Category Archives: Local Regulation

Everything you need to know for TODAY’S Planning Commission meeting

By Roger Straw, February 11, 2016
[Editor:  Well, ALMOST everything.  For more details, see EVENTS.  – RS]
UPDATE: 
A FOURTH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING has been called for TONIGHT, THURSDAY, FEB. 11, 6:30pm.  Public comment is now closed, but it will be just as important to fill the chamber with concerned residents and regional support.  Be there if you can!  Arrive early to get a seat in Council Chambers.

Tonight, the first portion of the meeting will be given over to City staff and consultants.  According to Community Development Director Christina Ratcliffe, City staff will begin by discussing new materials given to Commissioners last night.  City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, notably absent during Commission procedings to date, was observed midway through the evening Wednesday delivering a huge stack of documents, presumably for Commissioners’ review.  It stands to reason that these documents will have further comments and instructions having to do with federal “preemption.”

City staff will also take time in the opening portion of tonight’s meeting to answer questions put to staff previously during the hearings, to which staff had responded that they would need to “look into it.”

Commissioners will no doubt interact with staff with further questions and clarifications, so it is likely Commissioners will not move into their final deliberations until – anybody’s guess – an hour or two (or three or four) go by.  Those deliberations and final statements are likely to take some time as well.  Director Ratcliffe advised Commissioners to bring their calendars to Thursday’s meeting, in case they need to schedule yet another continuation at a “date certain.”

PREVIOUSLY:

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community has been waging a critical fossil-fuel expansion battle virtually alone. Now it’s crunch time! We MUST stand with them!

On Monday and Tuesday nights, we witnessed history in the making. In an act of citizen heroism, Benicia Planning Commissioners directed pointed question after pointed question to City Staff, contract attorneys, paid consultants and Valero executives.  At critical moments, consultants couldn’t even defend their own report and some in the audience were heard to whisper “shame on you.” The hearing will continue tonight and quite possibly Thursday night.

Valero’s control over the city of Benicia is pervasive and pernicious. This battle has national and global ramifications. We need to turn out in force to encourage the Planning Commission to vote down Valero’s dirty crude proposal.

Sure, attending a meeting at Benicia City Hall at 6pm is inconvenient. But really, is this about us and our comfort level? We’re in a war for the soul of our community, our country and our planet.

Are you in?

Where: Benicia City Council Chambers | 250 East L St. Benicia
When: Arrive by 5:00 if you want a seat in the CC Chambers.
More info: http://safebenicia.org/news-and-events/


EARLIER:
Benicians For a Safe and Healthy Community is calling for a big turnout at the Monday Feb. 8 meeting of Benicia’s Planning Commission.  I join them in a sense of urgency.  See their call to action here.

This IS a critical moment for our city.  We have signed petitions, planted our yard signs, written letters to the city and the local newspapers, shown up at previous hearings … and now it all comes down to next week.

After yet another a final flood of letters by uprail agencies and environmental and legal experts; after we and Valero supporters jam City Hall and make our case on Monday, Tuesday and perhaps Wednesday and Thursday … our hard-working Planning Commissioners will close their massive 3-volume studies, ask some questions, make their own final comments, and vote.

Commissioners will vote first on whether to “certify” the Final Draft Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).  This will determine whether the report is adequate under California law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).   If they decline to certify the report, Valero will have to decide whether to 1) revise the report again and go through another set of hearings, 2) drop the project, or 3) appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the Benicia City Council.

If on the other hand Commissioners vote to certify the report, then they will have a second vote: whether to approve or deny issuing a permit for Valero to proceed with its project.  If they vote to deny the permit, Valero will have to decide whether to start all over with a new proposal, drop the project, or appeal the decision to the City Council.  If our Commission decides to issue a permit for the project, Valero will get out the shovels and hardhats, but some among us might consider further action to stop the project, including an appeal to City Council.

