Friday Feb 12, 2016, Contact: Eddie Scher, 415-815-7027
[Benicia, CA] Late last night the Benicia Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the land use permit for the proposed Valero oil train terminal. Valero can appeal the decision to the Benicia City Council.
“The unanimous vote by the Planning Commission to reject this deeply flawed environmental review is a vindication of the concerns that people in the community have had since this project was first proposed. It took three years of work in the community to build public pressure. The Planning Commission was thorough and methodological in their deliberation. The message to the city council is absolutely clear – they must reject this proposal and reevaluate how much trust they can put in their own staff and city attorney.”
– Andres Soto, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
“In four days of hearings commissioners faced unrelenting pressure from Big Oil and Big Rail, and a city attorney and city staff who reminded the commission again and again that Valero’s tax contributions make up a quarter of the general fund. But last night, in a powerful display of democratic and thoughtful local governance, commissioner after commissioner ripped apart the Valero’s faulty environmental review and questioned the motives of city staff and the Benicia city attorney. Commissioners affirmed the actual charge of their commission to protect the health and welfare of the community.”
Extraordinary news tonight from Benicia, CA, where the town’s Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny a land use permit for a proposed oil trains project at the Valero Benicia Refinery.
The decision comes despite immense pressure from Valero, the City Staff & City Attorney who all recommended approval of the project on the basis that federal law preempted the city from even considering rail impacts in making their land use decision.
Tonight’s decision comes at the tail end of four straight nights of public hearings that have lasted past 11pm. Public comment during the hearings reflected the broad-based opposition to the oil trains project fostered by tireless grassroots organizing.
One highlight from tonight’s hearing was a statement from Donald Dean, the Planning Commission’s chair, to the City Attorney & contracted attorney (who happened to have a long history of defending high-profile oil & energy projects). He said, “I understand the preemption issue, on a theoretical legal level, but I can’t understand this on a human level.”
The decision will likely be appealed to the Benicia City Council, who could vote on the project as early as mid-March. Stay tuned for updates, because we have a big fight ahead of us.
The lion’s share of credit here goes out to the incredible grassroots leadership of Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community. These tireless, fierce, and deeply passionate leaders have been fighting Valero tooth and nail for over three years, and have done a tremendous job in a tough industry town to build a campaign to be reckoned with.
Hopefully this momentum carries us forward for a denial at the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission later this month.
By Tony Bizjak, February 11, 2016 11:59 PM
A tanker truck is filled from railway cars containing crude oil at McClellan Park in 2014. Randall Benton rbenton@sacbee.com
The Benicia city planning commission, voting unanimously, dealt a dramatic setback Thursday to an oil company’s plans to ship crude oil via train through Northern California, including downtown Sacramento, to its local refinery.
After four successive nights of hearings, commissioners rejected Valero Refining Co.’s request to build a rail loading station so it could import oil on two 50-car trains daily, despite a city staff recommendation for approval.
Several commissioners said they were highly uncomfortable with the plan, based on an analysis that says the trains pose a significant unavoidable health hazard to humans and other environmental risks along the route to the Benicia refinery.
City officials said they expect Valero, the largest employer in town, to appeal the commission’s decision to the Benicia City Council. A Valero spokesman said his company is disappointed and will sit down to discuss next steps.
“Most disappointing was the commissioners disregard for the opinions of a multitude of environmental and legal experts who spent over three years to evaluate this project,” said Valero spokesman Chris Howe.
Valero officials have been pushing for the project for years, saying train shipments will allow them to stay competitive by accessing crude from North American crude oil fields. The refinery currently gets most of its oil via marine shipments, and some by pipeline.
The decision, if upheld by the City Council, would represent a major victory for up-rail cities, and represents a significant setback nationally for the burgeoning but controversial practice of shipping large amounts of crude oil, sometimes on mile-long trains.
Hundreds of individuals, organizations and local government leaders weighed in on the project over the past two years, many opposed to the project. Others argued the fears of environmental damage and human injury from potential mishaps are overblown.
Benicia city staff officials, in their environmental analysis, argued that federal laws on interstate commerce pre-empt any locally imposed safety regulations that would affect the train shipments, essentially prohibiting Benicia from responding in any way to concerns of cities along the rail lines.
Planning commissioners rejected that notion. “That doesn’t make sense from a human point of view,” commission chair Donald Dean said.
After listening to more than 70 members of the public testify on the issue over four nights, the six voting members of the commission unanimously declined to approve the city’s formal environmental impact report on the project, calling it inadequate on numerous points. They also declined to give their OK for a project permit.
Several said they feel they need to look out for up-rail cities, such as Sacramento and Davis. “I don’t want to be the planning commissioner in the one city that said screw you to up-rail cities,” said Susan Cohen Grossman.
“I don’t want to be complicit with what has become a social nightmare across the country,” George Oakes said, referring to oil trains, several of which have crashed and exploded. “What we are talking about here is some additional profit for a couple of companies.”
A FOURTH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING has been called for TONIGHT, THURSDAY, FEB. 11, 6:30pm. Public comment is now closed, but it will be just as important to fill the chamber with concerned residents and regional support. Be there if you can! Arrive early to get a seat in Council Chambers.
Tonight, the first portion of the meeting will be given over to City staff and consultants. According to Community Development Director Christina Ratcliffe, City staff will begin by discussing new materials given to Commissioners last night. City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, notably absent during Commission procedings to date, was observed midway through the evening Wednesday delivering a huge stack of documents, presumably for Commissioners’ review. It stands to reason that these documents will have further comments and instructions having to do with federal “preemption.”
City staff will also take time in the opening portion of tonight’s meeting to answer questions put to staff previously during the hearings, to which staff had responded that they would need to “look into it.”
Commissioners will no doubt interact with staff with further questions and clarifications, so it is likely Commissioners will not move into their final deliberations until – anybody’s guess – an hour or two (or three or four) go by. Those deliberations and final statements are likely to take some time as well. Director Ratcliffe advised Commissioners to bring their calendars to Thursday’s meeting, in case they need to schedule yet another continuation at a “date certain.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.