Category Archives: Public Comment

Benicia City Council, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

KAT BLACK: Listing of over 64 orgs, public agencies and officials on record with major concerns or opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, April 6, 2016
[Editor: BSHC Chairperson Kat Black spent her entire 5 minute public comment at Monday’s hearing listing over 64 entities (below) that have raised serious questions about the adequacy of the EIR and/or the wisdom of granting Valero a use permit.  The list is most impressive, substantiating the April 4 public hearing comment of Davis Environmental Attorney Don Mooney, who said in his 25 years of reviewing 200-300 matters such as this, he has never seen such uniform and widespread opposition.  – RS]

Organizations, Public Agencies and Public Officials on record with major concerns or opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

Comment Before the Benicia City Council
By Katherine Black
April 4, 2016

Good evening Madam Chair and Members of the Council. My name is Katherine Black and I am the Chairperson for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.

I have spoken on many occasions against this project before the Planning Commission on various topics, so my comments are already in the record. I just wanted to read a list of organizations, public agencies and public officials that have either had major concerns or have spoken out directly against this project. This is a partial list and are in no particular order. They are:

1. Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
2. Solano County
3. The Air Pollution Control and Air Quality Management Districts, which consist of

1. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District
2. The Butte County Air Quality Management District
3. The Feather River Air Quality Management District
4. The Placer County Air Pollution Control District
5. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
6. The County of Shasta
7. and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

4. University of California, Davis
5. California Office of Spill Prevention & Response, and the California Public Utilities Commission
6. Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Amtrak)
7. California Department of Transportation
8. San Francisco Bay Keeper
9. Safe Fuel and Energy Resources – California
10. Fischer Communications
11. Cool Davis
12. 350 Sacramento
13. 350 Bay Area
14. 350 Marin
15. Communities for a Better Environment – both legally and technically
16. Natural Resources Defense Council – both legally and technically
17. Phil Serna, Sacramento County Supervisor
18. Iron Workers 378 – who withheld support, which is significant because Valero had previously held their community forums on this at their venue
19. Stand – formerly known as ForestEthics
20. The Sierra Club
21. The Center for Biological Diversity
22. Sacramento Area Council of Governments (aka SACOG), and which is an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento Region. Its members include the counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba and the 22 cities within, who are:

1. Auburn
2. Citrus Heights
3. Colfax
4. Davis
5. El Dorado County
6. Elk Grove
7. Folsom
8. Galt
9. Isleton
10. Lincoln
11. Live Oak
12. Loomis
13. Marysville
14. Placer County
15. Placerville
16. Rancho Cordova
17. Rocklin
18. Roseville
19. Sacramento
20. Sacramento County
21. Sutter County
22. West Sacramento
23. Wheatland
24. Winters
25. Woodland
26. Yolo County
27. Yuba City
28. Yuba County

To continue with the list:

23. Yolo County Board of Supervisors
24. Martinez Environmental Group
25. Richmond Progressive Alliance
26. Global Community Monitor
27. Expert Dr. Petra Pless, from Pless Environmental, Inc.
28. Bay Localize
29. The City of Albany
30. The City of Briggs
31. The City of Briggs Fire Department
32. The City of Gridley
33. The City of Gridley Fire Department
34. The County of Nevada Community Development Agency
35. The Town of Trukee
36. The City of West Sacramento
37. Shasta County Department of Resource Management
38. Community Science Institute
39. Crockett-Rodeo United to Defend the Environment (aka CRUDE)
40. The City of Davis Foundation
41. Sunflower Alliance
42. Pittsburg Defense Council
43. Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
44. Asian Pacific Environmental Network
45. Bay Area Refinery Corridor Collation
46. Attorney General Kamala Harris
47. Other attorneys from 5 different organizations – NRDC, CBE, SF Baykeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club
48. Expert Dr. Phillis Fox
49. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (aka BAAQMD) – individually
50. Feather River Air Quality Management District – individually
51. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District – individually
52. The Placer County Air Pollution Control District – individually
53. Yolo-Solano County Air Quality Management District – individually
54. The Goodman Group
55. Yolo Climate Action

We just heard from:

56. Jessie Arreguin, Berkeley City Council member
57. Alejandro Soto-Vigil, City of Berkeley
58. A representative from State Sen. Lois Wolk’s office
59. Vice Mayor Linda Maio, Berkeley
60. Ellen Cockerin, Sacramento School District Board
61. And lastly – our own Benicia Planning Commission

To add to that, there are thousands and thousands of letters from individuals opposing the project that have been submitted as part of the record, which come from Benicians, neighboring cities, Californians, Americans and even those concerned literally around the world. Now, we also have 4,081 petition signatures of which 1,204 are Benicians.