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community has a News & Events page with all you need to know about Monday’s Planning Commission hearing.  Please come.  Plan to attend on Monday AND Tuesday.  Your presence is powerful.BSHC

Evite_Tell_BeniciaRSVP – Yes, I will attend the Feb. 8 Commission Hearing.  Click here.

Sign here!

Over 1300 have already signed the Safe Benicia petition.  Let’s hit 2000 today! Click the image above, or email us at info@safebenicia.org

WHY VALERO’S EIR FAILS:

HERE’S THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE:

KCRA: Residents voice concerns over proposed rail transport in Benicia

Repost from KCRA News, Sacramento
[Editor:  This report suffers from a few errors of fact, but is a welcome bit of coverage.  Very few news reports have surfaced following last night’s important hearing.  I wasn’t able to embed the video of reporter Tom Miller.  Go to KCRA to watch.  – RS]

Residents voice concerns over proposed rail transport in Benicia

Two 50-car trains would move through cities like Sac, Davis

By Tom Miller, Feb 08, 2016 11:58 PM PST

KCRA 2016-02-08BENICIA, Calif. (KCRA) —A push to bring crude oil on trains through Northern California to the Bay Area has many residents in the towns and cities it would pass through worried about the environmental and safety risks that go with it.

Valero Energy Corporation is asking the Benicia Planning Commission to approve $55 million in upgrades to its local refinery.

The project would allow two 50-car trains, each carrying 35,000 barrels of crude oil, to unload at the refinery each day.

The crude would come from all over the continent and would be carried through major urban centers like Sacramento, Roseville and Davis.

“We are not confident that the cars that are being used for this transport will safely transport them through our communities, our sensitive habitat, along the rivers and streams in our region,” Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor said.

According to Saylor, 500,000 people live within a half-mile of the tracks in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.

An environmental impact report found eight “potentially significant impacts” that could be addressed with mitigation measures and 11 “significant and unavoidable impacts.”

Both categories include environmental effects on air quality and biological resources.

However, in the unavoidable impacts section, the report lists greenhouse gas emissions in addition to hazards and hazardous materials.

The report states the project could pose a significant threat to the public or environment in an accident involving a spill.

The report goes on to say, “Although the risk of such an occurrence is extremely low, the potential consequences of such an event could be extremely high.”

In 2013, 47 people were killed in Quebec, Canada, after a crude oil train derailed there.

Saylor is worried a similar incident could happen in Northern California.

“The highly volatile substances included within this transport could be very damaging to our communities, to our businesses (and) to our homeowners,” he said.

Valero insists that’s unlikely in Northern California. The company plans to use upgraded train cars and said its crude oil is less volatile.

“Some of the early concerns about rail safety are based on scenarios that wouldn’t exist in our project,” Valero’s Heath, Safety and Environment Director Chris Howe said.

The company, which contributes 20 percent of the money in Benicia’s general fund, currently employs 500 people within the city.

Howe said the upgrades at the refinery would create 120 temporary jobs during the anticipated five months of construction and 20 new, permanent jobs.

However, Howe said ultimately it is not Valero’s responsibility when it comes to assuring the public a disaster would not occur in Northern California.

“We look to the railroad to safely deliver that material to our refinery, but I point out that marine deliveries in the bay, much larger volumes, will be reduced in risk through the delivery of crude by rail,” he said.

Despite the environmental concerns, Benicia city staff recommended the planning commission approve the Valero project.

On Monday, Benicia City Hall was filled with more than a 100 people, hoping to weigh in on the proposal.

Elizabeth Lasensky carpooled from Davis with nearly a dozen others, hoping her anti crude-by-rail stance would be heard by the commissioners.

“Every time a train goes through, our probability is increased, and that’s just for an explosion,” Lasensky said. “We still have to deal with the air pollutants and the noise pollution.”

Because of the number of residents hoping to voice their concerns, the planning commission has scheduled public comment sessions every day through Thursday, when it’s expected to vote on the project.

