Category Archives: Benicia City Council

TRANSCRIPT: City Council hearing of March 15

By Roger Straw, March 29, 2016

Benicia, California

Today the City of Benicia posted a written TRANSCRIPT of the City Council’s March 15 meeting.

The document is not indexed, and 389 pages long – but it is searchable text.

Page 43 – Council begins deliberations on Valero’s appeal on page 43 of the PDF with a few procedural questions.

Page 46-68 – A public comment by Karen Berndt arises on page 46.  Council member Tom Campbell raises questions about the process on p. 49 and with one more comment from a member of the public, going through page 58.  After which there are ex parte disclosures, and on page 63, we get to City Planner Amy Million’s introductions and procedural questions, and and FINALLY, on page 68, the STAFF PRESENTATION.

Page 90 – The ESA Consultants’ presentation begins on p. 90.

Page 109-144 – City Attorney McLaughlin introduces and praises Contract Attorney Brad Hogin on page 109, asking everyone to refrain from “abusing” him.  Mr. Hogin begins on page 110.  On page 137, Mr. Hogin begins his review of the San Luis Obispo Phillips 66 oil train project – a review that has since been characterized as misleading and contrary to fact.

Page 144 – On page 144 Ms. Million begins a description of the Appeal process and a defense of staff’s recommendation to overturn the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision.

Page 154 – Planning Commission Chair Donald Dean begins his presentation on page 154.

Page 182 – Planning Director Christina Ratcliffe adds a final staff presentation beginning on page 182, in which she notes the differences between the Planning Commission and staff, and again outlines the Council’s options.

Page 184-201 – Valero’s Don Cuffel begins his presentation at the bottom of page 184.  Valero’s attorney John Flynn begins his remarks on page 194, and concludes with the request to delay procedings on pages 200-201.

Page 201-389 – Council questions begin on page 201, focusing for quite some time on the surprise delay request by Valero.

(It is beyond the scope of this article to index the lengthy question-answer period, which continues to the end of the meeting, on page 389.)

 

DAVIS & SACRAMENTO: How to participate in Benicia oil train hearings April 4th

From an email by Lynne Nittler, Davis CA, March 26, 2016

Still time to participate in Valero-Benicia Oil Train Decision

YolanoClimateActionCentralAfter three years of study, the Benicia Planning Commission voted not to certify the final EIR and denied the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project on February 11.

This decision came about through the sustained efforts of Benicians for a Healthy and Safe Community with consistent support from individuals in Davis and Sacramento who wrote letters and testified during all the stages of the Environmental Impact Review process.  The involvement of many uprail agencies (7 Air Quality Management Districts, lawyers from Sierra Club, NRDC, Forest Ethics,  Stanford Law Center, the CA Attorney General, etc.) and governmental bodies (City of Davis, Yolo County, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, etc.) were instrumental in the Planning Commissioners decision-making. Many hundreds of pages of written comments were submitted.

Valero appealed the decision to the Benicia City Council.  Public testimony will be on April 4, 6 and 19.

Concerned Davis residents are encouraged to write their specific concerns to the Benicia City Council.  Hints for letter-writing ideas and where to send the letters are found at the website below.

Residents are also invited to reserve a space on the bus heading to Benicia on April 4th.  There will be a pickup at Caffe Italia parking lot at approximately 5:15pm to arrive in Benicia around 6pm.  The bus will leave Benicia at 9pm.  Riders do not need to testify.  We need a large Davis contingent present to show our concern about the prospect of oil trains coming through our downtown.

For more details, read “Update” and “Ride the bus” posted at www.yolanoclimateaction.org  For questions, contact Lynne at lnittler at sbcglobal dot net.

MARILYN BARDET: Comment at Benicia City Council on 3/22 – Valero’s request for a delay

By Marilyn Bardet, March 22, 2016

Benicia City Council on March 22, public comment – Valero’s request for a delay

Valero’s request for delay in the appeal process to acquire a declaration from STB on the scope of preemption interferes with local politics with far-reaching ramifications.

On March 15th, at the opening hearing of Valero’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s long deliberations and unanimous decisions to deny certification of the FEIR, and to deny the Crude-By-Rail Project a permit for construction, it was very clear that Valero’s attorney John Flynn surprised everybody — our City Staff, and all of you, Mayor and councilmembers, and the public — by announcing a request for an indefinite delay in the appeal process, to enable Valero to solicit an opinion from the Surface Transportation Board, an agency under the Federal Dept. of Transportation, on the scope and breadth of preemption law. What a surprise indeed, since the role of the STB is to exclusively address rail carrier companies’ concerns and controversies, not those raised by oil companies.

We can’t forget how you expressed your dismay and discomfort:
Councilmember Hughs, you’d remarked how you were “caught off guard”, showing by your words and expression the effect of Valero’s unexpected request on the whole council. Councilmember Campbell, you’d reacted with stronger language, declaring that Valero’s request felt like “a threat.”

