Category Archives: Valero Benicia Appeal

ROGER STRAW: STOP Valero’s dirty and dangerous Crude By Rail proposal

By Roger Straw, April 13, 2016
[Editor: The following article was submitted to the editor of the Benicia Herald, referencing recent pro-Valero letters published there.  – RS]

STOP Valero’s dirty and dangerous Crude By Rail proposal

The latest flurry of pro-crude-by-oil letters published in the Benicia Herald contained unwarranted attacks on local opponents of Valero’s Crude By Rail project. The claims were false, self-serving and blind to the factual realities of pollution and safety hazards that should result in denial of Valero’s proposal.

On Sunday, Valero employee John Lazorik attacked opponents repeatedly, discounting the public’s legitimate fear of increasing pollution and catastrophic explosions, referring to the overwhelming opposition as “irrelevant,” and claiming to know that our motivations are impure. In four different sections of his full page letter, he dismissed and belittled the tireless work of Planning Commissioner Steve Young, writing off his probing questions and detailed inquiry as “soundbites” and calling him a “ringleader for promoting disrespect.” Mr. Young respectfully disagreed with staff, pointed out the fatal flaws of the environmental report and disagreed with arguments that would weaken the City’s ability to provide for the public’s health and safety. All five of the other Planning Commissioners studied the documents, heard testimony, and offered their own similar critiques, resulting in a unanimous vote against the project. Benicia Herald readers – and our City Council – should read Mr. Lazorik with a pretty big dose of skepticism.

On Wednesday, Valero employee Duayne Weiler wrote that “90 percent of the negative pushback by mostly those outside of Benicia has been on rail traffic outside the refinery.” This is simply not true – on two counts. Just look at the 1200 Benicia residents’ signatures on a petition and listen to the testimony of 32 Benicia residents who spoke opposing the project at last weeek’s hearings. LOCAL Benicians began organizing to oppose Valero’s dirty and dangerous project in 2013. I was there – I’m one of the small group of Benicia friends who gathered to discuss it in March of that year, and who have persevered. Secondly, note that we have ALWAYS focused on pollution as well as explosive derailments, and have ALWAYS pointed out local onsite hazards as well as uprail hazards. Our local efforts were joined later on by outside forces who care about their communities and a healthy climate. The presence and testimony of outsiders is something I am personally grateful for and proud of. Our local work has been proven and strengthened by the voices of residents, experts and officials in Sacramento, Davis, the Bay Area, throughout California and beyond.

In another letter on Wednesday, John Potter wrote of “vitriol and fabrications that have been a part of this…process.” When a permitting process as profoundly significant as this one goes public, there are bound to be raised voices and individuals who transgress the bounds of civility – on both sides. But to characterize the entire opposition to Valero Crude By Rail in this way is to play dirty politics. The work of local organizers has been studious, detailed, fact-based and direct.

Mr. Potter concludes with a statement supporting the oft-repeated and as yet unsubstantiated claim that City Council may not consider issues beyond Valero’s borders due to federal law. Opponents have indeed raised serious questions about uprail impacts, as has the environmental report. There are, however, enough significant local, onsite hazardous impacts to allow Council to withhold a permit. To deny the project based on these onsite issues would indirectly protect our uprail neighbors from the pollution and catastrophic risks associated with Valero’s proposal. We believe that the City’s supposed inability to consider railroad hazards beyond Valero’s border could itself be considered an important reason to deny the permit.

Everyone should plan to attend next Monday’s City Council meeting, 7pm at City Hall. Anyone who has not yet spoken may do so at that time. And our silent presence will stand as a strong signal to Council members to do the right thing: STOP Valero’s dirty and dangerous Crude By Rail proposal.

Roger Straw
Benicia

Petition opposing Crude By Rail – 4,081 signatures submitted to Benicia City Council

By Roger Straw, April 9, 2016

Petition opposing Crude By Rail – 4,081 signatures submitted to Benicia City Council

On April 4, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) offered critical comments to Benicia’s City Council.  First to speak was Marilyn Bardet, followed by Andrés Soto.

Petition Roll - copies of originals (600px)
Demonstration roll of local petitions collected by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

As Mr. Soto spoke, members of BSHC unfurled a demonstration “scroll” of original hand-signed petitions that stretched 4 times the length of the aisle in Council Chambers (see FACEBOOK video).

As he concluded speaking, Mr. Soto submitted for the public record BSHC’s list of 4,081 signatures of opponents of the project.)

Here is a summary by city and region of the 4,081 signatures.

