Category Archives: Local Regulation

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Sacramento CA, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD: Public comments on Valero’s appeal

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor:  Many thanks to the Vallejo Times-Herald and reporter Irma Widjojo for her late-night service to our communities, covering hearings on this incredibly important issue of statewide and national significance. We can only wish the major news outlets in the Bay Area and Northern California were so inclined.  Oh, and … great photo!  – RS]

Public comments on Valero’s appeal

By Irma Widjojo, 04/05/16, 6:28 PM PDT
Irma Widjojo - Times-HeraldMembers of Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community unravel a scroll of signed petitions against Valero Benicia Refinery 's proposed crude-by-rail project during the group's public comment slot Monday night at the Benicia City Council Chambers.
Members of Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community unravel a scroll of signed petitions against Valero Benicia Refinery ‘s proposed crude-by-rail project during the group’s public comment slot Monday night at the Benicia City Council Chambers. Irma Widjojo — Times-Herald

Benicia >> About 50 people spoke Monday night to voice their opinion on Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposed project as the public comment period of the appeal hearing began.

Like previous public comment periods on the issue, the Benicia City Council Chambers was packed for the hearing, causing a number of people to be asked to listen from the overflow areas.

The City Council is being asked to consider the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Valero’s use permit application for the crude-by-rail project and to not certify the project’s Environmental Impact Report, or EIR.

Elected officials from surrounding areas, representatives from governmental and other agencies and spokesmen for organized groups were allowed to speak first at the meeting.

About 30 people came by a chartered bus from Sacramento and the “uprail” cities to oppose the project and spoke.

A local grassroots organization Benicians for Safe and Healthy Community also used a visual prop during its address in the form of a scroll of papers containing more than 4,080 signatures of those who are against the project.

At a March hearing, an attorney working with Valero on the project said the company intends to send a request for an opinion from the Surface Transportation Board on the issue of federal preemption in relation to the project.

At the end of the hearing, later in April, the council will also decide if it will wait to make a decision on the appeal after the Surface Transportation Board, or STB, returns with a declarative order.

The staff has recommended for the council not to wait because the agency’s decision can be appealed in court and waiting would risk for the EIR to become stale.

Those who support the project are urging the council to wait, while the other side ask for a decision to be made at the end of the hearing.

“Too much money and time have been spent on this process,” a speaker said. “Let’s not postpone it further.”

At stake is the ability for the refinery to bring in 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.

Those who supported the project say Valero has been a good neighbor in Benicia and that the project is needed for the company to remain competitive.

The refinery said the $50 million project would result in about 120 temporary construction jobs and 20 full-time jobs, as well as generate tax revenues for the city.

However, those who are against the project said the risks outweigh the benefits.

In fact, the project EIR states that there are 11 “significant and unavoidable” impacts, though staff and Valero have said they cannot be mitigated because they are rail related and are preempted by federal laws.

The Planning Commission, however, disagreed, and denied the project.

Public comment will resume Wednesday at 7 p.m. at City Hall, 250 E. L St., and the hearing will then continue April 18 and 19, if necessary.

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

Public Comments on Valero Crude by Rail April 4-5

By Roger Straw, April 5, 2016

Benicia, California

Today the City of Benicia released new letters and reports on Valero Crude by Rail received by the City on April 4-5, 2016.  The city’s PDF document is 19.4 MB and 456 pages. (The document is sometimes slow to download from the City’s website.  A copy may be downloaded more quickly here.)

The document has an index at the top, but no page numbers.  Here’s a quick guide:

    • Page 2 – Association of Irritated Residents vs. Kern County Board of Supervisors ruling
    • Page 8 – League of Conservation Voters East Bay
    • Page 9 – Benicia Chamber of Commerce
    • Page 10 – Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (summary of the lengthy letter to follow…)
    • Page 13 – Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (on Valero’s appeal of the Planning Commission decision to deny the project)
      • pp. 13-48 Attorney Rachel Koss letter
      • pp. 49-315 Expert comments by Dr. Phyllis Fox (Table of Contents on pp. 50-50, Summary and Conclusions on pp. 52-54.  See her report on the BenIndy here.)
      • pp. 316-427 Expert comments by Environmental Biologist Scott Cashan (Report on pp. 316-324; bio on pp. 325-331; attachments on pp. 332-427.)
    • Page 428 – Letter from Valero alleging a misinformation campaign  [Editor’s note: look who’s talking!]
    • Page 443 – Letter from California State Senator Lois Wolk
    • Pages 432-456 – Individual letters for and against the appeal and the delay request.

When time allows I will break out additional significant and interesting pieces from this huge document and post on the Project Review page.  Stay tuned for more!

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Davis CA, Environmental review, Federal pre-emption, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Sacramento CA, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

KCRA TV3 ON BENICIA CITY COUNCIL HEARING: Residents remain concerned over crude oil trains in NorCal

Repost from KCRA TV3, Sacramento

Valero crude oil gets another shot at NorCal railways

Benicia City Council begins another week of public comment on new proposal

By Vickie Gonzalez, Apr 05, 2016, 12:41 AM PDT
KCRA 2016-04-05
[Link takes you offsite to KCRA’s video.]
BENICIA, Calif. (KCRA) —Crude oil traveling through Northern California is getting another chance of becoming a reality as an oil company offers a new proposal to the Benicia City Council.
Valero wants two 50-car trains to transport tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil daily to its refinery in Benicia, passing through cities like Davis, Sacramento and Roseville, a request that has met with stiff controversy.

The Benicia City Council began a week of public comment on the proposal Monday after the city’s planning commission voted down Valero’s request in February despite the city hall’s support, causing the oil refinery to appeal the decision.

Valero Health, Safety and Environment Director Chris Howe said if the permit is approved, the added energy supply could be up and running following six months of construction.

Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor said the oil would pass through Davis and Sacramento stations, which are the top two trafficked passenger rails from San Francisco to Chicago.

“Right across the rail you see low-income housing. Just feet from us is the downtown core and there is student housing,” he said.

Saylor serves on the board for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

He said of the 2.4-million residents in the six county region of Sutter, Yuba, Placer, Yolo, Sacramento and El Dorado counties, close to 500,000 are within a quarter-mile radius of a railway:

-260,000 are residents
-200,000 work in the area
-28,000 are students in the area

“That quarter-mile is relevant because that’s the blast zone,” Saylor said.

The supervisor appreciates the energy value this could bring, as well as the potential jobs, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of safety.

“If there is cost associated with improved safety, then that cost seems a reasonable factor for Valero,” Saylor said.

A major issue is railways are federally governed. Local jurisdictions are prohibited from imposing additional safety requirements and Valero maintains it has met every federal regulation.

However, Saylor wants the oil refinery to take added safety measures and bear the burden of risk as opposed to the community doing so, something Valero is not required to do.

Monday’s public comment at Benicia City Hall included groups of Davis and Sacramento residents who made the trek to Solano County.

“I think it’s often (that) decisions are made in favor of big money and power,” Davis resident Jean Jackman said.

A bus of dozens of Davis residents were among the organized groups.

“Those oil tanker cars are not certified for the highly flammable crude oil that they are planning to transport,” Davis resident Kathleen Williams-Fosseahl said.

Valero said that’s not true and will use higher-quality trains to transport crude oil, a much-needed staple in California regardless of the opposition.

A decision ultimately will be made by the city of Benicia. The city council is expected to vote later this month. Public hearings are scheduled to continue through the week.

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.