THE LAST SENTENCE IN A RECENT ARTICLE published in an area newspaper caught my eye: “. . . City officials say responses to a large volume of public comments are due out (Aug. 2).” At the July 11 Planning Commission hearing on Valero’s crude-by-rail project, city staff promised to answer “all public comments received” on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that the city is recommending for approval. Those answers were to come at the commission’s next meeting Aug. 8.
Did the city or Valero anticipate the depth of public response to the project, which seemed a “sleeper” when quietly announced in February? Apparently not.
By attempting to respond in writing to the “volume of public comments,” which include expert reports from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the city tacitly admits the tight time squeeze on Aug. 8, when it was assumed that staff would present their responses verbally, Valero and Union Pacific would make presentations, NRDC would offer an official rebuttal and the public would be granted a last chance to speak on record.
But wait! Things happen fast in a 24-hour news cycle, even here in River City. Late Thursday the city announced, without further comment, that the Aug. 8 Planning Commission meeting has been canceled! The panel’s next meeting will be Sept. 12. What portends “down the tracks?”
Did the city finally figure out that even an IS/MND that has been amplified or amended by the city’s written responses couldn’t stand a “CEQA test” — legal precedents supporting guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act — as a substitute for a full environmental review? Who’d be convinced by such an illusion of procedural legitimacy anyway? Is Valero dreaming that such a CEQA “play” would have created a more pliant public and commission? To maintain a grand illusion on the real-world stage, everybody must pretend!
A kinda-sorta CEQA-lite process with loose procedures won’t cut it. CEQA requires an official follow-up document to a draft EIR called “Response to Comments,” which must be reviewed before a draft EIR can be certified.
The city’s seeming desire to “quicken” a CEQA review by tempest-like magic — all bells, whistles and stage management — could have been fully enacted on Aug. 8, but presto! to no avail, since, at the July 11 hearing, our clear-minded, experienced local CEQA expert, Bob Berman, asserted that concerned citizens aren’t under any illusions and have made “fair arguments” that a real EIR is required to be prepared. NRDC said the same.
Public and NRDC “fair arguments” — a CEQA legal term referring to the low threshold for judging whether a Negative Declaration can be accepted or an EIR required when there are contrary views and evidence presented — could have, at the first hearing, led the city, as lead agent, to withdraw the Initial Study. Why didn’t that happen?
In canceling the Aug. 8 hearing, did the city and Valero quit playing their high-stakes CEQA-Lite game? I sure hope so. The facts remain: the Initial Study did not describe the full scope of the proposed project and therefore can’t serve the public’s understanding of its potentially significant impacts, nor of all the necessary mitigation measures that would be called for to avoid or reduce them. Thus, the MND couldn’t be accurate in its appraisal of impacts, and therefore could not be approved.
In 2007-08, the Good Neighbor Steering Committee challenged Valero on its use of an “Addendum” — a document not requiring public circulation — to describe a series of additional complex technical modifications and upgrades to the refinery’s processing units. The GNSC’s challenge led to the 2008 GNSC/Valero Settlement Agreement. Perhaps the city has finally learned from past experience?
It’s worth recalling here that the Valero Improvement Project was initiated in 2003, to be completed in 2009, according to the VIP EIR, to “increase the maximum crude oil feed rate now permitted by BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District) by about by 25 percent annually,” and also to enable Valero to “provide ability to process lower grades (my emphasis) of raw materials,” and, “provide a greater flexibility in refinery operations.” Stated very boldly: “The primary goal is to allow Valero to processes mixes of crude oils that have not previously been processed in Benicia.”
Further upgrades as described in the VIP Addendum were subsequently permitted — including a hydrogen unit that has not yet been constructed, but that would be required to permit processing the “North American-sourced crudes” that the rail project would be importing — crude types that the Initial Study fails to specify.
Whatever the refinery’s economic reason for wanting construction to begin immediately — “before the rains come,” as Valero’s environmental engineering manager, Don Cuffel, said at the July 11 hearing, pleading with his palms raised as if he expected rain in the next moment — the real magnitude of the crude-by-rail project has been conveniently obscured.
