Category Archives: Local Regulation

Benicia City Council, Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Planning Commission, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Local Regulation, Public permitting, Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia Mayor: Public comment period closed – now what?

From an email by Benicia California Mayor Elizabeth Patterson
November 5, 2015

null

Public Comment Period Closed on Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for Valero Proposed Crude by Rail Project. 

What happens next?

Last week the extended Valero Crude by Rail Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) public comment period closed.  People are asking, “now what?”.

Following are some of the scenarios that could happen.  The list is in no way indicative of my thoughts or opinions and I have not asked for validation of any of the following scenarios by city staff.  But the list does represent some of the questions and scenarios being asked by the public.  I anticipate these kinds of questions will be raised at the Planning Commission hearing on the FEIR and project.  I take full responsibility for any errors and will correct such in future e-Alert update on Crude by Rail.

Scenarios:

1.  The staff and environmental consultants will estimate the work needed to respond to all the comments on both the original draft EIR and the RDEIR and advise the applicant.  If applicant agrees to proceed, the responses will be in the Final Environmental Impact Report  for consideration by the Planning Commission.

Or the applicant could appeal the staff decision.  I believe the appeal would be heard by the Planning Commission.  If they agreed with staff, the applicant could appeal to Council seeking relief from the staff and PC decision.  There would be no work done until the appeal is heard or the applicant agrees to fund the response document.  Read further for other permutations of further “delay”.

2.  If applicant agrees to proceed, the responses will be in the Final Environmental Impact Report  for consideration by the Planning Commission.

The public can comment at the Planning Commission FEIR hearing or in writing prior to the public hearing.  Generally, good practice is  staff (consultants) respond at the FEIR hearing which can be verbal or the item can be continued for written response though technically this is not like the draft EIR process.

Staff, consultants and outside attorney would prepare findings to be considered by the Planning Commission.  In the past for other projects the city sometimes has provided both possibilities for findings:  findings that the FEIR is adequate or findings that it is not.  The Planning Commission can find the FEIR adequate to decide on the project.  The Planning Commission could find that the FEIR is an adequate – though not a perfect assessment of the physical effects on the environment – and approve or deny the project.

The Planning Commission could find that the FEIR is not adequate for a decision to approve or deny.

Conventional wisdom is that either decision would be appealed.

3.  There can be an appeal at any step described above including decisions by staff and Planning Commission.  Appeals of staff go to the Planning Commission and their decision can be appealed to the City Council.  If any appeal moves forward, the City Council would have public hearing on any of the staff decisions and/or Planning Commission regarding the FEIR and the project.  The City Council could uphold the decisions of the staff and/or Planning Commission as in scenario #2 or not.

Depending on these actions and decisions there could be legal action.  Until legally decided, there would be no work done to advance the project process and staff time and effort would be to respond to legal action.

5.  Some experts and written opinions from the federal Surface Transportation Board and some legal opinions assert that if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) causes undue delay in rail transportation, that the feds could act preemptively and “overrule” CEQA.  Others suggest that that does not apply to local land use permits.  Others may have more information on how this process would work.

6.  City Council could certify the FEIR and deny or approve the project.  Conventional wisdom is that there would be a lawsuit challenging the decision based on CEQA and local permitting process.  The city is indemnified by the agreement with the applicant, meaning the applicant pays for all legal defense.  Some lead agencies hire the defense attorneys and the applicant pays for the defense.  Other lead agencies have been known to let the applicant choose the attorneys and pay directly for the defense.  The city is the lead agency.

7.  The applicant chooses not to pay for the defense of the CEQA document and land use permit law suit.  City stops the processing and defense.  There is a time factor involved in CEQA lawsuits.

The best place to get accurate current information on the process is with staff.  To get started, click here.  Another source is the Benicia Independent which is editorially opposed to the Crude by Rail project and selective about letters but does provide links that are easier to access.  It is also a comprehensive source of current news.  There is no comparable site in favor of Crude by Rail.  Stay tune for developments in this area.

