Category Archives: Benicia City Council

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Local elections, Local Regulation, Steve Young, Valero Crude By Rail

BENICIA HERALD: Steve Young running for City Council

Repost from the Benicia Herald
[Editor:  The Benicia Independent endorses Steve Young for City Council. Learn more about Steve’s campaign kickoff party this Friday, April 27, and RSVP here.  – RS]

Planning Commissioner Steve Young will make bid for City Council

by Nick Sestanovich
Planning Commissioner Steve Young will be running for City Council. Among the biggest issues in his campaign are opposing Valero’s Crude-By-Rail Project, diversifying the city’s economic base, modernizing the water and sewer system, improving the roads and maintaining the parks. (Courtesy photo)
Planning Commissioner Steve Young will be running for City Council. Among the biggest issues in his campaign are opposing Valero’s Crude-By-Rail Project, diversifying the city’s economic base, modernizing the water and sewer system, improving the roads and maintaining the parks. (Courtesy photo)

Steve Young, a current member of Benicia’s Planning Commission, is looking to make the leap to City Council.

Young’s decision to run was partly influenced by the Council’s decision to delay Valero’s Crude-By-Rail Project rather than deny the refinery a permit to have its crude oil delivered by railroad rather than by boat.

The project was announced in 2013 and drew concerns from residents over its environmental impacts. On Feb. 11, the Planning Commission unanimously rejected a permit from Valero, but the company sent a letter of appeal to the city. City Council held hearings in April, and in a 3-2 decision, the hearings were delayed until September as Valero asks the Surface Transportation Board for a decision on the issue of federal pre-emption.

That was the final straw for Young, who had been considering a bid for City Council.

“I had a lot of people approaching me after the Planning Commission meetings, urging me to run,” he said. “I put off making a decision until I knew which way the Council was leaning, and once it became obvious which was the Council was leaning, I felt it was important for me to throw my hat in the ring and give people who were anxious about this project an alternative way to express their opposition.”

Young does not feel the project is necessary and proposes that the refinery just keep its delivery operation as is.

“Tankers, to me, are much safer, much less polluting and doesn’t require massive potential traffic problems that we already see happening down in the Industrial Park,” he said.

Young acknowledges the economic benefits of the project but feels the environmental risks are far greater.

“It increases their profits, but I think the tradeoff is too great to justify,” he said.

Young has a long history with politics, dating back to his tenure as student body president at his high school in Burbank. He received a bachelor’s degree in political science from UC Berkeley in 1973 and a master’s in urban policy and administration from San Francisco State. He served in various government management positions in California and Virginia and was also the community development director for the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency from 1999 to 2008. After his retirement from that position, he and his wife Marty moved to Costa Rica so that their daughter Cora could attend high school in a different culture. After Cora graduated in 2012, the Youngs moved back to Benicia where Steve was appointed to the Planning Commission that year. He says that being retired gave him a lot more time to research documents for the Crude-By-Rail Project.

“I had the time to dig through all those documents and do three years of research on it,” he said. “When the Planning Commission started on the Final Environmental Impact Report, I was well-prepared and I had three years’ worth of questions to ask.”

Young also proposes examining the Seeno project, which would construct a 528-acre business park development by East Second Street and Lake Herman Road.

“The idea of straight suburban-type development on that property is problematic for a lot of reasons,” he said. “I’d like to give that a close look.”

Young also supports transparency regarding the recent water and sewer rate increases, diversifying the Industrial Park and turning the Majestic Theatre on First Street into a live music venue to generate revenue for the city.

“Overall there is a challenge that the city is a full-service city, but it doesn’t have a lot of different ways to raise revenue,” he said. “They’re trying to serve a lot of functions with a limited source of money, and I think that’s something that’s going to have to be looked at going forward. Either raise your money or limit your cost, because it’s not sustainable the way it’s going.”

More information on Young’s campaign can be found at SteveYoungForCityCouncil.org. There will also be a campaign kickoff event from 5:50 to 9:30 p.m., Saturday, May 27 at Ruszel Woodworks, located at 2980 Bayshore Road. Food, drinks and live music will be provided. If you go, please RSVP to SteveYoungForCityCouncil@gmail.com.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Local elections, Local Regulation, Steve Young, Valero Crude By Rail

ENDORSEMENT: Steve Young for Benicia City Council

City Council elections – we’ve got a great new candidate!

By Roger Straw, Benicia Independent, May 20, 2016

Benicia Planning Commissioner Steve Young, candidate for Benicia City Council
Benicia Planning Commissioner Steve Young, candidate for Benicia City Council

No, this is not me with a “new look.” This is Planning Commissioner Steve Young. Steve is running for City Council this fall. I’m happy to endorse him, and I wholeheartedly recommend him to you.

Steve was thorough and critical in his study of the massive documents associated with Valero’s crude by rail proposal over the last 3 years. He doggedly questioned City staff and consultants as the Planning Commission made its way to a unanimous decision to turn down Valero’s proposal in February. He continues to monitor Valero’s appeal to the City Council. If the issue has not been settled by November, we need Steve there with a strong no vote.

