Category Archives: Benicia Planning Commission

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Public Comment, Public permitting, Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Over 700 letters received by the City of Benicia – keep them coming!

By Roger Straw, Benicia Independent Editor, October 20, 2015

City publishes new letters in 4 Parts

The City of Benicia published a monster of new public comments today, approximately 720 letters, mostly opposing crude by rail.  See below.

Note: The City of Albany documents in Part 1 are especially strong, including a recommendation to “reconsider” and a strongly worded multi-page resolution opposing crude by rail.

  • Public Comments October 10- October 16, 2015 Part 1
    8.5MB, 200 pages, including the index to Parts 1-4, and important letters by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (p. 18), the City of Albany, CA (p. 19), and the City of Biggs, CA (p. 25, note Biggs NOT Briggs, CA)
    Public Comments October 10- October 16, 2015 Part 2
    9.5MB, 230 pages
    Public Comments October 10- October 16, 2015 Part 3
    9.7MB, 235 pages
    Public Comments October 10- October 16, 2015 Part 4 
    6.0MB, 106 pages.
    NOTE:  These pages do not make it easy to find a letter from a particular individual.  The only “index” provided is at the beginning of Part 1, and it does not show page numbers or Part numbers.   You will have to SEARCH on a name in Part 1, then guess in which Part that person’s letter will appear.  You may approximate like this: the index of commenters’ names comprises the first 17 pages of Part 1.  If your commenter’s name appears on page 1-4 of the index (top of Part 1), then the letter is likely lower in Part 1.  Pages 5-9 in the index show names of commenters whose letters mostly appear in Part 2.  Pages 10-14 of the index refer to letters in Part 3.  The remainder, pages 15-17 in the index, are in Part 4.
  • Public Comments October 3-9, 2015
    The link will download a 20-page document from the City’s website, a 1.1MB download, including a very interesting letter from the City of Gridley, California (pp. 2-5 in the PDF).
  • Public Comments September 26-October 2, 2015
    The link will download a 297-page document from the City’s website, an 11MB download.  Most of this is letters generated by the ForestEthics online comment generator.   (See also the Center for Biological Diversity online letter generator.)  Such support from EVERYWHERE is amazing and welcome!  To find individual letters of support or opposition, just open the PDF and search on a name.
  • Public Comments August 31-September 25, 2015 – A 545-page PDF.  The link will download a document on the City’s website, a 20mb download.  The PDF consists of:
    • 2 agency requests for extension of the comment period
    • 6 personal letters opposing the RDEIR and Valero’s proposal
    • 2 personal letters supporting the RDEIR and Valero
    • 253 letters from individuals from all over the country, generated by an online submittal form and mostly alike, also opposing the RDEIR and Valero’s proposal and received by the City on 9/25/
Comments still welcome

Your comments are encouraged and welcome until 5pm on Friday, October 30, 2015.  Send your thoughts to Amy Million, Principal Planner, Benicia Community Development Department, by email: amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us.  You may also send your letter to Amy Million by mail: 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510, or by Fax: (707) 747-1637.

More information: HOW to write the City…

Benicia Planning Commission, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Valero Crude By Rail

Only two weeks (no, one week!) left to voice your opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

October 16, 2016

Send a letter of opposition today!

Below are just a few of the reasons you can cite in your letter to the City.  These points came from a handout by Benicians For a Safe and Healthy Community.  Here are two other letter guides: Center for Biological Diversity and ForestEthics.  Send your email to : amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us or send to  Amy Million, Principal Planner, City of Benicia, 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510.