KQED NEWS: Oil Trains Face Tough Haul in California

Repost from KQED News – The California Report

Oil Trains Face Tough Haul in California

By Julie Small, February 6, 2016
A train carrying crude oil operated by BNSF railway in California. (Jake Miille/Jake Miille Photography)

A statewide conflict over whether to allow more trains carrying crude oil into California is coming to a head in communities hundreds of miles apart.

The Central Coast town of San Luis Obispo and the Bay Area city of Benicia are poised to make decisions in the coming days that would have broad implications for the future of this type of import.

Longtime San Luis Obispo resident Heidi Harmon hopes to stop trains from hauling crude through her town, citing what she calls an “elevated risk of derailment.”

Oil trains would likely have to cross a 19th century bridge just a mile from the city’s thriving downtown.

“You can see the antiquated style with which this was put together” says Harmon, gesturing to rail tracks perched on top of the trestle’s steel rods.

She describes Stenner Creek Trestle as “stunning to look at but terrifying to consider a mile-and-a-half-long oil train coming over.”

Trains hauling up to 80 tanker cars could cross the trestle bridge multiple times a week if Phillips 66 gets wins approval for a plan to build a rail spur at its nearby refinery.

The company has applied for a permit to connect its Santa Maria refinery to the nearby Union Pacific line.

A steady decline in California oil production has compelled Phillips 66 to look for ways to bring in crude from other states. The company’s landlocked refinery in Santa Maria has no pipeline connection to do that — and no nearby port terminal.

The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission held hearings that began Thursday on whether to allow the rail spur project. County staff has advised against it, saying it poses too great a risk to public health and safety.

Harmon and hundreds of other opponents packed the meeting.

San Luis Obispo resident Heidi Harmon describes Stenner Creek Trestle as “stunning to look at but terrifying to consider a mile-and-a-half long oil train coming over.”
San Luis Obispo resident Heidi Harmon describes Stenner Creek Trestle as ‘stunning to look at but terrifying to consider a mile-and-a-half-long oil train coming over.’ (Julie Small/KQED)

“We have an opportunity in San Luis Obispo to say we do not want this train” said Harmon. “We do not want the dangers — the air pollution hazards and the increased cancer risks — we do not want this in our community.”

A series of accidents, including the 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail disaster that killed 47 people in Quebec, have fueled fears and community opposition.

Phillips 66 officials declined an interview for this story but said in an email the company uses “one of the most modern railcar fleets in the industry.”

Over 100 government agencies and school boards, including many from the San Francisco Bay Area, also oppose the rail spur in San Luis Obispo.

A similar project at the Valero refinery in Benicia also faces strong opposition.

Valero also wants to connect its operations to Union Pacific.

Benicia’s planning commission has set a public hearing on that crude-by-rail project Monday. Staff there is recommending approval.

Political leadership is divided, but many residents are opposed. Some of those municipal governments of nearby cities want more safeguards included in the project. To get to Benicia, the crude would first pass through communities far north, including Auburn, Sacramento and the university town of Davis.

“The rail line passes through the heart of our downtown and has a few geographic elements to it that raise concerns when oil trains are going through it,” said Mike Webb, city planner for Davis.

“We are not trying to stop the project,” Webb emphasized. “Our primary mission is to ensure that, to the extent that these trains and these materials are going through our communities, let’s make it as safe as it can possibly be.”

Davis officials and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) are pushing for a commitment from Valero and UP to use technology that automatically slows trains in densely populated areas.

“Public safety and first responder advance notification is of paramount concern,” said Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor, a former council chair.

Officials also want a commitment to provide more training and funding for first responders in communities along the route and for emergency crews to get warned before an oil train comes down the line.

Chris Howe, a manager for Valero, testified at a public hearing last year on the Benicia oil-by-rail project that the company is committed to strong safety standards and modern technology.

“We have from the start planned to utilize in our project upgraded railcars.” Howe said.

Valero is also working with an experienced railroad.