We are all invited to Steve’s Campaign Kickoff party on Friday, May 27, 5:30-9:30pm at Ruszel Woodworks – 2980 Bayshore Road, Benicia, CA 94510. Come meet the candidate and enjoy the company of others who are supporting Steve. Please RSVP here.
(NOTE CORRECTION: PARTY STARTS AT 5:30PM, not 4:30pm as previously posted here.)

More info about Steve and his campaign: SteveYoungForCityCouncil.org. Also check out Steve on Facebook.

– Benicia Independent Editor, Roger Straw
Benicia CA, Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Climate Change, Crude By Rail, Economic diversification, Environmental pollution, Knowledge-based economy, Renewable energy, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

GRANT COOKE: Time to Shed the Company Town Label

With permission by the author. (Published in the Benicia Herald, 5/3/16, no online presence, thus no link…)

Time to Shed the Company Town Label

By Grant Cooke, April 29, 2016
Grant Cooke
Grant Cooke

I have a great deal of respect and gratitude toward municipal politicians, particularly those who toil on the city council and commission level. The hours are long, the decisions tough, and the pay bad to non-existent. Heaven knows that without good folks looking after the stuff that keeps a social contract intact, Thomas Hobbes’s “natural state” of chaos, violence, and potholes would be the norm.

This goes for the folks who lead our fair city. Benicia’s mayor and members of the council seem like fine people. They attend the meetings, do the horrific amount of homework required to be conversant with the issues, and overall appear to be decent folks with a sincere believe that they are doing the collective good by serving their fellow citizens. I’m grateful for their service; but I just wish that three of them—Alan Schwartzman, Christina Strawbridge and Mark Hughes—would resign.

Their collective efforts to secure Valero’s delay of the crude-by-rail decision against overwhelming community disapproval, the unanimous rejection of the project by the Planning Commission, the concerns of every major city along the proposed rail path, and the thousands of letters and statements against the project by informed and credible experts raises the bar of small town political shamefulness.

That it was clear from the start that the three council members were going to side with Valero verges on chicanery. Why put the town’s citizens through the hope of believing that their concerns of health and wellbeing are being heard and matter, if you support a volatile project that has a blast zone that includes an elementary school?

Since none of the three has stepped forward with a clear and convincing argument about why they sided with Valero—after all Valero would still bring the oil in by existing means and really doesn’t need the continuous line of daily rail tankers to stay in business and pay its taxes—we are left with the impression that once again, a small American town is at the mercy of a major oil company.

The history of the US oil industry is a trail of tears going back to the early days of ruthless land grabs, the mendacity and murder of Standard Oil’s oligarchy, the tragic violence of the Middle East, and the rise of climate change and environmental pollution. And to think, all this could, and still can, be avoided by shifting from carbon-based to renewable energy.

(As an aside, look at Denton Texas. This small Texas oil town, home to many of Dallas’s oil executives, banned fracking and drilling in the city limits. Evidently, they didn’t want to run the risk of an accident close to parks and schools. There’s a lesson here for Benicia. As a state, New York stood tall against the oil industry, but Denton is the only US small town I know of to have the self-respect required to say enough.)

So, the question before the citizens of Benicia is now what? What good is Benicia’s formal planning process if corporate power can bludgeon a thorough and lengthy review and rejection of the crude-by-rail proposal? Why put the residents through all the work and hope of participating in the democratic process if there is no intention by the council to understand their concerns or follow their wishes?

I grew up in rural America and know what a “company town” is. In some ways, it was simple and easy, letting the company bosses tell you where to work, what and who to like, what to believe in and who to vote for.

But it lacked fulfillment and self-determination, and I moved to the Bay Area to be part of the epicenter of the world’s intellectual and scientific renaissance where freedom of thought, action, and the ideals of local democracy are so highly acclaimed. Yet, ironically, I end up in a “company town”, where a huge carbon polluter can seemly send three decent council members scurrying to service its greed.

The problems of 21st century cities, big and small, are complex and can no longer be inclusive of one economic driver or administered by one major corporate power. For Benicia to move forward and join the extraordinary Bay Area knowledge-based economy we need to say goodbye to those three council members who lack the wherewithal to help the city past its company-town era.

Other once-rural Bay Area cities have thrown of the oppressive yoke of being run by a single company, exchanging “easy” for self-determination. Cities like Sunnyvale and Mountain View long ago threw off the yoke of the defense industry and learned to reinvent themselves and flourish. Walnut Creek, Livermore, and now Richmond are joining the prosperity of a sophisticated diverse economy. Vallejo and the other cities along I-80 are showing signs of change as the robust modern Bay Area economy moves outward from Silicon Valley.

If Benicia hopes to continue as a fully functioning city with a compliment of services and a healthy and vigorous citizenry, it has to look forward, shed its dependence on Valero, and embrace a 21st century reality.