There was a minor confrontation following the April 4 demonstration in City Hall.  City staff presumed that BSHC was presenting the “scroll” full of names for the public record.  City Attorney Heather McLaughlin took the heap of documents from the floor and began leaving Council Chambers.  Members of BSHC challenged her and quietly wrested the massive pile away from her and took it safely out of City Hall.  Staff was evidently unaware that the full list of carefully checked names was submitted in a separate document.  Later, BSHC submitted the following letter, clarifying the situation and asking the City to post a clean copy of the 4,081 petition signatures.  As of April 13, the City has not responded to BSHC’s letter.

COUNCIL HEARINGS: List of 77 speakers – articulate, informed opposition to Valero Crude By Rail

By Roger Straw, April 8, 2016

Council Hearings this week: 77 informed, articulate and often passionate speakers critical of of Valero Crude By Rail

pubcommentOPENThis past week, the Benicia City Council heard public testimony for and against Valero’s Crude By Rail proposal – mostly against.  Video of these comments can be found on the City’s website.

On the two dates combined, Council heard 77 highly critical comments calling for outright rejection of Valero’s proposal or at the very least a much revised and recirculated environmental report. Only 16 speakers favored Valero’s proposal.

On Monday, April 4, Council heard from 52 speakers.  41 were highly critical or completely opposed to Valero’s proposal, and only 11 spoke in favor.  Of the 11 in favor, most either work for or provide services for Valero.

Here is a listing of the 41 who spoke in opposition on April 4, followed by a listing of 36 such speakers on April 6:

MONDAY, APRIL 4  (41 who spoke in opposition)

  • 8 elected and appointed officials from beyond Benicia
    • 1 State of California elected official: Alex Pater, representing Benicia’s State Senator Lois Wolk
    • 4 from uprail communities
      • Don Saylor, Yolo County Supervisor and Sacramento Area Council of Governments past Board chair
      • Matt Jones, Yolo Solano Air District, representing 7 air districts: Butte, Feather, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, and Yolo-Solano
      • Eric Lee, City of Davis planner
      • Laurie Lipman, representing Ellen Cochrane, Sacramento Unified School District Board
    • 3 from the East Bay
      • Linda Maio, Berkeley Vice Mayor
      • Jesse Arreguín, Berkeley City Councilmember
      • Alejandro Soto-Vigil, representing Berkeley City Councilmember Kriss Worthington
  • 18 residents from uprail communities of Sacramento, Davis and Dixon:
    • Chris Brown, Chris Brown Consulting, Sacramento, representing 30 who rode the bus from uprail communities tonight
    • Maura Metz, Davis
    • Jean Jackman, Davis
    • Maria Cornejo-Gutierrez, Dixon
    • Laurie Lipman, 350 Sacramento
    • JoEllen Arnold, Sacramento
    • Jan Rein, Sacramento
    • Rob Lain, Sacramento
    • Estevan Hernandez, South Sacramento
    • Kathleen Williams-Fossdahl, Davis
    • Jaime Gonzales, Sacramento, Board of Directors, California Student Sustainability Coalition
    • Carol Warren, Dixon, slides of her neighborhood along the tracks
    • Don Mooney, Davis, Environmental attorney
    • Samantha McCarthy, Davis, lives very near the tracks
    • Frances Burke, Davis, lives very near the tracks
    • Elizabeth Lasensky, Davis, powerpoint: From Davis to Benicia: Our Lives Are on the Line”
    • Lynne Nittler, Davis. Notes.  Powerpoint: Oil by Rail Safety in California Report by the state’s Interagency Rail Safety Working Group
    • Rodney Robinson, Davis
  •  3 residents from other communities:
    • Bill Pinkham, Richmond
    • Steven Hallett, Vallejo
    • Deborah Tallin, Lafayette
  • 12 residents of Benicia
    • Marilyn Bardet, Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community
    • Petition Roll - copies of originals (600px)
      Demonstration roll of local petitions collected by Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

      Andrés Soto, Benicians for a Safe & Healthy Community (While Mr. Soto spoke, members of BSHC unfurled a demonstration “scroll” of original hand-signed petitions that stretched 4 times the length of the aisle in Council Chambers (see FACEBOOK video). As he concluded speaking, Mr. Soto submitted for the public record BSHC’s list of 4,081 signatures of opponents of the project.)

