pless Environmental, Inc.
28. Bay Localize
29. The City of Albany
30. The City of Briggs
31. The City of Briggs Fire Department
32. The City of Gridley
33. The City of Gridley Fire Department
34. The County of Nevada Community Development Agency
35. The Town of Trukee
36. The City of West Sacramento
37. Shasta County Department of Resource Management
38. Community Science Institute
39. Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment (aka CRUDE)
40. The City of Davis Foundation
41. Sunflower Alliance
42. Pittsburg Defense Council
43. Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
44. Asian Pacific Environmental Network
45. Bay Area Refinery Corridor Collation
46. Attorney General Kamala Harris
47. Other attorneys from 5 different organizations – NRDC, CBE, SF Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club
48. Expert Dr. Phillis Fox
49. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (aka BAAQMD) – individually
50. Feather River Air Quality Management District – individually
51. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District – individually
52. The Placer County Air Pollution Control District – individually
53. Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District – individually
54. The Goodman Group
55. Yolo Climate Action

We just heard from:

56. Jessie Arreguin, Berkeley City Council member
57. Alejandro Soto-Vigil, City of Berkeley
58. A representative from State Sen. Lois Wolk’s office
59. Vice Mayor Linda Maio, Berkeley
60. Ellen Cockerin, Sacramento School District Board
61. And lastly – our own Benicia Planning Commission

To add to that, there are thousands and thousands of letters from individuals opposing the project that have been submitted as part of the record, which come from Benicians, neighboring cities, Californians, Americans and even those concerned literally around the world. Now, we also have 4,081 petition signatures of which 1,204 are Benicians.

Are all of these people, organizations, public agencies and public officials wrong? The world is watching Benicia. Think about what this city will look like to your public official colleagues and the others I have mentioned. This city is at a precipice. We can either be the city that is part of the problem by going forward the way the world has been going, which has produced global warming. Or we can be the city that says no – not now, not on my watch, and be part of the solution to it all.

Please do not grant Valero a delay and please uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny this project.

Note: These were received after I spoke

62. League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay
63. Expert Scott Cashen, Senior Independent Biological Resources Consultant
64. Russell Hands, M.D., Chief of Surgery, Kasier, Napa, Solano County

Benicia City Council, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Local Regulation, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, Yolo County

BENICIA HERALD: Crude by Rail opponents cite large opposition list

Appearing as the front page headline story in today’s Benicia Herald
(no online version, so no link)

Crude by Rail opponents cite large opposition list

By Elizabeth Warnimont, April 6, 2016

At the first of the current round of scheduled hearings regarding Valero Benicia Refinery’s Crude by Rail project at City Hall Monday, a number of government agencies and other groups came forward to express their opposition to the project, adding to a growing list of individuals, government entities and private groups to register their objections. A few individuals and groups also spoke in favor of the project.

During the public comment period, Catherine Black, chairwoman for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, recited a partial list of groups currently opposing the project. Organizations, public agencies and public officials who have either had major concerns or have spoken out directly against the project, she stated, include, in no particular order:

  • Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
  • Solano County
  • Air Quality Management Districts (AQMD) including Bay Area, Butte County, Feather River, Sacramento Metropolitan, County of Shasta and Yolo/Solano AQMDs
  • Placer County Air Pollution Control District
  • UC Davis
  • California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
  • The California Utilities Commission
  • The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
  • Amtrak
  • The California Department of Transportation
  • San Francisco Bay Keepers
  • Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California
  • Cool Davis
  • 350 Sacramento
  • 350 Bay Area
  • 350 Marin
  • Communities for a Better Environment
  • National Resources Defense Council
  • Phil Serna, Sacramento County supervisor
  • Ironworkers 378
  • Sierra Club
  • Center for Biological Diversity
  • Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento region including El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Yolo and Yerba counties
  • The Yolo County Board of Supervisors
  • Martinez Environmental Group
  • Richmond Progressive Alliance
  • Global Community Monitor
  • the city of Albany
  • the city of Briggs and its fire department
  • the city of Gridley and its fire department
  • County of Nevada Community Development Agency
  • the town of Truckee
  • the city of West Sacramento
  • the Shasta County Department of Resource Management
  • Community Science Institute
  • Rodeo United to Defend the Environment
  • City of Davis Foundation
  • Sunflower Alliance
  • City of Pittsburg Defense Council
  • Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice
  • Asian Pacific Environmental Network
  • Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition
  • Attorney General Kamala Harris
  • Yolo Climate Action
  • Berkeley City Council
  • State Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis)
  • Berkeley Vice Mayor Linda Maio
  • The Sacramento School District Board and the Benicia Planning Commission

Numerous supporting documents were also submitted Monday, including examples of court rulings relevant to the question of federal pre-emption.

