Category Archives: Environmental Impacts

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Environmental review, Uprail communities, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

COUNCIL HEARINGS: List of 77 speakers – articulate, informed opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, April 8, 2016

Council Hearings this week: 77 informed, articulate and often passionate speakers critical of of Valero Crude By Rail

pubcommentOPENThis past week, the Benicia City Council heard public testimony for and against Valero’s Crude By Rail proposal – mostly against.  Video of these comments can be found on the City’s website.

On the two dates combined, Council heard 77 highly critical comments calling for outright rejection of Valero’s proposal or at the very least a much revised and recirculated environmental report. Only 16 speakers favored Valero’s proposal.

On Monday, April 4, Council heard from 52 speakers.  41 were highly critical or completely opposed to Valero’s proposal, and only 11 spoke in favor.  Of the 11 in favor, most either work for or provide services for Valero.

Here is a listing of the 41 who spoke in opposition on April 4, followed by a listing of 36 such speakers on April 6:

MONDAY, APRIL 4  (41 who spoke in opposition)

  • 8 elected and appointed officials from beyond Benicia
    • 1 State of California elected official: Alex Pater, representing Benicia’s State Senator Lois Wolk
    • 4 from uprail communities
      • Don Saylor, Yolo County Supervisor and Sacramento Area Council of Governments past Board chair
      • Matt Jones, Yolo Solano Air District, representing 7 air districts: Butte, Feather, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, and Yolo-Solano
      • Eric Lee, City of Davis planner
      • Laurie Lipman, representing Ellen Cochrane, Sacramento Unified School District Board
    • 3 from the East Bay
      • Linda Maio, Berkeley Vice Mayor
      • Jesse Arreguín, Berkeley City Councilmember
      • Alejandro Soto-Vigil, representing Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington
  • 18 residents from uprail communities of Sacramento, Davis and Dixon:
    • Chris Brown, Chris Brown Consulting, Sacramento, representing 30 who rode the bus from uprail communities tonight
    • Maura Metz, Davis
    • Jean Jackman, Davis
    • Maria Cornejo-Gutierrez, Dixon
    • Laurie Lipman, 350 Sacramento
    • JoEllen Arnold, Sacramento
    • Jan Rein, Sacramento
    • Rob Lain, Sacramento
    • Estevan Hernandez, South Sacramento
    • Kathleen Williams-Fossdahl, Davis
    • Jaime Gonzales, Sacramento, Board of Directors, California Student Sustainability Coalition
    • Carol Warren, Dixon, slides of her neighborhood along the tracks
    • Don Mooney, Davis, Environmental attorney
    • Samantha McCarthy, Davis, lives very near the tracks
    • Frances Burke, Davis, lives very near the tracks
    • Elizabeth Lasensky, Davis, powerpoint: From Davis to Benicia: Our Lives Are on the Line”
    • Lynne Nittler, Davis. Notes.  Powerpoint: Oil by Rail Safety in California Report by the state’s Interagency Rail Safety Working Group
    • Rodney Robinson, Davis
  •  3 residents from other communities:
    • Bill Pinkham, Richmond
    • Steven Hallett, Vallejo
    • Deborah Tallin, Lafayette
  • 12 residents of Benicia
    • Marilyn Bardet, Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community
    • Petition Roll - copies of originals (600px)
      Demonstration roll of local petitions collected by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

      Andrés Soto, Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community (While Mr. Soto spoke, members of BSHC unfurled a demonstration “scroll” of original hand-signed petitions that stretched 4 times the length of the aisle in Council Chambers (see FACEBOOK video). As he concluded speaking, Mr. Soto submitted for the public record BSHC’s list of 4,081 signatures of opponents of the project.)

    • Madeline Koster
    • Teresa Ritz
    • Carol Thompson
    • Bart Sullivan
    • Rick Stierwalts
    • David Jenkins, Benicia Industrial Park business owner
    • Kathy Kerridge, Benicia Community Sustainability Commission member
    • June Mejias
    • Pat Toth-Smith
    • Kat Black, Chairperson, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6  (36 who spoke in opposition)

On Wednesday, April 6, Council heard from 41 speakers. 36 were highly critical or completely opposed to Valero’s proposal, and only 5 spoke in favor. Of the 5 in favor, most either work for or supply services for Valero.