Crude By Rail, Fossil fuels, Local Regulation

Portland City Council passes resolution to prevent more crude oil trains

Repost from the Portland Business Journal
[Editor:  See also this excellent report from EcoReport (by Roy Hales).  – RS]

City Council passes resolution to prevent more crude oil-carrying trains in Portland

By James Cronin, Nov 5, 2015, 7:04am PST

Portland City Council on Wednesday passed one of two resolutions on banning fossil fuel expansion in Portland while tabling the other until next week.

Commissioners, facing a standing-room only crowd at City Hall, passed a resolution opposing the increase of crude oil-carrying trains in and around the city. The second resolution, which opposes expansion of infrastructure whose primary purpose is transporting or storing fossil fuels in or through Portland or adjacent waterways, was tabled until Nov. 12.

The Portland City Council debate on resolutions banning the expansion of fossil fuel projects in Portland drew dozens of supporters to City Hall Wednesday.
The Portland City Council debate on resolutions banning the expansion of fossil fuel projects in Portland drew dozens of supporters to City Hall Wednesday. Cathy Cheney | Portland Business Journal

The contentious topic has pitted environmentalists who want dirty fuels to be a thing of the past against economic development hawks that see sizable financial investments and job creation in things like propane pipelines and natural gas terminals.

The battle landed in City Hall Wednesday, where sign-carrying activists gathered outside as Mayor Charlie Hales and Commissioner Amanda Fritz proposed their joint resolutions. The hearing garnered so much interest that city officials needed to open an overflow room to accommodate the crowd.

Scores of residents, activists and industry types filled the hall. Some carried small dowels with red and yellow ribbons attached. When speakers extolled Portland’s curbing of greenhouse gases or other perceived environmental wins, attendees shook their ribbons in rustling applause.

“Communities along the Columbia River are faced with an unprecedented and new threat — the idea of moving vast quantities of fossil fuels in oil trains down the Columbia River in trains that are known to derail, spill and ignite,” Dan Serres, conservation director for environmental group Columbia Riverkeeper, told the council. “The oil train resolution you are considering is both timely and appropriate because there are over a hundred trains per week that could be headed down the Columbia River. A spill in the Columbia River would decimate salmon habitat, disrupt river traffic and threaten drinking water supplies downstream.”

The resolutions resulted from Mayor Charlie Hales’ about-face on Pembina Pipeline Corp.’s planned $500 million propane terminal at the Port of Portland this summer, which he helped to stall after initially supporting the project.

Hales refused to bring a necessary environmental amendment for the project to the full city council for a hearing and potentially a vote, and went on to create the resolutions to ban future fossil fuel expansion.

The scene should be just as robust next week when council resumes its discussion on the second resolution, a broader measure that expands the city’s opposition to fossil fuel developments to projects beyond those that rely on rail cars.

That’s an issue that’s critical to the Port of Portland, which pursued the propane deal with Pembina. Curtis Robinhold, the port’s deputy executive director, said the language in the resolution is so vague that it become unclear exactly what types of energy projects the port could pursue for its property.

“There are no real definitions in the resolutions,” Robinhold said. “They clearly would apply to coal and heavy hydrocarbons like in an oil export terminal, but we don’t have any of those planned anyway. We already said we wouldn’t do coal or crude right now. What about natural gas infrastructure? What about propane? What about LNG (liquefied natural gas) used for ships The shipping industry is shifting to LNG to power vessels, reducing emissions for steaming across the Pacific. We’re not sure what it does or doesn’t apply to. The language is very vague.”

Benicia Planning Commission, Crude By Rail, Derailment, Explosion, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia Planning Commission – no more hearings for now

Repost from NBC Bay Area
[Editor:  IMPORTANT NOTICE: All speakers present were heard at the Tuesday, September 29 Planning Commission hearing, so previously scheduled additional hearings are now cancelled.  There will be no Planning Commission hearings on Sept. 30, Oct. 1 and Oct. 8.  Your comments on Valero’s Revised DEIR can be submitted in writing until October 30, 2015 – more info on sending written comments here.]