San Antonio-based Valero Corp. is the nation's biggest refiner. The Benicia refinery is one of two the company operates in California.
San Antonio-based Valero Corp. is the nation’s biggest refiner. The Benicia refinery is one of two the company operates in California. (Craig Miller/KQED)

“We expect UP railroad — which is the prime railroad that we’ll be utilizing to move those trains — to do so safely,” Howe said. “Many of the incidents that have happened have occurred on much smaller, less well maintained railroads.”

Union Pacific says it has made changes to reduce the risk of hauling crude: implementing slower speeds in high-population areas and creating analytical tools to find the safest routes.

The two projects under consideration are among a handful of crude-by-rail projects proposed in recent years to take advantage of inexpensive crude from North Dakota, Canada and Texas.

But the recent plunge in oil prices has made hauling it by train more expensive, causing some of those plans to unravel.

“The rail economics have changed the calculus for some companies” said Gordon Schremp, a senior fuel analyst with the California Energy Commission.

Last year WesPac abandoned a plan to build a rail terminal in the Bay Area town of Pittsburg, citing a lack of investors for the project. Alon USA has yet to act on a permit the company acquired in 2012 to build a crude-by-rail terminal at an idle refinery in Bakersfield.

According to Schremp, even at the peak of industry interest rail imports comprised just 1 percent of California’s oil imports. By the end of 2015, those imports plummeted to one-tenth of 1 percent.

“Crude-by-rail was never a very important source supply,” said Schremp, “because we did not have the facilities constructed.”

SLO: Another hearing scheduled for opponents of Phillips 66 oil-by-rail plan

Repost from KCBX FM, Central Coast Public Radio
[Editor:  Significant quote: “I think that they have a strong argument in the sense that we do need every job. We do need well paid jobs. But, we’re being asked to make a choice between the long-term health and safety of our community and these specific jobs. And that’s a choice no American should ever have to make.”  – Eddie Scher of ForestEthics. Hearings will continue on February 25.  – RS]

Another hearing scheduled for opponents of Phillips 66 oil-by-rail plan

By Daniel Park, February 5, 2016

KCBX_listenThe San Luis Obispo Planning Commission wrapping up public comment Friday after hearing from hundreds of people voicing opposition to an oil-by-rail plan over a two day period.

Not everyone has been heard though, so commissioners must carry those over to the next scheduled meeting on February 25, 2016.

Opposition to the Phillips 66 plan to increase the number of trains carrying crude oil to refinery near Nipomo got a major boost Friday as well.

Phillips 66 plans to bring crude oil by train to their Santa Maria refinery. CREDIT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Opponents received a key endorsement, as the California Coastal Commission sent a letter to the SLO Planning Commission urging members to reject the proposal based on adverse impacts to the environment.

If the Planning Commission votes no and the company appeals, the proposal could eventually end up before the Coastal Commission, which has regulatory authority over coastal land use.

Supporters say the proposal’s economic benefits would outweigh the potential costs.

Phillips 66 spokesman Dennis Nuss said Friday, the plan will provide jobs and maintain the area’s energy production.

“There’s been a decline in both onshore and offshore California crude oil productions, so additional reliable sources of crude are required to ensure that the refinery can continue to meet those critical energy needs and support jobs in the community,” Nuss said.

If approved, Phillips 66 said it will hire 200 people for construction jobs, as well as 12 permanent positions in its refinery.

Opponents say jobs aren’t worth the project’s potential damage.

Eddie Scher, the spokesperson for ForestEthics, an environmental organization that demands environmental responsibility from corporations, said that the choice between jobs and the environment isn’t fair.

“I think that they have a strong argument in the sense that we do need every job. We do need well paid jobs,” Scher said. “But, we’re being asked to make a choice between the long-term health and safety of our community and these specific jobs. And that’s a choice no American should ever have to make.”

Commissioners won’t make a decision until after hearing from everyone later this month.

Phillips 66 says it will pursue other options, should it’s proposal fail.