“We acknowledge that there is a key value for domestic energy production,” Don Saylor, a representative of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and Sacramento Area Council’s board of directors, said. “That we depend on installations like the Valero refinery here in Benicia to power our economy. We also understand the federal role in railroad regulation. However, we have provided you with legal framework that we hope you consider, that points out your competing authority as a local, land use decision-making body.”

“The bodies that I represent are asking that you uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the appeal before you,” he added.

Many of the concerns voiced at the hearing echoed those of previous hearings, including worn train tracks and heavy (over 150 tons each) crude-carrying trains, populations and environmentally sensitive areas within the “blast zone” that would be destroyed in the event of a derailment involving fire, air pollution from train exhaust, and traffic back-ups from Bayshore Road extending onto Interstate 680.

Concerns that stood out more Monday than they had at previous hearings, in the view of this reporter, included the long-term and widespread impact the Council’s decision will have for the state of California in general, and some particularly vulnerable populations lying in close vicinity to the tracks that would carry the crude-containing rail cars, including schools, homes and downtown areas.

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is the document that contains reference to all of these concerns, along with the applicant’s (Valero’s) responses to most of them. It is a three-volume work that does not number its pages but adds up to a total of 5.25 inches of paper, printed on both sides.   The document, as well as written and video documentation of City Council and Planning Commission meetings and hearings on the subject, are available to view online at the City of Benicia website, ci.benicia.us.ca or by request at the City Clerk’s office at City Hall, located at 250 East L St.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Davis CA, Dixon CA, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Sacramento CA, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, Yolo County

DAVIS ENTERPRISE: Benicia hears oil-train concerns from Davisites

Repost from the Davis Enterprise
[Editor:  I know Lynne as a strong advocate against Valero’s Crude By Rail proposal.  Her fair-minded coverage of both sides of the debate in this article is amazing and admirable.  A good overview of the hearing on Monday.  – RS]

Benicia hears oil-train concerns from Davisites

By Lynne Nittler, April 06, 2016

BENICIA — Davis was well-represented at a Benicia City Council hearing Monday for Valero Oil’s crude-by-rail project. Of the approximately 48 people who spoke, 12 came from Davis or Dixon, and another six were from Sacramento.

The speakers voiced their opposition to the oil company’s proposal to expand its refinery and accept 100 rail cars daily full of North American crude oil on a route that comes directly through downtown Davis.

The hearing continues with more public testimony tonight plus April 18 and 19 at the City Chambers in Benicia.

The evening began with a rally of those opposed to the project counter-balanced by a gathering of Valero workers and supporters of the project. A busload of 23 people from Sacramento stopped to pick up seven more in Davis, arriving just as the hearing began in the packed chambers.

Officials were allowed to speak first, beginning with Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor, who also represented the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. He traced Yolo County’s effort over the past three years to communicate the serious safety concerns and to offer possible mitigation measures that were acknowledged but not addressed in the EIR.

He said 500,000 of the 2.4 million residents in the SACOG area — the counties of Yolo, Sacramento, Sutter, Yuba, Placer and El Dorado — live in the blast zone of the railroads, i.e., within a quarter-mile radius of the tracks. Of those, 260,000 are residents, 200,000 work in the area and 28,000 are students.

While acknowledging that Valero and its jobs are important, Saylor emphasized that this project “requires a shared commitment to protecting public safety.” He said the project should not be approved until the safety concerns are resolved.

Matt Jones of the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District represented all seven districts that have responded jointly in writing to three versions of the environmental impact report for the Valero project. He said the EIR documents the impacts correctly, but fails to offer or respond to any mitigations, even when the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD offered staff time to work out an off-site mitigation plan.

Jones reminded the Benicia council that San Luis Obispo County is examining a similar crude-by-rail proposal, and Phillips 66 has voluntarily offered such off-site mitigations.

Eric Lee, a city of Davis planner, made a plea for Benicia council members to uphold the decision of their Planning Commission, which voted on Feb. 11 not to certify the final environmental impact report and denied Valero’s permit.

He added that Davis believes that legally, the local jurisdictions are not pre-empted by federal rail regulations and that up-rail cities are entitled to have their comments addressed in the EIR.

He concluded by saying that the city of Benicia has a legal obligation to safeguard the public.

“I continue to be concerned about the Valero crude-by-rail project regarding the significant air quality impact,” state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, wrote in a letter to the Benicia council, read by her representative, Alex Pader. Wolk recommended specific steps, and if said they cannot be met, then the project should not move forward.