Uncertainty looms like a dark cloud over the track the city appears to be traveling down with Valero. We all understand Valero’s contribution to the city’s tax base and laud the fact that, comparatively, the refinery is well run as currently managed; but the rail project appears to serve Valero Energy Corporation and its investors best.
So, we must responsibly consider the potential long-term economic, social, environmental, public health and safety risks to the city of Benicia, our community and the climate of implementing a project that expands Valero’s access to, and refining of, the dirtiest, most polluting, corrosive synthetic crude product in the world — “diluted bitumen” or “dilbits” produced from Alberta’s vast tar sands extraction operations, as well as “tight oils” extracted from shale formations by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”).
The public record, including Valero’s testimony to its own investors, indicates that tar sands “dilbits” would very likely be one of the “North American-sourced crudes” imported by rail into Benicia. Other Bay Area refineries are reportedly going after the same “gold”— which points to as yet unaddressed potential cumulative emissions impacts to the region and to Benicia, including the possibility of more than two crude-loaded 50-car trains passing through here on Union Pacific tracks every day.
Where do the long-term cumulative negative impacts of the crude-by-rail project begin and end? What is “sustainable” about the proposed project? All factors — all total costs — must be accounted for and “balanced” in accordance with the Benicia General Plan’s principal sustainability goal (page 22), the Benicia Climate Action Plan’s goals to conserve energy, water and reduce greenhouse gases, and California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).
What would an “alternative project” look like? Or the “no project” alternative? A full EIR will have to flesh out those options.
The canny questions raised by the Planning Commission at the first hearing indicate commissioners would have given the Initial Study a cold, hard look to test the city’s recommendations against their understanding of CEQA.
A draft EIR is required to get at the portentous implications and consequences of the proposed rail project for our local community and the region, no less the planet.
Marilyn Bardet is a founding member of Benicia’s Good Neighbor Steering Committee.
Sharing is caring!
Go, Marilyn! Always good to hear your side of the show…I was starting to think that Bob Livesay was the only voice in Benicia and everything was just “jovial and jolly with Valero” and they should be trusted and followed all the way into Oblivion…Any chance we can enlist John Silva and throw all of the coke dust from CCCo into the “bitumen mix” and ship it all to China for some real Acid Rain? Wow! I vote No on any form of the Keystone pipeline or its nefarious substitutes…Give me solar and wind, but no nukes please, and Frakking makes my ducks have bad gas in their water…PB
Sorry Peter there are many more folks in town that are in favor of this three rail project. Read the commonts sent to the city.
Sorry, my computer refuses to speak or read Livesay’s language patterns…Extraterrestrial radar warp possibly…pb
Sorry Peter you did read them many times over. I am very glad you enjoyed them. Thank you Peter for being so kind to me.
Perfect example of what is “wrong” with California…with Valero being such an important part of the tax base in Benicia and this project being a vital project in this refinery’s ability to remain in operation, I can already hear the cries of these same “Greenie Weenie” complainants when Valero shutters this refinery and has a massive layoff. Their contribution to the taxing revenue of the area and the lack of payroll in the area will be detrimental to Benicia…it’s just another nail in the coffin for California’s economy…
Keep up the good work, Marilyn. I am not categorically against Valero’s project, although I do see at some point, somewhere, a necessary stop to carbon fuel development. A thorough EIR seems clearly called for,
as the next step toward a binding decision. If all bad effects cannot be well mitigated, the project must die. I sense that many good people work for Valero, but Valero is a distantly owned and run corporation. I recall the U.S. Government’s relations with the Indian Nations. Many good people in Washington D.C., but trust could not long be maintained. Many promises sincerely written into treaties were pragmatically broken. The earth itself must not be treated like a poor, powerless aborigine shoved on to a worthless reservation by people following their own stars with nothing but dollar-signs in their eyes.
Well stated, Bob!–pb
Thank you, Ms. Bardet for an accurate and concise picture on this crude-by-rail project.