    • Madeline Koster
    • Teresa Ritz
    • Carol Thompson
    • Bart Sullivan
    • Rick Stierwalts
    • David Jenkins, Benicia Industrial Park business owner
    • Kathy Kerridge, Benicia Community Sustainability Commission member
    • June Mejias
    • Pat Toth-Smith
    • Kat Black, Chairperson, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6  (36 who spoke in opposition)

On Wednesday, April 6, Council heard from 41 speakers. 36 were highly critical or completely opposed to Valero’s proposal, and only 5 spoke in favor. Of the 5 in favor, most either work for or supply services for Valero.

Here is a listing of the 36 who spoke in opposition on April 6:

  • 7 experts, attorneys and organizers
    • Valerie Love, Clean Energy Campaigner, Center for Biological Diversity
    • Elly Benson, Attorney, Sierra Club
    • Ethan Buckner, Extreme Oil Campaigner, STAND (formerly ForestEthics)
    • Greg Karras, Senior Scientist, Communities for a Better Environment
    • Roger Lin, Attorney, Communities for a Better Environment
    • Diane Bailey, Executive Director, Menlo Spark (formerly Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council)
    • Rachael Koss, Attorney, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, representing Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California (SAFER)
  • 1 Benicia city official
  • 6 Benicia business  owners, including 3 from Benicia’s Industrial Park, 2 from the Arsenal District and 1 from downtown
    • Giovanna Sensi-Isolani, owner of Fiber-Frolics, downtown Benicia
    • Jack Ruszel, owner, Ruszel Woodworks, Benicia Industrial Park (adjacent to the tracks, no access if blocked in emergency)
    • Hadieh Elias, owner, principal and professional engineer, ESE Consulting Engineers, Inc., in Benicia’s Arsenal District
    • Amir Firouz, principal and structural enginner, ESE Consulting Engineers, Inc., in Benicia’s Arsenal District
    • Ed Ruszel, Ruszel Woodworks, Benicia Industrial Park (adjacent to the tracks, no access if blocked in emergency)
    • Jennifer Kalika Stanger, M.D., family physician in Vallejo, lifetime Benicia resident
  • 22 residents, including 20 from Benicia and 2 from other communities. (Note that 7 of the above listed April 6 speakers are also from Benicia, making a total of 29 Benicians.)
    • Allan Miller, Davis
    • Nancy Finley, Benicia
    • Constance Beutel, Benicia
    • Dona Rose, Benicia
    • Shiela Clyatt, Benicia
    • Larnie Fox, Benicia
    • Eric Ferry, El Sobrante
    • Charles Coleman, Benicia
    • Judi Sullivan, Benicia
    • Dan Smith, Benicia
    • Michelle Rowe-Shields, Benicia
    • Phyllis Ingerson, Benicia
    • Roger Straw, Benicia, The Benicia Independent
    • Jan Cox-Golovich, Benicia
    • Barbara Pillsbury, Benicia
    • Jenette Wolf, Benicia
    • Tom Ruszel, Benicia
    • Rebekah Ramos, Benicia
    • Lisa Reinertson, Benicia
    • Steve Jones, Benicia
    • Craig Snider, Benicia
    • Ruby Wallis, Benicia

BENICIA HERALD: Crude by Rail hearings approaching climax

Repost from the Benicia Herald
Front page headline story in today’s Benicia Herald (not online, no link)
[Editor: This article quotes an unnamed speaker, (Joe Miesch), who stated of Benicia Planning Commissioners, “I was told that a number of them placed anti-Crude by Rail signs on their front lawns.”  This claim is false as far as I know.  I regret that Mr. Miesch and the Benicia Herald spread this unsubstantiated claim.  – RS]

Crude by Rail hearings approaching climax

By Elizabeth Warnimont, April 8, 2016

In the second of three currently-scheduled public hearings at City Hall Wednesday, speakers presented further thoughts and concerns to the City Council regarding Valero Benicia Refinery’s Crude by Rail (CBR) project. The next hearing, continued from Wednesday, will be held on Monday, April 18.

Many of the speakers Wednesday offered further clarification regarding long-standing issues like federal preemption, or presented further detail regarding things like vicinity, crude oil properties and accident statistics. While a few individuals presented heart-felt support of Valero and the project, public opinion continues to appear heavily weighted toward denying the permit.

Compared with the previous session Monday, this one brought forth more information regarding the flaws in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and perhaps less new information regarding the legal preemption issue. A prevalent theme was the broader importance and impact of what would be perceived by some as a community victory over “big oil.”

Another emerging theme Wednesday, one that has been present throughout the hearing process but was previously dwarfed by other issues, was the respect and appreciation that residents, and even members of environmental groups and cities and counties outside of Benicia, have for Valero, the vital role the company has played in Benicia’s economy and the integrity and professionalism of its employees.