She reminded the council members that her own obligation is to protect the public from harm, which she has done with two pieces of legislation on oil-train safety, and said their obligation to safeguard the public is no less.

Marilyn Bardet, spokeswoman for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, encouraged the council members to use their ethical judgment, and read all the material from the past years, plus what is pouring in now, to inform themselves at this crucial juncture in the decision-making process. She urged them to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.

After a break, a mix of speakers pro (12) and con (16) spoke for up to five minutes each.

One Valero proponent said America has a tremendous thirst for oil; therefore, don’t we have a responsibility to produce it?
Jasmine Powell, a resident of Benicia, said Valero never risks its outstanding safety record as indicated by its high OSHA ratings.

Michael Wolfe, senior vice president of an engineering services firm, said California crude is increasingly scarce and Alaskan crude is running out as well. Valero is seeking to purchase North American oil to avoid importing more foreign oil. California already imports more foreign crude than any other state, Wolfe said.

Seven other Valero workers and supporters spoke of their trust in Valero’s high safety standards.

On the other side, Frances Burke of Davis spoke of the Planning Commission’s work as “epic,” and made an eloquent plea for the up-rail communities not to be dismissed as collateral damage.

Don Mooney , an environmental lawyer from Davis, said in his 25 years in environmental law, he had not seen a case with more uniform opposition, where so many have stood opposed for the same reasons.

Katherine Black simply read the list of officials and organizations opposing the project for five minutes, including all seven air quality management districts, all 22 cities and six counties who belong to SACOG, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the California attorney general.

The Benicia City Council will hear more testimony tonight.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Sacramento CA, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD: Public comments on Valero’s appeal

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor:  Many thanks to the Vallejo Times-Herald and reporter Irma Widjojo for her late-night service to our communities, covering hearings on this incredibly important issue of statewide and national significance. We can only wish the major news outlets in the Bay Area and Northern California were so inclined.  Oh, and … great photo!  – RS]

Public comments on Valero’s appeal

By Irma Widjojo, 04/05/16, 6:28 PM PDT
Irma Widjojo - Times-HeraldMembers of Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community unravel a scroll of signed petitions against Valero Benicia Refinery 's proposed crude-by-rail project during the group's public comment slot Monday night at the Benicia City Council Chambers.
Members of Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community unravel a scroll of signed petitions against Valero Benicia Refinery ‘s proposed crude-by-rail project during the group’s public comment slot Monday night at the Benicia City Council Chambers. Irma Widjojo — Times-Herald

Benicia >> About 50 people spoke Monday night to voice their opinion on Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposed project as the public comment period of the appeal hearing began.

Like previous public comment periods on the issue, the Benicia City Council Chambers was packed for the hearing, causing a number of people to be asked to listen from the overflow areas.

The City Council is being asked to consider the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Valero’s use permit application for the crude-by-rail project and to not certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report, or EIR.

Elected officials from surrounding areas, representatives from governmental and other agencies and spokesmen for organized groups were allowed to speak first at the meeting.

About 30 people came by a chartered bus from Sacramento and the “uprail” cities to oppose the project and spoke.

A local grassroots organization Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community also used a visual prop during its address in the form of a scroll of papers containing more than 4,080 signatures of those who are against the project.

At a March hearing, an attorney working with Valero on the project said the company intends to send a request for an opinion from the Surface Transportation Board on the issue of federal preemption in relation to the project.

At the end of the hearing, later in April, the council will also decide if it will wait to make a decision on the appeal after the Surface Transportation Board, or STB, returns with a declarative order.

The staff has recommended for the council not to wait because the agency’s decision can be appealed in court and waiting would risk for the EIR to become stale.

Those who support the project are urging the council to wait, while the other side ask for a decision to be made at the end of the hearing.

“Too much money and time have been spent on this process,” a speaker said. “Let’s not postpone it further.”

At stake is the ability for the refinery to bring in two 50-car trains a day carrying up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil. The company’s oil is now being transported into the city by marine vessels and pipeline.

Those who supported the project say Valero has been a good neighbor in Benicia and that the project is needed for the company to remain competitive.

The refinery said the $50 million project would result in about 120 temporary construction jobs and 20 full-time jobs, as well as generate tax revenues for the city.

However, those who are against the project said the risks outweigh the benefits.

In fact, the project EIR states that there are 11 “significant and unavoidable” impacts, though staff and Valero have said they cannot be mitigated because they are rail related and are preempted by federal laws.

The Planning Commission, however, disagreed, and denied the project.

Public comment will resume Wednesday at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 250 E. L St., and the hearing will then continue April 18 and 19, if necessary.

For safe and healthy communities…