Category Archives: Valero Crude By Rail

City of Benicia Agenda for April 4: staff recommends no delay

By Roger Straw, March 28, 2016

Benicia, CaliforniaToday 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.

City of Benicia Agenda for April 4: staff recommends protocol for select speakers

By Roger Straw, March 28, 2016

Benicia, California

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.

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.

ANDRÉS SOTO: Open Letter to Benicia City Council members

By Andrés Soto, March 29, 2016

An Open Letter to Benicia City Councilmembers – About the Surface Transportation Board

Dear Councilmembers:

The bombshell request by Valero at your meeting on March 15, to have you issue a continuance of the Public Hearing of Valero’s appeal of the Benicia Planning Commission’s denial of Valero’s dangerous Crude By Rail project is out of order, without justification and should be denied out right.

Valero seeks a Declaratory Order and a Temporary Retraining Order AGAINST the City of Benicia from the federal Surface Transportation Board because of the lawful decision by the Benicia Planning Commission. Do not fall for this red herring. It is merely a distraction.

I was as stunned as you were to hear this request, and immediately presumed Valero had something up its sleeve that I had not anticipated. But now that I have researched the STB’s authority and activities, and spoken to a staff attorney for the STB itself, I am convinced more than ever that Valero’s request is the wrong question in the wrong forum at the wrong time. It is merely a distraction.

I went to the STB website and identified the agency’s specific duties and jurisdiction. Having read this, I then decided to contact the STB’s Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance (OPAGAC). I called the OPAGAC and spoke to a staff attorney, Mr. Gabriel Mayer.

I discussed the possibility of Valero requesting the DO/TRO for its Crude By Rail project. Mr. Meyer informed me that the staff would examine the request, if received, and analyze whether it was an issue the staff or Board would decide, if at all. In any event the STB is not the final authority on federal pre-emption. The state and federal courts serve that purpose.

See below for copies of the STB Overview and ABOUT the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance (OPAGAC). I advise you to research this yourself. Do not rely on staff or the consultants.

“The Surface Transportation Board is an independent adjudicatory and economic-regulatory agency charged by Congress with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers.”

While the Overview of the STB does identify that “The agency has authority to investigate rail service matters of regional and national significance”, my conversation with Mr. Meyer indicated it is specifically related to rail projects or projects that occur on railroad property, not off rail issues. Mr. Meyer further indicated there are many cases relative to the facts as I presented them to him. He sent me links to an STB decision from a case in Alexandria, VA, and Florida East Coast Ry Co v City of West Palm Beach, also attached.

Mr. Meyer also indicated that since Valero would be making that request, not Union Pacific AND because the project is entirely on Valero property within the City of Benicia’s sole jurisdiction, he could not foresee circumstances in which the STB would issue the DO/TRO.

Surely Valero knows this, so why would Valero even suggest such a ludicrous proposition? On this I will not speculate, but I can foresee what would happen if you DID decide to issue the continuance.

First, you be abrogating your responsibility to defend Benicia’s interest by submitting to a dubious authority to define Benicia’s local land use authority as a favor to a major corporation.

Second, because Valero has clearly lost the hearts and minds of Benicians and the vote of the Planning Commission, forestalling the project decision allows Valero to protect any councilmembers running for office who may be project supporters from the public wrath in November should they approve the project prior to the election.

Third, it sets a dangerous precedent of rewarding applicants who forum shop for an outside agency to exert its will over our community. You are under no obligation to grant this request and do not even need to take a vote on it. A hearing on this request for a continuance would just delay the inevitable – a hearing on the merits of the Valero Dangerous Crude By Rail Project itself. If Valero felt it needed this determination from the STB, it should have done so months ago. Why haven’t they asked California Attorney General Kamala Harris?

For Benicia’s sake, on April 4th, deny the request for a continuance, start public testimony on the project and make the right decision for Benicia’s future health and safety.

Overview of the STB
http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/about/overview.html

The Surface Transportation Board is an independent adjudicatory and economic-regulatory agency charged by Congress with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. 

The agency has jurisdiction over railroad rate and service issues and rail restructuring transactions (mergers, line sales, line construction, and line abandonments); certain trucking company, moving van, and non-contiguous ocean shipping company rate matters; certain intercity passenger bus company structure, financial, and operational matters; and rates and services of certain pipelines not regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The agency has authority to investigate rail service matters of regional and national significance. 

Created on January 1, 1996 by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, the Board is the successor to the former Interstate Commerce Commission (1887-1995) and was administratively aligned with the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1996 to mid-December 2015. The STB Reauthorization Act of 2015 established the STB as a wholly independent federal agency on December 18, 2015.
The STB staff is divided into the following offices.

  • The Office of the General Counsel provides legal advice to the STB and defends agency actions that are challenged in court…
  • The Office of Economics performs three primary functions: data gathering and reporting, economic and policy analysis in support of Board decisions, and applied economic analysis, most notably the development of the STB’s costing system. The Office of Economics audits Class I railroads.
  • The Office of Environmental Analysis is responsible for undertaking environmental reviews of actions proposed before the agency, according to the national Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws, and making environmental recommendations to the board.
  • The Office of the Managing Director handles agency administrative matters, such as facility, budget, and personnel management.
  • The Office of Proceedings researches and prepares draft decisions.
  • The Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance (OPAGAC) serves as the public’s point of contact to the STB as well as the agency’s outreach arm. It works with members of Congress, the public and the media to answer questions and provide information about the STB’s procedures, regulations and actions. The office houses the Rail Customer and Public Assistance Program, which provides an informal venue for the private-sector resolution of shipper-railroad disputes, and also assists Board stakeholders seeking guidance in complying with Board decisions and regulations. The office also oversees all aspects of rail operations subject to the agency’s jurisdiction to ensure that such operations are consistent with each carrier’s statutory responsibilities. This office maintains the STB library.

ABOUT the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance (OPAGAC)
http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/about/office_ocps.html

The Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance (OPAGAC) serves as the STB’s primary contact point with the public. The office interacts with members of Congress, executive agencies, state and local governments, news media, stakeholders, and other interested persons to provide information and informal guidance as to the STB’s procedures, regulations, and actions. OPAGAC also serves as the agency’s compliance arm, overseeing the actions of transportation carriers subject to the agency’s jurisdiction to ensure that these carriers are operating in compliance with their statutory responsibilities.

Office staff members are thoroughly knowledgeable about the STB and its processes, as well as the operational components of the rail industry. They are available to answer questions about the STB’s official decisions, pending cases, and the laws that we implement. OPAGAC does not provide opinions about how the STB Members will vote on a particular case, or when a case will be decided. 

OPAGAC houses the STB’s Rail Customer and Public Assistance Program. Initiated in 2000, the Program provides an informal venue for the private-sector resolution of shipper-railroad disputes, and also assists Board stakeholders seeking guidance in complying with Board decisions and regulations. At no cost to parties, the Program facilitates communication among the various segments of the rail-transportation industry, and encourages solutions to railroad operational and service issues without the use of litigation or the Board’s formal processes.

Andrés Soto is a member of the Steering Committee of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community

TRANSCRIPT: City Council hearing of March 15

By Roger Straw, March 29, 2016

Benicia, California

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.)