“Valero is a good neighbor,” said one speaker. “I have a high regard for Valero as a neighbor. I don’t doubt the competence and integrity of our neighbors who work there, but I do believe the EIR is flawed and the Council should stand by your Planning Commission and their opinions.”

The overall tone of the session was relatively mellow. Perhaps because most issues of high concern have already been so thoroughly examined, as the hearings draw to a close, more speakers Wednesday expressed the broader quality-of-life aspects.

“I’m going to talk to you from my heart today,” one speaker began. “We have to think about the future of the community for our children and our grandchildren.

“Oil is not the future,” she continued. “Valero will (eventually) leave Benicia, and our staff should be deciding what the future is going to be for Benicia. Where we are going to get the money.

“You need to be leaders of the future. Lead us into a clean and healthy future.”

“We shouldn’t have to live in fear,” another speaker said. She and several others Wednesday stated that they lived or worked within the “blast zone,” meaning that in the event of a derailment and explosion, they would be incinerated.

“I have lived in Benicia for 37 years,” one speaker stated. “My family has always felt safe. My grandchildren will attend Robert Semple school in a few years. The school is well within the blast zone, as well as our home. How does one deal with the very real thought of a blast occurring at any given time, and the loss of lives that would occur? There will be no peace of mind. This is not what I would choose for our city.”

One speaker suggested that Valero could elect to become a part of society’s transition away from fossil fuels and actually lead the community in that transition.

“We are on the front lines of a global struggle to either make a swift and equitable transition to renewable energy, or to pay the increasingly dire costs of not doing so sooner,” the speaker began. “Many of us here would favor positive incentives to get Valero and other petroleum interests to take leadership in transitioning us to renewable energy.

“Don’t let anyone tell you we can’t do it,” the speaker concluded. “We must do it.”

New information

At one point during the hearing, Mayor Elizabeth Patterson inquired of City Attorney Heather McLaughlin how the Council could address any new information, specifically “new impacts” presented by one speaker in particular. McLaughlin indicated that she and City staff would address that issue.

“The question is whether or not we need to address it in the EIR,” McLaughlin clarified.

Another apparently new piece of information was presented by Greg Karras, senior scientist with Communities for a Better Environment. Citing his expertise and more than 30 years experience in refinery pollution prevention engineering (credentials presented in writing), Karras offered that the project “is essentially about changing the refinery’s basic feed stock. The project details require that the refinery shift from getting oil it can only get by pipeline or ship, to oil it can only get in project volume from sources in the Bakken, tar sands and Alberta, delivered by rail.”

Yet another new twist actually had nothing to do with the merits of Valero’s application. One 30-year resident accused the Planning Commission of impropriety, and another had some equally harsh words for Council members.

“I question the objectivity of some Planning Commission members,” the first resident stated. “I was told that a number of them placed anti-Crude by Rail signs on their front lawns. A public official who puts a sign on his or her front lawn is a strong advocate and demonstrably biased. Those advocates should not be making major policy decisions. (They) should have recused themselves from voting on the measure.”

“The City Council and the City staff have a responsibility to safeguard the citizens and the community fairly, without favoring one business over the others,” another speaker began. “The staff has been accommodating towards this Valero project from the beginning, starting with a draft mitigated negative declaration that the staff brought to the Planning Commission in June, 2013. The Planning Commission disagreed and asked for a draft EIR. The staff did not issue a request for a proposal for a consultant to prepare the EIR, which is customary, but instead without consulting the Commission or the public, retained ESA (Environmental Science Associates), the same consultant that prepared the EIR for Valero.

“The draft EIR hearings revealed many deficiencies. The City staff again retained the same consultant, ESA, to revise the EIR, instead of a new consultant.”

One of the last people to address the Council Wednesday night identified herself as a Benicia resident and a physician who treats many patients from Benicia at her practice in Vallejo.

“I’m worried about my family. I know this is a difficult decision, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my work as a physician, (it is this:) I have the honor of being with people at the ends of their lives, as they are looking back. One thing I see over and over is people who regret the decisions that they made for money, that they made for work, and wish they had made more that supported their families and their communities.

“We (in Benicia) are good people. We’re good neighbors. I see presentations like this and I get worried. I’m worried about my sister in Sacramento. I want us to be good neighbors.”

The next hearing on the Crude by Rail application will be Monday, April 18 at 7 p.m. at Council Chambers, City Hall, 250 East L St. Proceedings also stream live on Benicia TV, Comcast and AT&T. For more information visit the City of Benicia web site at ci.benicia.ca.us or call them at 746-4200.