• Tank car design is inadequate, with extremely poor safety records – BOTH DOT-111 AND the “safer” CPC-1232 cars are not safe and have derailed and exploded in other communities.  The  federal government can’t agree on a safe car and its years away from being implemented.
• New Federal Department of Transportation Rules (May, 2015) are inadequate and do not move quickly enough.
• Derailed oil trains that explode cannot be extinguished and so are left to burn themselves out which takes several days.  Emergency response plans are non-existent for a catastrophic derailment and explosion.
• The RDEIR proposes three dangerous routes: a) through the Sierras, the Feather River route – note the recent corn car derailment with resulting spill in the Feather River, b) the Dunsmuir route with the historic spill into the River and c) the Truckee / Donner Lake route with its treacherous mountain grades and beautiful resort areas.  All 3 routes go through areas described by the state as high hazard areas for derailments.  What are the risks of fires in our mountains and spills into all of the waterways the trains pass over?
• We question the statistics on the possible rates of derailments and train explosions.
• High hazard flammable trains will be going through highly populated areas like Davis and Sacramento when the National Transportation Safety Board says they should be rerouted whenever possible away from populated areas.
• Union Pacific can run trains any time they want to and even send in two train shipments in one day.  Neither the City of Benicia nor Valero have control over routes, cars, and shipment times.  Note statements about “federal pre-emption” in the appendices.
• What are the economic risks if there was a derailment and explosion and the refinery was to catch on fire?  Valero’s tank farm is in the blast zone.
• The Draft Revised EIR says there are significant hazards to the public through a reasonably foreseeable accident.  Why would we tolerate this?
• What are the environmental impacts when such extreme methods to get the oil, such as fracking and basically strip mining for tar sands are used to get the oil that is coming by rail?

• There’s lots more – add your own concerns – speak from the heart and with conviction!

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
SafeBenicia.org
Facebook.com/StopCrudeByRail
(707) 742-3597
DONATE OR SIGN THE PETITION HERE!

Opposed to Crude by Rail and/or critical of the EIR

• Over 1300 who signed the petition (mostly Benicians)
• Benicians For a Safe and Healthy Community (SafeBenicia.org and on Facebook at StopCrudeByRail)
• Hundreds of Benicians and others who wrote letters calling into question the claims of the Environmental Impact Report
• California’s Attorney General
• The Sacramento Area Council of Governments
• The City of Davis, California
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Sierra Club
• ForestEthics
• Center for Biological Diversity
• EarthJustice
• Sunflower Alliance
• Communities for a Better Environment
• Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition (BARCC)
• Crocket Rodeo United to Defend the Environment (C.R.U.D.E.)
• Idle No More – Bay Area
• Martinez Environmental Group
• 350 Bay Area
• Global Community Monitor
• … and many more

More information:

• Take Action (including more info on letter-writing)
• Project Documents (Valero’s proposal)
• Project Review (letters on the EIR submitted by agencies and individuals)
• Local Media Coverage (letters to the news media)

 

 

 

 

 

We have moved into the final phase of the City of Benicia’s comment period.  Your voice is important as the Planning Commission

Air Quality, Benicia City Council, Benicia Industrial Park, Benicia Planning Commission, CPC-1232, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Fossil fuels, Global warming, Greenhouse gas emissions, Oil spill, Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), Significant and unavoidable risks, Tank car design, Valero Crude By Rail

OPEN LETTER: Oppose Valero Crude By Rail

Letter received by email from the author, Lawrence (Larnie) Reid Fox

To the Benicia City Planning Commission and City Council:

By Larnie Fox, October 12, 2015

I’m writing to request that you oppose Valero’s Crude Oil by Rail project.

The Revised Draft EIR states that:

    • Potential train derailment would result in significant and unavoidable adverse effects to people and secondary effects to biological, cultural, and hydrological resources, and geology.
    • Impacts to air quality would be significant and unavoidable because the Project would contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation and result in a cumulatively considerable increase in ozone precursor emissions.
    • Impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would be significant and unavoidable because the Project would generate significant levels of GHG and conflict with plans adopted for reducing GHG emissions.

What more do you need to know?

There have been more crude-by-rail explosions and spills in the last two years than in the previous 40 years. The new crudes are demonstrably more hazardous than the crudes that have been processed in our community in the past, and have led to many horrendous accidents in other parts of North America. Accidents can and will happen.

The Revised Draft EIR states that Valero proposes to use non-jacketed Casualty Prevention Circular (CPC)-1232-compliant tank cars.