Are all of these people, organizations, public agencies and public officials wrong? The world is watching Benicia. Think about what this city will look like to your public official colleagues and the others I have mentioned. This city is at a precipice. We can either be the city that is part of the problem by going forward the way the world has been going, which has produced global warming. Or we can be the city that says no – not now, not on my watch, and be part of the solution to it all.

Please do not grant Valero a delay and please uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny this project.

Note: These were received after I spoke

62. League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay
63. Expert Scott Cashen, Senior Independent Biological Resources Consultant
64. Russell Hands, M.D., Chief of Surgery, Kasier, Napa, Solano County

Benicia City Council, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, Crude By Rail, Environmental review, Local Regulation, Public Comment, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail, Yolo County

BENICIA HERALD: Crude by Rail opponents cite large opposition list

Appearing as the front page headline story in today’s Benicia Herald
(no online version, so no link)

Crude by Rail opponents cite large opposition list

By Elizabeth Warnimont, April 6, 2016

At the first of the current round of scheduled hearings regarding Valero Benicia Refinery’s Crude by Rail project at City Hall Monday, a number of government agencies and other groups came forward to express their opposition to the project, adding to a growing list of individuals, government entities and private groups to register their objections. A few individuals and groups also spoke in favor of the project.

During the public comment period, Catherine Black, chairwoman for Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community, recited a partial list of groups currently opposing the project. Organizations, public agencies and public officials who have either had major concerns or have spoken out directly against the project, she stated, include, in no particular order:

  • Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
  • Solano County
  • Air Quality Management Districts (AQMD) including Bay Area, Butte County, Feather River, Sacramento Metropolitan, County of Shasta and Yolo/Solano AQMDs
  • Placer County Air Pollution Control District
  • UC Davis
  • California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
  • The California Utilities Commission
  • The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority
  • Amtrak
  • The California Department of Transportation
  • San Francisco Bay Keepers
  • Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California
  • Cool Davis
  • 350 Sacramento
  • 350 Bay Area
  • 350 Marin
  • Communities for a Better Environment
  • National Resources Defense Council
  • Phil Serna, Sacramento County supervisor
  • Ironworkers 378
  • Sierra Club
  • Center for Biological Diversity
  • Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento region including El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Yolo and Yerba counties
  • The Yolo County Board of Supervisors
  • Martinez Environmental Group
  • Richmond Progressive Alliance
  • Global Community Monitor
  • the city of Albany
  • the city of Briggs and its fire department
  • the city of Gridley and its fire department
  • County of Nevada Community Development Agency
  • the town of Truckee
  • the city of West Sacramento
  • the Shasta County Department of Resource Management
  • Community Science Institute
  • Rodeo United to Defend the Environment
  • City of Davis Foundation
  • Sunflower Alliance
  • City of Pittsburg Defense Council
  • Green Action for Health and Environmental Justice
  • Asian Pacific Environmental Network
  • Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition
  • Attorney General Kamala Harris
  • Yolo Climate Action
  • Berkeley City Council
  • State Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis)
  • Berkeley Vice Mayor Linda Maio
  • The Sacramento School District Board and the Benicia Planning Commission

Numerous supporting documents were also submitted Monday, including examples of court rulings relevant to the question of federal pre-emption.

“We acknowledge that there is a key value for domestic energy production,” Don Saylor, a representative of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and Sacramento Area Council’s board of directors, said. “That we depend on installations like the Valero refinery here in Benicia to power our economy. We also understand the federal role in railroad regulation. However, we have provided you with legal framework that we hope you consider, that points out your competing authority as a local, land use decision-making body.”

“The bodies that I represent are asking that you uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the appeal before you,” he added.

Many of the concerns voiced at the hearing echoed those of previous hearings, including worn train tracks and heavy (over 150 tons each) crude-carrying trains, populations and environmentally sensitive areas within the “blast zone” that would be destroyed in the event of a derailment involving fire, air pollution from train exhaust, and traffic back-ups from Bayshore Road extending onto Interstate 680.