Ms. Bardet also co-wrote an article for the San Francisco Chronicle last week about air monitoring in Richmond.
An excerpt for the community to consider:
“Two years ago, Chevron committed itself to supplying air monitoring equipment that would detect gases crossing the refinery fence line and also to establishing community-based air-monitoring stations. These
procurements were part of an agreement with the city of Richmond that granted the refinery utility-tax concessions. Chevron, however, never installed the equipment.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District operates ground-level monitoring stations throughout the Bay Area, and previously offered to make the results public, but this valuable information has yet to be openly provided in real time. Experience has shown that these systems can detect gases around the refineries where they are installed, and also gases from other pollution sources. For example, when Valero’s Benicia refinery had a big hydrogen sulfide release last year, the event showed up on the ground-level monitoring systems in Rodeo and Crockett.
Why does it take a Freedom of Information Act request for citizens to get this data after the fact?”
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Residents-have-right-to-know-what-is-in-the-
air-3802444.php
Here in Benicia, we have been waiting many years for our own air monitoring system to come on line.
The article below gives the community more concerns about how Valero, city staff, and our city council have delayed this important project going forward.
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_20666938/benicia-air-monitoring-project-limbo-valero-and-community?source=rss
Dear Will and Marilyn: To answer the question, “Why does it take a Freedom of Information Act to get the information out?” That’s perhaps the last resort the public has to interact with corporate and government types who would prefer the public were solely “consumers” and not “question-raisers.” I was a corporate type for 30 years, thinking that was sure to be a stable if not honorable place to call home. Ha!
I am now self-employed for 11 years as the “engine” of this economy ever recovering the ravages and damages of every mediocre clod higher above me in the food chain. Watch out for Mediocrity, it breeds in tidal pools and boardrooms everywhere. Good luck, America and other planetary inhabitants. I believe Global Warming is real and that the Keystone Pipeline is a direct road to further garbage and distress in our environment.– pb
Note to the Editor: URL didn’t paste article. Here is the full article copied. I believe the piece is relevant to our situation here in Benicia. Our community needs to know, that. like minded refinery towns are having the same concerns not only with air monitoring but crude by rail etc. .
Oil refinery air monitoring delay is unreasonable
July 29, 2013
The one-year anniversary of the Chevron Richmond refinery explosion and fire is Aug. 6. That date will also mark the 3-year-old delay in implementing the comprehensive air-monitoring system called for by an agreement with Chevron. If another refinery disaster occurred today, residents could go online to see that the real-time air-monitoring data for their community is “coming soon.”
In 2010, Chevron agreed to install both fence-line and community air-monitoring stations at the perimeter and in the neighborhoods surrounding its Richmond refinery. The agreement was part of a tax settlement between the city of Richmond and Chevron. The equipment and trailers were purchased and systems assembled and readied for implementation. The community trailers still sit idle, even now, almost a year after the catastrophic crude-unit explosion, fire and obvious impacts on human health. Richmond’s city manager, Bill Lindsay, says now that he regrets not including a deadline for Chevron in the 2010 agreement.
A recent Bay Area Air Quality Management District Expert Community Monitoring Advisory meeting offered some hope for the future of community monitoring at all the region’s oil refineries. However, the hope for future technologies will not solve the immediate need for community-based air-monitoring systems.
The community air-monitoring stations are an integral part of a system that can track toxic gases originating from the refinery as they migrate toward the surrounding community. Without these neighborhood monitoring stations, the citizens of Richmond and the Bay Area in general are only getting fence-line monitoring, that is, half of a system.
It’s time to ask the city manager if he once again regrets not giving Chevron a deadline for installing these systems; after all, Lindsay did get a letter from Chevron in November 2012 in which the refinery management committed to having all of the air monitoring stations installed and operational by the first quarter of 2013. It will be four months and a day since the city of Richmond said community air-monitoring stations will launch.