Here is a listing of the 36 who spoke in opposition on April 6:

  • 7 experts, attorneys and organizers
    • Valerie Love, Clean Energy Campaigner, Center for Biological Diversity
    • Elly Benson, Attorney, Sierra Club
    • Ethan Buckner, Extreme Oil Campaigner, STAND (formerly ForestEthics)
    • Greg Karras, Senior Scientist, Communities for a Better Environment
    • Roger Lin, Attorney, Communities for a Better Environment
    • Diane Bailey, Executive Director, Menlo Spark (formerly Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council)
    • Rachael Koss, Attorney, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, representing Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFER)
  • 1 Benicia city official
  • 6 Benicia business  owners, including 3 from Benicia’s Industrial Park, 2 from the Arsenal District and 1 from downtown
    • Giovanna Sensi-Isolani, owner of Fiber-Frolics, downtown Benicia
    • Jack Ruszel, owner, Ruszel Woodworks, Benicia Industrial Park (adjacent to the tracks, no access if blocked in emergency)
    • Hadieh Elias, owner, principal and professional engineer, ESE Consulting Engineers, Inc., in Benicia’s Arsenal District
    • Amir Firouz, principal and structural enginner, ESE Consulting Engineers, Inc., in Benicia’s Arsenal District
    • Ed Ruszel, Ruszel Woodworks, Benicia Industrial Park (adjacent to the tracks, no access if blocked in emergency)
    • Jennifer Kalika Stanger, M.D., family physician in Vallejo, lifetime Benicia resident
  • 22 residents, including 20 from Benicia and 2 from other communities. (Note that 7 of the above listed April 6 speakers are also from Benicia, making a total of 29 Benicians.)
    • Allan Miller, Davis
    • Nancy Finley, Benicia
    • Constance Beutel, Benicia
    • Dona Rose, Benicia
    • Shiela Clyatt, Benicia
    • Larnie Fox, Benicia
    • Eric Ferry, El Sobrante
    • Charles Coleman, Benicia
    • Judi Sullivan, Benicia
    • Dan Smith, Benicia
    • Michelle Rowe-Shields, Benicia
    • Phyllis Ingerson, Benicia
    • Roger Straw, Benicia, The Benicia Independent
    • Jan Cox-Golovich, Benicia
    • Barbara Pillsbury, Benicia
    • Jenette Wolf, Benicia
    • Tom Ruszel, Benicia
    • Rebekah Ramos, Benicia
    • Lisa Reinertson, Benicia
    • Steve Jones, Benicia
    • Craig Snider, Benicia
    • Ruby Wallis, Benicia
Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Environmental review, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

LETTER OF OPPOSITION: Five environmental attorneys and others

By Roger Straw, March 31, 2016

On March 31, five environmental attorneys and a host of experts and others (including Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community) sent the Benicia City Council this strong 3-page letter of opposition to Valero’s oil trains proposal.  (For a much longer download, see the Letter with Attachments [13 MB, 214 pages].)

Attorney signatories:

    • Jackie Prange, Staff Attorney for Natural Resources Defense Council;
    • Roger Lin, Staff Attorney for Communities for a Better Environment;
    • George Torgun, Managing Attorney for San Francisco Baykeeper;
    • Clare Lakewood, Staff Attorney for Center for Biological Diversity;
    • Elly Benson, Staff Attorney for Sierra Club.