You’d each asked Mr. Flynn why Valero had waited so long to petition the STB, especially if the STB’s opinion were considered crucial to public discussion of Valero’s project. Afterall, our City Staff, ESA consultants, or Valero’s attorneys, could have solicited the STB two years ago when the Draft EIR was being developed. Letters submitted to the City by Valero’s attorneys, Mr Flynn and Mr. Walsh, were included in the Revised DEIR’s Appendix H. Those letters made explicit their case that Preemption renders the requirements of CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, largely irrelevant with regard to any significant direct or indirect impacts cited in the DEIR that would be associated to Project-related rail operations. Valero has repeatedly made this case over the last three years.

So, why do they appear to express such doubt in their own legal opinions now?

Whatever reply the STB might deliver to Valero at any future point in time would not stand to legally resolve the controversy over preemption’s authority, nor ipso facto neutralize requirements of CEQA, which call for thorough discussion of significant impacts of a project, for feasible and effective mitigations plans that would reduce or eliminate those impacts, and also, very importantly, for feasible alternatives to the Project. It’s worth remembering that the FEIR declared that the Environmentally Superior Project would be the “No Project Alternative.”

We must ask: why is soliciting STB for an opinion so necessary to “everyone” right now, as Valero’s attorney asserted?

When questioned, Mr. Flynn admitted that it could take one month for their office — presumably with green light from corporate, in San Antonio — to prepare and file their official request to the STB, and that it could take anywhere from 3 – 6 months to receive a reply, with no guarantee that one would be forthcoming even then. Presumably, Valero would be summarizing, on their own terms to STB, the views of legal experts who have testified against the broad view of preemption that Valero stands by.

In the wake of their unwelcomed request for delay, general confusion has been sown for our City Staff, this council, and our community at large and for all those communities “uprail.”However, huge political stakes have been put into play by Valero’s delay maneuver. There are many questions raised by their request, and far-reaching local and statewide political ramifications, should you approve a delay.

We know that the controversy swirling around preemption is relevant to the decisions to be made in other cities and regions in California and across the US faced with proposed crude-by-rail projects, including in San Luis Obispo County.

Most important to our City and our community:

It appears that Valero is willingly going out on a limb to interject their interests into local politics for the upcoming campaign season, and to reach beyond it.

Do you feel the set up?

Valero’s delay appears to aim to suspend or neutralize further discussion of the Project in the political arena, based on a dubious need to hear from STB, thus to focus almost exclusive attention on Preemption while avoiding discussion of local impacts under land use jurisdiction of the City of Benicia.

So let’s take stock of where we stand right now.

The City retains authority under CEQA over the land use decision governing the siting of the Project on Valero’s private property and the significant impacts that can be fairly anticipated associated to its proposed location.

Our City Attorney and Mr. Hogin are obligated to advise council on your options with regard to Valero’s request for delay. Your mandate is to preserve the independent and legitimate authority of our City on issues of land use, and thereby you must aim to preserve the welfare and wellbeing of our community.

In my view, and that of many others, you must proceed to a fair and objective determination on the most momentous and critical land use issue in decades to come before our planning commission and now this council. (Some say since WWII !)

We hope you will make a wise decision on April 4th and reject Valero’s bid for delay, with respect for public involvement and continuing public hearings on their appeal.

Thank you for your attention. — Marilyn Bardet, Benicia
 

CREDO ACTION: Urge the BenIcia City Council to reject Valero’s dangerous oil train plan

From an email by CREDO Action, by Elijah Zarlin

Urge the BenIcia City Council to reject Valero’s dangerous oil train plan.

Dear … ,

CREDO_Action_NoMoreToxicExplodingPollutingOilTrainsValero Energy Corporation is trying to build an oil train terminal at its refinery in Benicia, which, if approved, would bring massive trains loaded with 2.5 million gallons of toxic, explosive crude through highly populated areas from the Nevada border, through Sacramento and into the Bay Area. (source 1: see note below)

Last month, the Benicia Planning Commission rejected the plan as a danger to the health, safety and welfare of Benicia and uprail communities.

But Valero appealed the decision. On April 4th, the Benicia City Council will make its final decision on the proposal. We need to show up in force to speak out against the danger of oil trains in our communities. Can you be there?

Stop Valero’s Oil Trains: Rally and City Council Hearing
Monday, April 4, 6:00 PM – 10:00 PM
Benicia City Hall, 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510
RSVP to speak out against oil trains.

Busses are being organized from Sacramento. Click here for more information.

The oil train blast zone puts millions of Californians at risk. In the Sacramento area alone more than 200,000 people live within the potential impact zone of an oil train disaster.

And at a time when our planet is breaking temperature records every month, doubling down on more fossil fuel infrastructure should be an absolute non-starter.

We need to do everything in our power to urge the Benicia City Council to reject this proposal for the sake of public safety in our communities, and our fight against climate change.

RSVP to speak out against Valero’s oil train plan on April 4th.

Thanks for fighting oil trains.

Elijah Zarlin, Director of Climate Campaigns
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Source 1: “Oil Train Blast Zone,” Stand.Earth