Category Archives: Benicia City Council

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

350 BAY AREA calls for everyone to attend Benicia City Council on April 4

Repost from 350 Bay Area
[Editor:  To RSVP to 350 Bay Area, click here and scroll down.  – RS]

Stop Crude-By-Rail in Benicia 4/4

By Carla West, March 19, 2016

350 Bay AreaThe Benicia Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject Valero’s proposal for a crude-by-rail project at its Benicia refinery in February. The vote was a stunning victory for citizens, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, and environmental groups who have been campaigning for years against Valero’s proposed crude-by-rail project. It came after four nights of testimony from citizens, lawyers, up-rail communities, environmental groups, & Valero. It was the second major defeat of proposed fossil fuel expansion projects in the Bay Area recently. The Pittsburg City Council voted this winter to kill WesPac’s proposal to build massive storage terminals in the city. The February hearing in Benicia was packed with people in the chambers as well as three overflow rooms waiting all week into the wee hours to testify.

One important point was the issue of federal preemption. The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, or ICCTA, preempts state and local regulation of rails and gives jurisdiction to the federal Surface Transportation Board, or STB. While Valero argued that federal preemption applied in this case, several lawyers from environmental groups such as Communities for a Better Environment, Sierra Club, and others testified that this is not an accurate reading of the law and that the city has authority over the use permit.

Another issue is the the changing composition of the crude oil to be processed by the project. Scientists from environmental groups point out that part of the reason for this project is to bring in tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada which is more toxic than traditional crudes.

Valero had ten days to appeal the unanimous decision by the Planning Commission to reject their proposed project, & they appealed it during that time period, so the appeal went to the city council. The Benicia City Council began hearing presentations on the project on March 15th. They will continue to hear testimony from citizens on April 4, 6, & 19 or until everyone who has shown up has had a chance to speak. Then the council will vote, and after that the next stop is litigation which could tie the project up for years. The outcome at the city council is crucial. It will determine whether the project can’t happen or whether it gets to go forward for the years during the litigation.

Please join us – RSVP to let your voice be heard or just come to support those who are speaking. Please let us know if you need a ride.

WHEN
April 04, 2016 at 7pm – 11pm

WHERE
Benicia City Hall
250 E L St
Benicia, CA 94510
United States
Google map and directions

CONTACT
Carla West · carlacwest@gmail.com

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Blast zone, Crude By Rail, Explosion, Oil trains, Public Health, Public Safety, Take Action, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

SIERRA CLUB NATIONAL TAKE ACTION: Protect California’s communities from explosive Benicia oil trains

Repost from the Sierra Club
[Editor:  Take action on the Sierra Club page.  – RS]

Take action: Protect California’s communities from explosive oil trains

Aftermath of the tragic 2013 crude-by-rail explosion in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which took 47 lives.

Last month, decision-makers voted unanimously to reject a proposed crude-by-rail project at the Valero oil refinery in Benicia because it “would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare” of Benicians and communities along the oil train routes. It was the right decision — projects like these, which put more than five million Californians within the blast zones of explosive oil trains, are not worth the risk.

But the oil company behind this project is appealing this decision to the Benicia City Council — so we need to speak out to protect communities like Benicia, Truckee, Davis, and Sacramento, that would be put at risk if this project moves forward.

This is an all-hands-on-deck moment to stop this dangerous crude-by-rail project once and for all. Take a moment (click here) to urge the Benicia City Council to listen to the public and the city’s own Planning Commission and say NO to Big Oil!

(TIP: If you personalize your message to the City Council with why you care about this issue, your public comment will carry more weight.)

 

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Public Comment, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

SUNFLOWER ALLIANCE: Call to attend Benicia City Council on April 4, 6, 19

Repost from the Sunflower Alliance

Defend Victory against Valero, April 4, 6, 19

March 11, 2016
valero-refinery-wide
Valero Refinery, Benicia CA

On February 11, we won a tremendous victory against Valero’s Crude by Rail proposal when the Benicia Planning Commission unanimously rejected approval of the land use permit that would have allowed construction of a rail terminal on Valero property and the daily off-loading of two 50-car trains carrying domestic shale oil and/or Canadian tar sands. Valero took no time in appealing the decision.

Final approval of the project lies with the Benicia City Council. At their first hearing on this proposal on March 15, Valero surprised everyone with their request that the City Council delay consideration of their appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. This would allow them time, they argued, to petition the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the agency’s perspective on the scope of federal preemption law governing rail operations. They admitted the delay could take at least three months.

Valero is using the Benicia Crude by Rail project as a test case to drastically expand the range of federal preemption of rail regulation. They are claiming that all activity associated with property with rail spurs, such as the off-loading of crude on Valero property, is covered by federal preemption and thus completely exempt from local and state control. Federal preemption means that all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements would be superseded. And effects on uprail communities could not be considered at all.

“Make no mistake,” writes Benicia activist Marilyn Bardet, “Valero hopes to bank on setting a precedent, right here in Benicia, that would affect municipalities of every size and stripe across California and the U.S. seeking to protect their communities from the risks of dangerous oil trains plowing through their urban cores and rural landscapes.”

