Today the City of Benicia posted the much anticipated AGENDA and STAFF REPORT for the April 4th City Council hearing on Valero Crude by Rail proposal. The staff report recommends denial of Valero’s petition to “continue” – or delay – the hearings. The staff also recommends that public comment on April 4 should be open on the EIR, the Use Permit AND Valero’s request for delay.

“Procedurally, staff recommends that the Council open the public comment period and take comment on the EIR, the Use Permit and the request for continuance together. Then direct staff to track Council questions as they occur during the public hearing and to respond to those questions in full at the conclusion of public comment..”

Staff’s reasoning for denial of the delay was multi-faceted, but begins with a financial argument:

There is no budgetary impact if the request for continuance is denied. If the Council approves the request for continuance, there may be additional costs associated with potential re-noticing of the project, as well as additional staff time in reviewing any STB opinion, as well as additional staff time should updates or revisions to the EIR be necessary.

Benicia staff maintains its strong recommendation that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and approve Valero’s dirty and dangerous proposal. Additional information can be found in the staff report AND in the FULL AGENDA PACKET.

Today the City of Benicia posted the much anticipated AGENDA and STAFF REPORT for the April 4th City Council hearing on Valero Crude by Rail proposal.

Great news for our friends who are official representatives of Davis, Sacramento, Berkeley and elsewhere: the staff report recommends elected officials and agency representatives be allowed to speak first.

Public Comment:

This project has generated a large amount of public interest, and staff would like to describe more fully the process going forward so as to give the public clear information and the opportunity to speak on the project.

Although it does not seem possible to come up with a completely “fair” way to hear speakers, and since having speakers sign up ahead of time did not work as well as hoped at the Planning Commission Meeting, staff recommends that the Council use an approach similar to the approached used by the San Luis Obsipo County Planning Commission for the Phillips 66 hearing. Under this approach, elected officials and agency representatives such as state elected representatives or their staff, mayors, council members, board of supervisors members and their staff would be allowed to speak first. After these people speak, the general public including spokespersons for various groups may speak.

Today the City of Benicia posted a written TRANSCRIPT of the City Council’s March 15 meeting.

The document is not indexed, and 389 pages long – but it is searchable text.

Page 43 – Council begins deliberations on Valero’s appeal on page 43 of the PDF with a few procedural questions.

Page 46-68 – A public comment by Karen Berndt arises on page 46.  Council member Tom Campbell raises questions about the process on p. 49 and with one more comment from a member of the public, going through page 58.  After which there are ex parte disclosures, and on page 63, we get to City Planner Amy Million’s introductions and procedural questions, and and FINALLY, on page 68, the STAFF PRESENTATION.

Page 90 – The ESA Consultants’ presentation begins on p. 90.

Page 109-144 – City Attorney McLaughlin introduces and praises Contract Attorney Brad Hogin on page 109, asking everyone to refrain from “abusing” him.  Mr. Hogin begins on page 110.  On page 137, Mr. Hogin begins his review of the San Luis Obispo Phillips 66 oil train project – a review that has since been characterized as misleading and contrary to fact.

Page 144 – On page 144 Ms. Million begins a description of the Appeal process and a defense of staff’s recommendation to overturn the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision.

Page 154 – Planning Commission Chair Donald Dean begins his presentation on page 154.

Page 182 – Planning Director Christina Ratcliffe adds a final staff presentation beginning on page 182, in which she notes the differences between the Planning Commission and staff, and again outlines the Council’s options.

Page 184-201 – Valero’s Don Cuffel begins his presentation at the bottom of page 184.  Valero’s attorney John Flynn begins his remarks on page 194, and concludes with the request to delay procedings on pages 200-201.

Page 201-389 – Council questions begin on page 201, focusing for quite some time on the surprise delay request by Valero.

(It is beyond the scope of this article to index the lengthy question-answer period, which continues to the end of the meeting, on page 389.)