Others signing the letter:

    • Ethan Buckner, ForestEthics;
    • Katherine Black, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community;
    • Janet Johnson, Richmond Progressive Alliance;
    • David McCoard, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter;
    • Jessica Hendricks, Global Community Monitor;
    • Colin Miller, Bay Localize;
    • Denny Larson, Community Science Institute;
    • Nancy Rieser, Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment;
    • Steve Nadel, Sunflower Alliance;
    • Kalli Graham, Pittsburg Defense Council;
    • Richard Gray, 350 Bay Area and 350 Marin;
    • Bradley Angel, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice;
    • Sandy Saeturn, Asian Pacific Environmental Network

SIGNIFICANT EXCERPT:

The City Council can, and must, uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision to deny the use permit for the Valero crude-by-rail project. Federal law does not preempt the City from denying the permit for this project. Furthermore, the City should not tolerate Valero’ s delay tactic of seeking a declaratory order from the Surface Transportation Board (STB). As explained below, the STB does not have jurisdiction over this project and will almost certainly decline to hear Valero’ s petition for the very same reason that preemption does not apply. Finally, even if preemption were to apply here, the project’s on-site impacts, especially the increases in refinery pollution, require the City to deny the permit.

Benicia City Council, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Supreme Court, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Environmental review, Local Regulation, Public Health, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

LETTER OF OPPOSITION: Attorney Rachael Koss, for SAFER California

By Roger Straw, March 31, 2016

On March 30, attorney Rachael E. Koss of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo,  representing Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFER), sent the Benicia City Council this letter of opposition to Valero’s oil trains project.

SIGNIFICANT EXCERPT:

First, Valero’s argument that the City should not consider Project impacts from crude slate changes because emissions would not exceed its permit limits has already been rejected by the California Supreme Court. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)l requires the City to determine whether a project would change the existing environment by increasing emissions as compared to actual existing emissions — not whether the Project will change the environment by exceeding hypothetical emissions allowed under permit limits. This was precisely the issue before the California Supreme Court in Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District.2 The Court rejected the argument that “the analytical baseline for a project employing existing equipment should be the maximum permitted operating capacity of the equipment, even if the equipment is operating below those levels at the time the environmental analysis is begun.”3 The Court held that CEQA requires the baseline to reflect “established levels of a particular use,” not the “merely hypothetical conditions allowable under the permits…”4 Following the Supreme Court decision, the court in Communities for a Better Environlnent v. City of Richmond5 similarly rejected the city’s use of a hypothetical baseline, which failed to reflect actual operational conditions. “The [Supreme Court] stated that using hypothetical, allowable conditions as a baseline ‘will not inform decision makers and the public of the project’s significant environmental impacts, as CEQA mandates.”’6 Thus, Valero’s argument has already been rejected by the California Supreme Court.

Benicia City Council, Carbon emissions, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Environmental review, Local Regulation, Public Health, Refinery emissions, Valero Crude By Rail

LETTER OF OPPOSITION: Greg Karras, Senior Scientist for Communities for a Better Environment

By Roger Straw, March 31, 2016

This morning, Greg Karras, Senior Scientist for Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) sent the Benicia City Council a 15-page Expert Report, Regarding the Appeal of Planning Commission Actions on the Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project and Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

For Mr. Karras’ lengthy attachments, see the City of Benicia’s posting of letters received March 25-31.

SIGNIFICANT EXCERPT:

Valero’s appeal asserts … that: “All of the public discussion about the Project has focused on the impacts of rail operations.” …The assertion that “[a]ll public discussion about the Project has focused on the impacts of rail operations”2 is inaccurate and misleading. Goodman and Rowan (2013) showed that the project could change the refinery’s crude slate.3 Fox (2013) showed this could cause significant impacts from refining operations.4 By 1 July 2013 at least eleven groups, including CBE and the refinery workers union United Steelworkers (Local 675), sought full disclosure and analysis of the changes in refinery oil feedstock and emissions that could result from the project.5 The EIR identified this potential for project-driven changes in its crude slate to cause impacts in the refinery as an “area of controversy.”6 Fox (2014),7 Pless (2014),8 Karras (2014),9 Fox (2016),10 Pless (2016)11 and others12 commented in detail on the EIR’s failure to evaluate these and other refining impacts of the proposed project. Valero is on record acknowledging this focus of independent public comment on refining impacts of the project, as shown by the company’s attempt, at the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing, to rebut comments regarding these refinery impacts of the project,13 in direct contradiction to its position on appeal.