Public hearings will continue on April 4, extending to April 6 and 19, if necessary. We are still not exactly sure what will happen in the April 4 hearing. But we need to show our strength again to make sure the City Council eventually votes with the Planning Commission and in the public interest.

Please come to the April 4th council hearing to voice your concern:

    • to support the authority and requirements of CEQA—for the public’s right to full disclosure of impacts, for enforceable mitigations and feasible project alternatives;
    • to support the Benicia Planning Commission’s consensus judgment resulting in a unanimous vote to deny certification of the Final EIR and deny the project permit;
    • to support Benicia’s authority to protect its health and safety and uphold the Benicia General Plan;
    • to deny Valero’s appeal and audacious corporate attempt to interfere in local politics for their own gain.

We must stand with Benicia in fighting this attack on local democracy.

WHEN
April 4 , 6 and 19 at 7 pm

WHERE
Benicia City Hall
150 East L St.
Benicia

For more information:
Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community
Benician Independent

Contact: Kat Black: 415-125-9561

Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Valero’s delay request – what will happen on April 4?

By Roger Straw, March 18, 2016

Valero’s delay request – what will happen on April 4?

City_of_Benicia_logoAs of this writing, there is much confusion over Valero’s March 15 request at City Council to delay consideration of their appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous rejection of their Crude by Rail proposal.

Earlier today, several independent inquiries were sent to City staff asking what will happen next. City Attorney Heather McLaughlin responded to all in a single email, in which she attempted to give some direction to the public. Her answers left much still to be determined. We may learn more later, as she wrote, “Staff will be preparing a staff report for the April 4 [City Council] meeting. We hope to publish it by close of business on March 28.” [Staff reports and Council packets can be found on the City’s City Council page.]

McLaughlin listed questions and gave her answers in bold, below:

  1. Could you please tell me if the City’s code describes the situation of a request for a delay of an appeal by an appellant contesting planning commission decisions  made under a CEQA review of a project?  If so, what are the rules governing such a request? If there are no rules that address such a request, what authority does the council have to either approve or ignore Valero’s request for delay in a hearing process?  Section 1.44.040 (F) of the Benicia Municipal Code allows the City and the appellant to agree to extend the time for hearing an appeal.  The City’s agreement would have to be made at a public meeting if the appeal, like here, is to a person or body that holds regular meetings.  Regular meeting rules would apply like public comment before taking action. 
  2. Would Valero’s request for delay constitute an action under the purview of CEQA, since the CBR Project is still under CEQA review via Valero’s appeal at this point?  No CEQA review would be required for delaying the project. 
  3. If the City Council agrees to Valero’s requested delay, would this mean that the public hearings and all submissions/comments under CEQA would be continued into the indefinite future until such time as Valero receives whatever word on preemption from the Surface Transportation Board? This decision would be up to the Council. Staff does not have a recommendation at this time. 
  4. Would information from the STB on preemption be considered “new information”, and if so, would that response from STB have to be incorporated in a revised FEIR under CEQA?  Depending on what an STB decision might say, the City may or may not decide to revise the FEIR.  The City Council will make this decision after considering any STB decision. 
  5. If the Council continues the hearings and takes public testimony on previously scheduled days (April 4th, 6th, 19th), would future hearings be held after Valero receives info from the STB? In other words, how would the public be informed of new information rec’d, (if any)?  The City Council will have to take any future action on the project at one or more noticed meetings.  There will be opportunity for public comment until the public hearing is closed.
  6. Will the City Council hold two public hearings on the project to receive public comments – one regarding Valero’s request for a continuance and another on the project? The City Council will determine the process.  Staff does not have a recommendation at this point. 
  7. Will the City Council first consider Valero’s request to delay the appeal before the public hearing on the appeal begins?  Please see the answer to 6RK above.
  8. Will the public have the opportunity to comment on Valero’s request for delay of the appeal? Yes.  Public comment will be allowed before the Council decides. 
  9. If the request to delay the appeal is granted, will the scheduled public hearing on the appeal be cancelled?  Please see response 3MB above. 
  10. If the request to delay the appeal is denied, will the public hearing then proceed as scheduled? Yes.

My summary:  Every time the City Attorney says Council will decide and staff has no recommendation at this time, it means staff will probably confer (with Council members?) and make a more or less decisive staff recommendation, which the public will not know until March 28. This applies to questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. So – my opinion – there’s not much information here.

What we DO learn, without much surprise, is that:

  1. Question 1: The City attorney upholds Valero’s right under city code to request a delay. See item F: “The time limits in this section may be extended if the applicant(s) and appellant(s) agree.”
  2. Question 2: The City attorney holds that “no CEQA review would be required for delaying the project.” It might be good to get a CEQA expert’s opinion.
  3. Question 8: Public comment will be allowed on the delay.
  4. Question 10: If the delay is denied, hearings on the appeal will proceed as planned.

Council rally and hearing 4.4.16 (125)SO … It seems clear that significant important decisions will be made at the City Council hearing on April 4.  Plan to attend – our Council members need to know how we feel about health and safety here in Benicia.  You can RSVP on Eventbrite or on Facebook.