Why the stalling? Chevron could implement the system unilaterally; the city of Richmond could force the immediate operational implementation of these systems; the regional air district could require the immediate use of technologies agreed to in 2010. If Chevron generates another accidental release or other fire that impacts the community, each party holding up the installation of the community air-monitoring systems should be held accountable.
Holding up the operation of an already negotiated state-of-the-art air-monitoring program can only be seen as resulting from a lack of leadership at all levels. The community remains the victim.
We urge you to contact the Richmond city manager, Richmond City Council members, Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, your city, county and neighborhood leaders, anyone who can help get these currently idle systems up and running.
Chevron’s crude-oil processing unit was put back into operation in April. Why wasn’t the
same consideration given to the air-monitoring system that benefits the community?
Jay Gunkelman is a member of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Expert Advisory Panel on Community Monitoring. Marilyn Bardet is a member of the Benicia Good Neighbor Steering Committee.
Low carbon fuel standards where does our “good neighbor stand on this issue?
More information for the community to consider…
Dirty Oil Stigma
Beyond California, there are concerns that a low-carbon fuel standard could harm the reputation of the oil sands industry by stigmatizing it as a dirty and financially risky fuel source.
The stigma’s potential impact on the tar sands trade is what led energy giants like Valero Energy Corp., the Texas oil firm and a major player in heavy crudes, to challenge the fuel standard in a lawsuit against CARB. Valero also spent more than $5 million in 2010 to support Proposition 23, a failed state ballot initiative that aimed to suspend California’s five-year-old global warming law.
Valero made the biggest single commitment of any company to purchase oil sands from the Keystone XL pipeline, agreeing to off take at least 100,000 barrels per day, or 20 percent of the pipeline’s initial proposed capacity.
Steven Lee, a spokesperson for Valero, said he couldn’t comment on how California’s fuel standard would impact the company’s particular interests in Canadian crude.
However, “as a domestic refining company with a strong California presence, we are seriously concerned about the impact the low-carbon fuel standard will have not just on our business but on consumers in the state,” he said via email. “This is an extremely complicated regulation.”
Stanley Young, a spokesperson for CARB, defended the regulation as an “even-handed approach.” He said it doesn’t discriminate against any one fuel type or discourage out-of-state or even international imports. Rather, it encourages oil companies to reduce emissions in their entire operations by using renewable resources and ratchet up investment in alternatives fuels of the future.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120120/tar-sands-california-low-carbon-fuel-standard-carb-federal-judge-keystone-xl-obama-european-union
More information on the tar sands, petroleum coke and the Koch Brothers for the community to consider…
Question; How much Petroleum coke (dust) will be generated in Benicia, when you consider 100 rail cars of tar sands arriving everyday-seven days -a-week into our “little city?” Just curious?
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/08/02
From the above article:
“Uncertainty looms like a dark cloud over the track the city appears to be traveling down with Valero.”
Detroit. Chicago. Will Benicia be next?
More on Pet Coke for the community to consider…
Writing in NRDC’s Switchboard blog, Henry Henderson asks:
Is this the vision Big Oil has for the cities of the Great Lakes? Is this the transformation that Chicago city officials have in mind when they talk about a revitalized river system and investments in our port—a step back to the worst messes of our town’s industrial past? Make no mistake, this is a problem. And it is one that will be growing quickly as region’s tar sands refinery expansion projects come online.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/18-9
From the above article:
“Uncertainty looms like a dark cloud over the track the city appears to be traveling down with Valero.”
Detroit. Chicago. Will the cities of Contra Costa and Solano County’ be next?
More on Pet Coke for the community to consider…
“The Petcoke piles in Chicago are another symptom of Obama’s flawed “All of the Above” energy strategy. It’s time we actually made choices about the kind of energy we want rather than taking anything we can get,” Stockman told DeSmog Canada.
Chicago can choose to follow Detroit’s lead, fighting back against the Koch brothers’ dumping of petcoke. But the fact remains that petcoke is a growing environmental threat directly related to tar sands production and expansion, and remains a dangerously overlooked threat when considering the full consequences of the Keystone XL pipeline.
http://desmog.ca/2013/10/24/koch-brothers-tar-sands-waste-petcoke-piles-spread-detroit-chicago
Valero Energy Corporation news you can use–
Low carbon fuel standards where does our “good neighbor stand on this issue?
