Category Archives: Benicia City Council

Benicia City Council, Benicia Vice Mayor Steve Young, Local elections, Northern Gateway Project, Seeno property

LETTER SERIES: Steve Young on Seeno land use

[Editor: Benicians are expressing themselves in letters to the editor of our local print newspaper, the Benicia Herald.  But the Herald doesn’t publish letters in its online editions – and many Benician’s don’t subscribe.  We are posting certain letters here for wider distribution.  – RS]

Development of the Seeno Property

By Steve Young, Benicia Planning Commission
October 6, 2016

Recently, a land use application has been submitted for development of the Seeno property, the 526 acre site located at East 2nd Street and Lake Herman Road.

The latest version of this development proposal, now called the Northern Gateway, also has a new lead developer (Schwartz Development) who has done projects with the Seeno family before.

This proposal, as described to me by the developer, calls for the construction of up to 900 single family homes along with some limited commercial and industrial parcels.

There are several problems that I see with this proposal.

First, although they insist there is adequate water for 900 homes, the City is in the middle of an extended drought and we are being asked to save water wherever we can.

Second, the developer has no intention of building either a school or a firehouse. If they don’t build these facilities, the obligation would fall upon the rest of us for those necessary amenities. Students would have to be transported to either Robert Semple elementary school (which is among the oldest properties in the District and is lacking in many amenities) or Benicia Middle School or Benicia High School, both of which are overcrowded.

Finally, the developer bragged that the homes would sell very fast, as they would be priced between $400-415,000. This price range is well below the Benicia median home price, and the addition of that many homes at that price level would not improve the property values of the rest of Benicia homes.

By contrast, at a recent candidates forum, Mark Hughes and Lionel Largaspaeda spoke in very positive tones about the possibility of the growth this project would bring.

I am not reflexively anti-growth, but object to this reactive form of planning.

This parcel will eventually be developed. But it is the City which should decide what type of development will ultimately go there, rather than simply reacting to a developer’s proposal, which is more focused on maximizing profit than in developing the last significant parcel in the City in a way that best serves the community.

Benicia City Council, Local land use authority, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

BREAKING NEWS: City of Benicia releases final Resolution to Deny Valero Crude by Rail

By Roger Straw, October 13, 2016

reso_16-160Today the City of Benicia released the final draft of the City Council’s Resolution No. 16-150, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BENICIA DENYING A USE PERMIT FOR THE VALERO CRUDE BY RAIL PROJECT AT 3400 EAST SECOND STREET (12PLN-00063)

This document represents the “wordsmithed” version created during the City Council’s October 4 meeting.  This final version has not been previously seen by the public.

At the October 4 meeting, Council members insisted on strengthening the section (now numbered 1. on page 4) that describes the Surface Transportation Board’s decision, clarifying its opinion “that the City has the police power to protect public health and safety so long as it does ‘not discriminate against rail carriers or unreasonably burden interstate commerce.'”

The Council also directed staff to make substantial changes in the format of the staff’s draft version, moving all references to rail-related impacts to a single “informational” item (now numbered 2A-2F on pages 4-6).

The heart of the revised document – findings for denial – are numbered 3-6 on pages 6-9.

NOTE: The 10-page PDF document linked above is large (4.8MB) and slow to download from the City’s website, so be patient.  A smaller unofficial version can be downloaded here or you can download the original from Google Drive here.

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Local land use authority, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia City Council approves “findings,” officially closes the door on Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, October 5, 2016

benicia_logoAfter lengthy discussion and significant tweaking on Tuesday night Oct 4, the Benicia City Council unanimously approved a Resolution to Deny Valero’s proposal to build an offloading facility for oil trains. After a long list of whereases, the document indicates “findings” that back up the Council’s unanimous September 20 vote to deny Valero’s permit.

Anticipating litigation, Council members spent hours reworking the findings submitted by City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, making every effort to approve a document that would be “bullet-proof” in a court of law.

In the draft submitted to Council by staff, a number of the findings pointed out serious impacts both uprail and onsite.  Council wordsmithed the document to move suggested “findings” that relate to OFFSITE rail impacts to a section of the document that was “for information only.”  That section is included only to alert State and Federal governmental officials and regulators that more needs to be done at those levels to reign in unsafe and polluting transport of North American crude oil by rail.

The remaining findings relating to ONSITE impacts are extensive, and should be more than adequate to stand up in any possible court challenge.

The edited version of Council’s Resolution is not yet available as of this writing.  The draft copy is available here.  Minutes of the Council meeting have not yet been posted, but VIDEO of the Oct 4 meeting is available on the City’s website, here.  The Council’s discussion begins at 2:19:10 on the video and goes for an hour and a half, until the end of the meeting, at 3:49:34.

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Legal action, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Valero attorney John Flynn, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Valero attorney claims that Benicia APPROVED Crude by Rail on Sept. 20!!

By Roger Straw, October 3, 2016

Incredible: “The permit is therefore approved by operation of law.”

In yet another bizarre legal maneuver, Valero’s attorney John Flynn sent a letter to the Mayor and members of the City Council on October 3, claiming that by various acts of commission and omission, the City Council on September 20 failed to properly deny Valero’s permit, and that therefore the permit is “approved by operation of law.”

The logic is twisted, but stick with me.

Flynn is claiming that “the City Council’s action of September 20 violated both state and federal law” on a variety of grounds:

  • Timing – Valero claims that a decision with proper findings in support of denial was required by September 20, but the Council sent staff back to revise the findings in the draft resolution of denial.
  • Council members’ statements – Valero claims that Council members were required to verbally state the grounds upon which they voted to deny the project, and that they ONLY stated concerns about rail-related impacts, which Valero continues to claim are preempted from consideration under federal law.  Note here that Valero re-states its failed argument that even ON-SITE rail impacts are preempted.
  • Reliance on a letter received on September 20 – Valero claims that the City may not rely on information in a letter from the law firm Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo in framing its arguments for denial. Poor Valero states that it (and the public) didn’t have a chance to rebut the letter. This from the company which sent two last-minute unrebuttable letters which City staff included in the Council’s agenda packet!
  • Reliance on the Surface Transportation Board letter – Valero claims that Council relied on the STB’s dismissal of Valero’s petition in its decision, and that Valero and the public never had an opportunity to comment on the STB’s decision. Valero demands that the City not refer to anything in the federal agency’s decision when drafting findings for denial.
  • Council’s request for staff to edit its draft resolution of denial – Valero claims that any editing of the draft resolution would amount to “post hoc rationalizations.”  Baloney. It’s done all the time.
  • The letter goes on and on, but I will leave it to the City Attorney and others to flesh out Valero’s twisted bullying tactics.

IMPORTANT: The letter concludes by foreshadowing a lawsuit against the City:

“The transcript of the September 20 hearing will no doubt clearly establish for a Court that the only grounds invoked by the Council for denying Valero’s application were rail-related grounds, and that any other grounds invoked in the written findings proposed by staff and by Adams Broadwell are no more than baseless afterthoughts, in a desperate bid to deny Valero’s permit application, despite the lack of any legal or factual bases for such a denial.”