Residents Raise Concerns Over Valero’s Proposed Crude Oil By Rail Through Benicia

By Pete Suratos, September 29, 2015


A proposal to transport crude oil by rail through Benicia is not sitting well with residents, who came out in full force to a Tuesday night city planning commission meeting to discuss it.

The chances of the trains being derailed and something disastrous occurring is why residents are concerned with the proposal. Those who oppose the plan have until the end of October to let the city and Valero know their concerns.

During a special session at city hall late Tuesday, Valero pitched its crude-by-rail project to a packed house.

If approved, the refinery can receive up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day by rail, instead of by ship. The route would begin in Roseville and end at the refinery. In addition, the route will not replace the crude currently received through pipeline.

Valero said the use of rail is the only way to get the oil.

“The crude that we bring in by rail would offset the crude we bring from foreign sources that we bring by ship,” said Chris Howe of Valero.

The proposal, for resident Christine Caulder, is a risky proposition. Caulder attended Tuesday’s meeting and spoke as a concerned parent.

“When the air is so toxic you can’t go outside, I really can’t go to their school or I’m worried who’s sick or who’s not,” she said.

No actions on the project were taken by city leaders on Tuesday. Three more public hearings are scheduled — one on Wednesday and two more in October.  [CORRECTION: All speakers present were heard at this hearing, so previously scheduled additional hearings are now cancelled.  – RS]

Air Quality, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Bay Area Refineries, Cap-and-trade, Carbon emissions, Emissions caps, Greenhouse gas emissions, Local Regulation, Public Health, San Francisco Bay Area

Letter to the Bay Area Air District: require strict emissions caps on refineries

Posted with permission

Benicia Resident Marilyn Bardet’s letter to the Chair of the Board, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

Direct staff to require numerical emissions caps on all refinery emissons
By Marilyn Bardet, Sept 16, 2015

Dear Chair Groom,

Marilyn Bardet
Marilyn Bardet, Benicia CA

In response to the overwhelming testimony the District has received from all corners of the Bay Area, as chair of the BAAQMD board of directors, you, with your board, have the authority to direct District staff to revise DRAFT Rules 12-15 and 12-16 as currently released, to require strict numerical emissions caps on all refinery emissions, including GHG.

By all means of public testimony over a two-year period, you have heard from concerned and affected members of the public, respected regional and national organizations (including Sierra Club, NRDC, CBE, 350 Bay Area, APEN, Sunflower Alliance) and other experts in the field who have recommended and put forward well-defined revisions that would impose strict numerical emissions caps on refinery emissions tied to current emissions baselines for TAC, VOCs, heavy metals and PM2.5, including GHG.

You know that oil companies in the region aim to acquire and process the most dangerously polluting crude in the world — tar sands. Refineries processing changed crude slates whose blends have increasing amounts of heavy crude, unconventional crudes such as Bakken oil, and/or tar sands will adversely impact regional and local air quality, especially affecting front-line communities and those “downwind communities.” Allowing emissions to “go up to” long ago established permitting levels (Valero Benicia’s permit was established in 2003) is tantamount to the District “giving in” to benefit the oil industries’ profit, not public health.

The District’s mandate is to clean up the air for the benefit of public health, and, in accordance with state mandates, to protect the climate by drastically reducing GHG. Oil refining is the biggest industrial source of GHG. Carbon trading by refineries will simply send “pollution credits” elsewhere and keep toxic emissions “at home” that kill thousands of people in the Bay Area each year. GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion threaten to destroy our global climate and way of life.

Strong refinery rules that set numerical limits on toxic emissions tied to current baselines and limit GHGs are our best chance to protect public health and protect the climate.

We need your leadership more than ever now! I am writing to ask that you make it clear to your directors that the “highest good” must be done by BAAQMD in the name of public health and climate protection, such that, until revisions to Rules 12-15 and 12-16 are adopted that set refinery emission caps at today’s levels, including for GHG, the agency will suspend permitting for refinery projects.

This is a bold request, but these are very uncertain times that require every precaution and concerted action by leadership to create policies that protect people and the planet.

Thank you for your public service, and for you attention to my comments.

Respectfully,

Marilyn Bardet
Benicia