Tag Archives: Public permitting

Over 700 letters received by the City of Benicia – keep them coming!

By Roger Straw, Benicia Independent Editor, October 20, 2015

City publishes new letters in 4 Parts

The City of Benicia published a monster of new public comments today, approximately 720 letters, mostly opposing crude by rail.  See below.

Note: The City of Albany documents in Part 1 are especially strong, including a recommendation to “reconsider” and a strongly worded multi-page resolution opposing crude by rail.

  • Public Comments October 10- October 16, 2015 Part 1
    8.5MB, 200 pages, including the index to Parts 1-4, and important letters by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (p. 18), the City of Albany, CA (p. 19), and the City of Biggs, CA (p. 25, note Biggs NOT Briggs, CA)
    Public Comments October 10- October 16, 2015 Part 2
    9.5MB, 230 pages
    Public Comments October 10- October 16, 2015 Part 3
    9.7MB, 235 pages
    Public Comments October 10- October 16, 2015 Part 4 
    6.0MB, 106 pages.
    NOTE:  These pages do not make it easy to find a letter from a particular individual.  The only “index” provided is at the beginning of Part 1, and it does not show page numbers or Part numbers.   You will have to SEARCH on a name in Part 1, then guess in which Part that person’s letter will appear.  You may approximate like this: the index of commenters’ names comprises the first 17 pages of Part 1.  If your commenter’s name appears on page 1-4 of the index (top of Part 1), then the letter is likely lower in Part 1.  Pages 5-9 in the index show names of commenters whose letters mostly appear in Part 2.  Pages 10-14 of the index refer to letters in Part 3.  The remainder, pages 15-17 in the index, are in Part 4.
  • Public Comments October 3-9, 2015
    The link will download a 20-page document from the City’s website, a 1.1MB download, including a very interesting letter from the City of Gridley, California (pp. 2-5 in the PDF).
  • Public Comments September 26-October 2, 2015
    The link will download a 297-page document from the City’s website, an 11MB download.  Most of this is letters generated by the ForestEthics online comment generator.   (See also the Center for Biological Diversity online letter generator.)  Such support from EVERYWHERE is amazing and welcome!  To find individual letters of support or opposition, just open the PDF and search on a name.
  • Public Comments August 31-September 25, 2015A 545-page PDF.  The link will download a document on the City’s website, a 20mb download.  The PDF consists of:
    • 2 agency requests for extension of the comment period
    • 6 personal letters opposing the RDEIR and Valero’s proposal
    • 2 personal letters supporting the RDEIR and Valero
    • 253 letters from individuals from all over the country, generated by an online submittal form and mostly alike, also opposing the RDEIR and Valero’s proposal and received by the City on 9/25/
Comments still welcome

Your comments are encouraged and welcome until 5pm on Friday, October 30, 2015.  Send your thoughts to Amy Million, Principal Planner, Benicia Community Development Department, by email: amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us.  You may also send your letter to Amy Million by mail: 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510, or by Fax: (707) 747-1637.

More information: HOW to write the City…

Benicia Planning Commission – no more hearings for now

Repost from NBC Bay Area
[Editor:  IMPORTANT NOTICE: All speakers present were heard at the Tuesday, September 29 Planning Commission hearing, so previously scheduled additional hearings are now cancelled.  There will be no Planning Commission hearings on Sept. 30, Oct. 1 and Oct. 8.  Your comments on Valero’s Revised DEIR can be submitted in writing until October 30, 2015 – more info on sending written comments here.]

Residents Raise Concerns Over Valero’s Proposed Crude Oil By Rail Through Benicia

By Pete Suratos, September 29, 2015


A proposal to transport crude oil by rail through Benicia is not sitting well with residents, who came out in full force to a Tuesday night city planning commission meeting to discuss it.

The chances of the trains being derailed and something disastrous occurring is why residents are concerned with the proposal. Those who oppose the plan have until the end of October to let the city and Valero know their concerns.

During a special session at city hall late Tuesday, Valero pitched its crude-by-rail project to a packed house.

If approved, the refinery can receive up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day by rail, instead of by ship. The route would begin in Roseville and end at the refinery. In addition, the route will not replace the crude currently received through pipeline.

Valero said the use of rail is the only way to get the oil.

