This is a video clip of the presentation by Benicia Planning Commission Chair Donald Dean at the City Council meeting of March 15. This clip runs for about 15 1/2 minutes. Many thanks to Benicia videographer Constance Beutel for her Youtube video recording. (On the City’s longer and unindexed video, Chair Dean’s comments begin at minute 1:36:48 and run to 1:51:45. Note that the video archive of the entire meeting can be found on the City of Benicia website at ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas.)
Category Archives: Federal pre-emption
VIDEO: Benicia City Council, March 15, 2016: City Contract Attorney Brad Hogin
This is a video clip of the presentation by Benicia’s Contract Attorney Brad Hogin at the City Council meeting of March 15. This clip runs for about 26 minutes. (On the City’s longer and unindexed video, it begins at minute 1:04:27 and runs to 1:30:42. Note that the video archive of the entire meeting can be found on the City of Benicia website at ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas.)
VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD: Valero asks Benicia City Council to delay decision on oil train project
Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
Valero asks Benicia council to continue hearing
By Irma Widjojo, 03/16/16, 6:25 PM PDTBenicia >> Responding to new information revealed by Valero Benicia Refinery, Benicia City Council is set to decide in April if it would wait to make a decision on the refinery’s proposed project.
The council on Tuesday began the appeal hearing on the Planning Commission’s decision on Valero’s proposed crude by rail project.
Going against the city staff’s recommendation, the commission last month unanimously decided to deny certifying the project’s final Environmental Impact Report and deny the use permit application, which would allow the refinery to bring two 50-car trains a day carrying up to 70,000 barrels of North American crude oil.
The company’s oil is now being transported into the city by marine vessels and pipeline.
One of the major factors in the commission’s final decision was the issue of federal preemption.
During Valero’s presentation Tuesday, an attorney that has been working with Valero said the refinery intends to submit a petition to the Surface Transportation Board, or STB, to request for a declarative action regarding preemption in relation to the proposed project.
“The purpose is to get a decision from the STB of preemption as applied to the project,” said the attorney, John Flynn. “It should answer to the most important questions from both sides.”
City staff and Valero said any mitigations on impacts caused by railroad operations are preempted by federal laws, and that the commission is not allowed to deny the project based on railroad impacts.
Railroad operation is regulated by STB, a federal entity.
However, 11 “significant and unavoidable” impacts that were identified in the report are all rail related.
After four long-night meetings and hours of discussion and testimony regarding the issue, the commission unanimously agreed that the issue of preemption was very vague.
“We received letters from regional agencies who repeatedly say that federal preemption was not as broad as the city’s interpretation,” Commission Chair Donald Dean said Tuesday during his presentation. “There was a considerable discussion about how broadly are we interpreting the preemption issue. … It’s murky as best.”
He said the impacts presented in the report not only affect Benicia, but other communities where the trains would pass if the project is approved.
“To me the definition of a community goes beyond the boundaries of the city,” Dean said. “The commission had a conundrum. … (The staff’s finding) we don’t think we can make in good conscience.”
On Feb. 29, Valero filed a letter to appeal the decision.
Tuesday’s meeting was designated for presentations by the staff and Valero, and council’s questions for them. Public comments are set to be received on the next scheduled meeting April 4.
Flynn also said Valero agrees with the staff’s view on preemption.
“Your own attorney clearly and correctly advises the Planning Commission on preemption,” he said. “There was incorrect and highly misleading information by the opponent. The Planning commission unfortunately took the bait.”
Due to the newly revealed intent, Valero asked the council to continue the hearing until STB responded.
At the end of the meeting Tuesday, council agreed to discuss in April if a decision on the project should wait for STB’s response but will continue to receive public comments on the project then.
The rest of the hearing is set for April 4, 16 and 19, if necessary.
Berkeley report finds overwhelming opposition to project that would bring crude-by-rail through Bay Area cities
Repost from the Contra Costa Times
Report finds overwhelming opposition to project that would bring crude-by-rail through Bay Area cities
By Tom Lochner, 03/04/2016 04:44:34 AM PST
BERKELEY — A crude-by-rail project in Central California that could bring up to five trains a week through Berkeley and other East Bay shoreline cities has garnered overwhelming opposition among local politicians and the public, an observer for the city reports.
Ray Yep, a member of the Public Works Commission working with Councilwoman Linda Maio, represented Berkeley at hearings before the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission last month on the Phillips 66 Rail Spur Project. The proposal calls for bringing out-of-state crude oil, likely the tar sands variety, to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery via 80-car trains, via a 1.3-mile spur that would connect the refinery with the Union Pacific mainline.
Possible access routes to the refinery from outside the area would be from the south via the Los Angeles Basin, and from the north via the East Bay and South Bay along Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor tracks.
As early as 2014, the Berkeley and Richmond city councils voted to oppose the transport of crude oil through the East Bay.
Hearings were held Feb. 4 and 5, with at least one more hearing before the planning commission votes on the project. The next hearing is 9 a.m. March 11.
At the Feb. 4 hearing, the county staff gave a presentation, ending with a recommendation to deny the project. A county attorney followed with a discussion of federal pre-emption, characterizing it as a “gray area,” according to the Berkeley report.
Phillips 66 has challenged the county’s standing to evaluate Union Pacific mainline issues — including possible effects on the communities it traverses. In an ensuing presentation, the company held that mainline issues fall under federal regulations, the Berkeley report noted.
Phillips 66 said the rail spur project is needed because of declining of oil production in California, and that it would keep the refinery in operation and provide local jobs and taxes, according to the Berkeley report. The company declared willingness to reduce the volume of trains to three per week, which critics have derided as a tactic to facilitate approval without addressing the danger of fire, explosion and pollution.
Without approval of the rail spur project, 100 trucks would transport crude oil daily from Kern County to the Santa Maria refinery, according to the report.
About 300 people submitted speaker cards at the Feb. 4 hearing and 69 spoke that day, from as far away as Crockett, Davis and Sacramento, according to the Berkeley report. Some 430 speaker cards were submitted at the Feb. 5 hearing.
The report noted that 17 elected officials spoke, all but one against the project.
Maio is expected to present the report to the City Council on Tuesday. It is available online at bit.ly/1QsQL6w.
You must be logged in to post a comment.