The National Transportation Safety Board has said that the CPC-1232 standard is only a minimal improvement over the older tank DOT-111s. NTSB officials say they are “not convinced that these modifications offer significant safety improvements.”

There is overwhelming and passionate opposition to the project here in Benicia. There is also strong opposition from hundreds of individuals who live up-rail and from all over our state, and also from government entities including the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and our state’s Attorney General.

If there is a spill or an explosion and fire, I for one, do not want my community to be culpable. We need to show the state and the world that we stand for safety and environmental responsibility, even if it cuts into corporate profits and tax revenues.

The bottom line is that fossil fuels are going away, sooner or later, and Benicia will need to adapt, sooner or later. We need to take a longer-term and wider-scope view of the issue. We may reap short-term local gains by approving this project, but the cost is unacceptably high. In doing so, we would be putting our Industrial Park at risk, and inconveniencing them with the long trains. This area should be the economic engine for the next 100 years. We would be ignoring the legitimate concerns of communities up-rail from us. We would be responsible for putting environmentally sensitive areas at risk. We would be contributing to global warming and thus sea level rise, which poses a clear threat to our community and the rest of the world as well. We would be contributing to decimation of the old-growth forests in Northern Canada.

It’s up to us to guard our own welfare, and also, as a City, to be responsible citizens of California, the USA and our fragile planet.

Sincerely,

Lawrence (Larnie) Reid Fox

Benicia Herald, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia Herald’s biased coverage of Planning Commission hearing

By Roger Straw, Editor, The Benicia Independent, October 1, 2015

Our local print newspaper, the Benicia Herald, has undergone some dramatic changes following the loss of many key staff in early September.  Many readers have been extremely disappointed in the quality of reporting, content, layout and journalistic style.

On the front page of the October 1 edition, headline news above the fold presented a blatantly biased article, “Crowds jam City Hall to give comment on Valero’s Crude by Rail Project.”

  • Quotes:   The article quoted FOUR speakers in favor of crude by rail, and ZERO speakers against crude by rail.  The four quoted were:
    • Dan Broadwater, Business Manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 180
    • Don Cuffel, Manager of the Environmental Department of Valero
    • Joe Bateman, Valero Fire Chief, and
    • Chris Howe, Director of Health, Safety, Environment and Government Affairs, Valero
  • Local support – 16 speakers favored oil trains and the environmental report, while 31 speakers, mostly from Benicia, opposed.  The Herald’s brief report on opposing speakers began with, “Project opponents came from various Bay Area cities and discussed their concerns….”  Somehow (go figure) Valero management’s public accusation at the Hearing that local efforts are the doing of outside organizations appears as the opening line in the Herald’s coverage of opposition speakers.  Of the 31 speakers who opposed the project that night, only 4 were from out of town.  Three of the 16 persons who spoke in favor of the project were top Valero officials, and most of the others were current or past employees.
  • Column inches – news stories are measured by column inches.  This article gave 14.5 inches to pro-oil-train speakers (including quotes) and only 4.5 inches to anti-oil-train speakers.
  • Lack of a byline – there was no attribution as to who wrote the lead news article in the October 1 Benicia Herald.  The large photo was labeled “Courtesy photo.”  If someone OTHER THAN the Herald supplied the photo, is it possible that someone OTHER THAN the Herald attended the meeting and supplied the text?  We are left to wonder who wrote the article, and whether the slant was calculated or simply innocently biased.

Needless to say, I will not be posting this article on the Benicia Independent.  The Benicia Herald’s online presence has gone into hibernation since the staff turnover on September 13, so no link can be provided to this story.  If I find time, I may upload it to some obscure corner for you to verify my observations.

Roger Straw, Editor
The Benicia Independent

NOTE: A blog like The Benicia Independent is permitted and expected to present a strongly held perspective on select issues of the day.  A local print newspaper, on the other hand, has a journalistic responsibility to reserve such editorial judgment to its occasional editorials.  News should be news, and although pure objectivity is hard to come by, a local newspaper should make every effort in that regard.