#######
Cooke is a long-time Benicia resident, author and CEO of Sustainable Energy Associates. His newest book, Smart Green Cities: Toward a Carbon Neutral World was published in April. The Green Industrial Revolution: Energy, Engineering and Economics was published last year.
Benicia City Council, Benicia city staff, Benicia Planning Commission, Contract attorney Bradley Hogin, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Federal pre-emption, Local elections, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Surface Transportation Board, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

EDITORIAL: Valero wins one; attorneys wrangle; opponents get testy

By Roger Straw, April 29, 2016

Valero wins one; attorneys wrangle; opponents get testy

Catching up on recent events

RDS_2015-06-21_200pxSorry, I had to take a little break.  When the Benicia City Council voted 3-2 to put off a decision on Valero’s crude by rail proposal (CBR), it was just a bit too much.

I was deeply discouraged by the majority’s need for yet more information.  Three Council members wish to hear from the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) before making the decision whether to permit a rail offloading rack on Valero property – a project that would foul California air and endanger lives and properties from here to the border and beyond, a project that would clearly contribute to the ongoing effects of global warming.

So I was one discouraged 3½ year supposedly-retired volunteer.  I was in no shape last week to send out my Friday newsletter.

Here, as best I can summarize, is news from the last 2 weeks:

Valero wins one

You will recall that Valero appealed the Planning Commission’s unanimous February decision on crude by rail to not certify the environmental report and to deny the land use permit. Then at the Benicia City Council’s opening hearing on the appeal on March 15, Valero surprised everyone by asking for a delay in the proceedings so that it could ask for guidance from the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB).

City staff recommended against Valero’s request, rejecting the proposed delay as unnecessary and risky, given that the City and Valero could end up with a “stale” environmental report that requires yet another time-consuming revision and more hearings.

Opponents also argued against the delay, noting that the request would be carefully framed by Valero in its own favor, submitted for review to an industry-friendly STB, and result in a judgement that would still be subject to final review in a court of law. Opponents also pointed out the possibly that the delay was a Valero political tactic, given that this is an election year with three members of City Council up for re-election.

At the most recent City Council hearing on April 19, contract attorney Bradley Hogin disclosed that he was not involved in the staff decision to recommend against the delay, and that he disagreed with his employers. Given every opportunity by Council members, Hogin argued at length in favor of the delay. During verbal questioning, Council did not give similar opportunity to Hogin’s bosses to argue against the request for delay.

And guess what, 3 members of Council were convinced by the pleasant instruction of their outside attorney Hogin that we would do well to hear from the STB before rushing (3 years into the process) to judgement.

Win one for Valero.  Council will resume consideration in September.

The attorneys wrangle

We are asked to believe that the big issue here after 3 years of environmental review has nothing at all to do with the earth or the health and safety of you, me, our neighbors or the lands and wildlife.

Supposedly, according to Valero’s attorney and contract attorney Hogin, it’s all about “federal preemption.”  Supposedly, our city officials have no legal authority to impose conditions or mitigations or deny a permit in this case.

However, according to California’s Attorney General and environmental attorneys, “federal preemption” does not prohibit City government from making such land use decisions based on local police powers and the legal requirement to protect public health and safety. Federal preemption protects against state and local authorities regulating railroads. A refinery, says our Attorney General, is not a railroad. Go figure.

Anyway, Valero’s attorney has written several letters on preemption and taking issue with the Attorney General. The Attorney General has written several letters, sticking by its argument. Environmental attorneys have written several letters making similar arguments.

In addition to the letters, Valero’s attorney and Mr. Hogin have testified at length under questioning by City Council members. Environmental attorneys have been given only 5 minutes each to speak at hearings, with little or no back and forth questioning from City Council members.

Everyone I have talked to expects this decision to end up in court, whether or not the STB issues a ruling, and regardless of which way they rule.

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community gets testy

Like me, I suspect, members of our local opposition group, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) were highly disappointed and discouraged by the Council vote to delay for Valero and the STB.

In interviews and online statements that followed the April 19 Council vote, some BSHC members were quick to presume that the 3 Council members who voted for delay would also support Valero when it comes to a final vote in September.

Of course, a 3-2 vote favoring Valero in September is not the only possible outcome. Some would say that the next 5 months might best be spent respectfully reminding Council members of facts of the case, and encouraging them to make the right decision.

Those of us who have spent countless hours opposing Valero’s dirty and dangerous proposal have known all along that it is an uphill battle, that the odds are against us, that big business prevails all too often against the interests of health, safety and clean air.  But look what happened at our Planning Commission.  There is hope.

It seems to me that the presumption of a negative outcome can only serve to harden Council members’ attitudes and opinions.  But I may be wrong.

Some will continue to argue that Council members should be made to feel the public’s disappointment, that outrage and pessimism is understandable, and that an obvious implication is that unhappy voters will have their say in November.

I’m convinced that hardball politics and small-town respect for decision makers will need to co-exist over the next few months. Come September, we shall see.