“The crude that we bring in by rail would offset the crude we bring from foreign sources that we bring by ship,” said Chris Howe of Valero.

The proposal, for resident Christine Caulder, is a risky proposition. Caulder attended Tuesday’s meeting and spoke as a concerned parent.

“When the air is so toxic you can’t go outside, I really can’t go to their school or I’m worried who’s sick or who’s not,” she said.

No actions on the project were taken by city leaders on Tuesday. Three more public hearings are scheduled — one on Wednesday and two more in October.  [CORRECTION: All speakers present were heard at this hearing, so previously scheduled additional hearings are now cancelled.  – RS]

LETTER: The New Revised DEIR (ho hum)

LETTER: The New Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report

By Jim Kirchhoffer, September 28, 2015

The title alone is enough to make a casual reader turn on football or a cooking show. The new report, after an outcry from our local citizens, is just as numbing and distortive as the first one.  It will be open for discussion on Tuesday, September 29.

At the meeting last year, I offered a request for details on how the figure for potential rail disasters of .001 % was computed.  It was also stated as one potential derailment every 111 years!

This particular statistic was picked up by the national and state press and others, to the confusion of all.  Since I represent no one of any importance, I was not surprised to see it was not addressed in the new report. The new  report does, however, admit to 4 oil train bomb derailments events this year.  I think there have now been five. Irreguardless, as we say back in Indiana, that’s a jolly big difference from one every 111 years or .001%!

Do they really think we’re that stupid ? I guess so.

In other words, fellow readers and citizens, the new report as well as the first report is a rigged, crafted, professional snow job to sell us a bill of goods.

Valero paid for it. That’s the way the process works.  And they sure got their money’s worth!  Yes Valero is a very good neighbor.  They fund many local activities, and put up, I understand, 25% of our town’s budget. But what is the core of the deal?

Valero wants to cut half of the marine crude that comes in to receiving that same amount by train. See, no increase in oil we refine at all, just this switch in transportation. What’s the problem with that?

Why are they so eager ?

Well, as a local friend reminds me, “Follow the money”. There is fantastic profit in Bakkan crude, and the only way to get it to Benicia is by rail.  In cars that explode in derailments into massive fires that firefighters have to let simply burn out. Which cars can not be replaced for several years, at best. On rail lines that transverse some of  our most beautiful and treasured waterways. And in the southern Nevada route–one of three ways into the state–the report itself reveals that 82% of that rail line has rails that are on the 3-4 scale, verses the 4-5 that Amtrak and the rest of Union Pacific use.  And we have no power or control over which line Union Pacific uses.

Valero wants to make a lot more money.  Nothing wrong with that.  In fact that’s their legal mandate; increase profit for their shareholders. If the CEO doesn’t, the Board of Directors fires him. That’s the way the game is played.

And the way we play the game is to reject the Environmental Report.  It is a farce, and if you have read either or both, you will see that right away. The only way to get this terribly dangerous crude oil away is to stop Valero from changing their current transportation procedure. Before this plan of Valero, there were no complaints.  No rally’s and demonstrations and hundreds of people crowing into Council chambers to protest.

Valero can go on just as they have been doing, which seems to have been working well for them. We can go on feeling safe in our homes and town. Do we really want 2 (two) 50 tank car trains per day rolling into Benicia each and everyday ?

I think not.  What’s in it for us ?  Hope you can come to the meeting on Tuesday, September 29.

Jim Kirchhoffer
Benicia, California

Valero Crude By Rail – Public comment period for RDEIR extended to 60-day review period

Email announcement from the City of Benicia

Friday, September 25, 2015 2:20 PM

UPDATE: Public comment period for Valero CBR RDEIR extended to 60-day review period

In response to requests by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the public comment period for the RDEIR has been extended to a 60-day review period ending on October 30, 2015.

The City of Benicia Planning Commission will hold a formal public hearing to receive comments on the RDEIR on September 29, 2015. In anticipation of the number of speakers, additional Planning Commission meetings to receive comments on the RDEIR are scheduled for September 30, October 1, and October 8, 2015. These additional meetings will only be held as necessary to hear public comment. All meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Benicia City Hall, located at 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510.  Comments on the RDEIR may be provided at the public hearing, or may be submitted in writing, no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 30, 2015.