Concerns that stood out more Monday than they had at previous hearings, in the view of this reporter, included the long-term and widespread impact the Council’s decision will have for the state of California in general, and some particularly vulnerable populations lying in close vicinity to the tracks that would carry the crude-containing rail cars, including schools, homes and downtown areas.

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is the document that contains reference to all of these concerns, along with the applicant’s (Valero’s) responses to most of them. It is a three-volume work that does not number its pages but adds up to a total of 5.25 inches of paper, printed on both sides.   The document, as well as written and video documentation of City Council and Planning Commission meetings and hearings on the subject, are available to view online at the City of Benicia website, ci.benicia.us.ca or by request at the City Clerk’s office at City Hall, located at 250 East L St.

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

Benicia City Council hearings – additional meeting date: Monday, April 18

By Roger Straw, March 29, 2016
[Editor:  UPDATE – Note additional hearing date of Monday, April 18. This new date is IN ADDITION TO the previously scheduled hearings.  – RS]

Benicia City Council dates for hearings on Valero Crude by Rail appeal

Hearings began on March 15 and will continue for public comment on April 4, 6, 18 and 19

Benicia city staff has recommended that an additional day of public hearings be scheduled for Monday, April 18, 7pm at City Hall. This will be IN ADDITION TO previously scheduled hearings on Monday, April 4, Wednesday, April 6 and (if needed) Tuesday, April 19. Note that these dates for public hearings are NOT CONSECUTIVE EVENINGS as was the case in previous hearings.

On these dates, Council will hear comments on Valero’s appeal of the Benicia Planning Commission’s unanimous February 11 decision to deny Valero Crude By Rail.  Council will also hear public comment on Valero’s March 15 request to delay hearings.

Documents relating to the hearings include:

Written public comments are encouraged now!  Send your thoughts to the City Council by email directed to Amy Million, Principal Planner, Benicia Community Development Department:amillion@ci.benicia.ca.us. You may also send your letter Amy Million by mail to 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510, or by Fax: (707) 747-1637.

And mark your calendar now, so you don’t forget.  Please plan to attend on Tuesday, March 15 for the presentations, and again on Monday, April 4, Wednesday, April 6 and Tuesday, April 19.  All meetings will be held at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chamber, 250 East, L Street, Benicia.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Planning Commission, Blast zone, Climate Change, Crude By Rail, Fossil fuels, Local Regulation, Public Comment, Public Health, Public permitting, Public Safety, Take Action, Valero Benicia Appeal, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

CREDO ACTION: Urge the BenIcia City Council to reject Valero’s dangerous oil train plan

From an email by CREDO Action, by Elijah Zarlin

Urge the BenIcia City Council to reject Valero’s dangerous oil train plan.

Dear … ,

CREDO_Action_NoMoreToxicExplodingPollutingOilTrainsValero Energy Corporation is trying to build an oil train terminal at its refinery in Benicia, which, if approved, would bring massive trains loaded with 2.5 million gallons of toxic, explosive crude through highly populated areas from the Nevada border, through Sacramento and into the Bay Area. (source 1: see note below)

Last month, the Benicia Planning Commission rejected the plan as a danger to the health, safety and welfare of Benicia and uprail communities.

But Valero appealed the decision. On April 4th, the Benicia City Council will make its final decision on the proposal. We need to show up in force to speak out against the danger of oil trains in our communities. Can you be there?

Stop Valero’s Oil Trains: Rally and City Council Hearing
Monday, April 4, 6:00 PM – 10:00 PM
Benicia City Hall, 250 East L Street, Benicia, CA 94510
RSVP to speak out against oil trains.

Busses are being organized from Sacramento. Click here for more information.

The oil train blast zone puts millions of Californians at risk. In the Sacramento area alone more than 200,000 people live within the potential impact zone of an oil train disaster.

And at a time when our planet is breaking temperature records every month, doubling down on more fossil fuel infrastructure should be an absolute non-starter.

We need to do everything in our power to urge the Benicia City Council to reject this proposal for the sake of public safety in our communities, and our fight against climate change.

RSVP to speak out against Valero’s oil train plan on April 4th.

Thanks for fighting oil trains.

Elijah Zarlin, Director of Climate Campaigns
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Source 1: “Oil Train Blast Zone,” Stand.Earth