An excerpt from the article below for the community to consider…
So far in 2013, the oil and gas industry has already spent over $11.5 million on lobbying efforts in California, and it’s not just fracking regulations that are in Big Oil’s crosshairs.
California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is also particularly vexing to fossil fuel profiteers, especially companies like Valero and Phillips 66 that are hoping to receive more tar sands crude from Canada at their refineries in the Golden State.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/06/oil-industry-spending-big-golden-state-fracking
“We are the land”
An excerpt and a short video from the article below for the community /planning commission and the city council to consider…
Nobel Women’s Initiative Report Explores Tar Sands Expansion Plans From The Perspective of Local Women
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/14/nobel-women-s-initiative
Marilyn – your technical expertise is amazing. The article is complex, but when you call for Valero to “quit playing their high-stakes CEQA-Lite game,” you hit the nail on the head. A full Environmental Review is absolutely essential, and the sooner the City and Valero agree on that, the less money and time will go into the review and approval process. I am especially taken by Marilyn’s reference to the EIR requirement of presenting “alternative projects” and a “no project” option. These are tough, but reasonable requirements when so much is at stake.
This is a community of about 28,000 rersidents. This project has a small group of anti fossil fuel folks up in arms over a three rail project. Just where have these folks been. It can and will be processed in Benicia or other refineries like it or not. I would suggest that the writer check out the Utah crude and refining. There has not been one statement of evidence on any long term issues. Words only. Now the writer should do a follow up and give the residents what this group thinks are the long term effects with facts not words. There is no question that this group with the support of the mayor and her limited scare tactic backers are on a mission to stop this project. If all results come out positive, would that be enough for this small group to back off and endorse this project? That is a guestion that must be answered. Seems this group does not want any positive results to come out on this very good project. Again we hear about Alberta TAR Sand crude and fracking as the big bad enemy. Sorry folks fossil fuel in all its forms is the answer. It is not the enemy. No matter how many studies, regulations are in place that is still not enough for this anti fossil fuel group. I do believe the public has had it with this anti progress group. lets drill and drill and drill more. More safe tank cars, pipelines to bring our fossil fuel to all regions of this wonderful country. Sience and tech will work together to make it clean and safe to the enviroment and of course our loyal residents. Remeber this well could end up in the hands of the mayor/council for a final decision. Now just what are your influence tactics going to be on that. If you win you will have accomplished a measure of satisfaction that could very well drive not only Valero but other refineries to change their approach to doing business in the area. Reduce production and move it to other refineries in the country. Will that satisfy this group? Remember rail can and will bring the crude to any place in the USA. Lwets do it here in Benicia. Valeros safety and health record is above reoproach and they are as concerned even more than this small anti fossil fuel gourp is. That is what it is all about “Anti Fossil Fuel”. Valero is a refiner only does not do any drilling. It appears to me you are going after the wrong folks.
Mr. Livesay, please check the record and national surveys: those concerned represent a vast majority of the population, nationally and here in Benicia. Mr. Livesay should read the wide array of formal public comments on Valero’s proposed project – raising serious concerns about pollution and disastrous rail accidents. Valero’s proposed crude-by-rail project will open the door in the Bay Area and elsewhere in the west. A strong review process is an absolute must, not only for Benicians’ health and safety, but for that of others up-rail and throughout the west-coast states.
Oh, and … the issue is not how many favor and how many oppose the project. Another red herring. The issue is, as Ms Bardet has stated, an effective and law-abiding process for making decisions that affect us all, and which will contribute more or less to our environmental security.
Excellent point Roger.
Reverend Straw please give me the national surveys. Just what is a vast majority mean? How many formal public comments are there? Reverend Straw would a positive review convince you and your anti fossil fuel group that this is a safe and healthy project? Or do you just want to stop fossil fuel production? I would like your answer on that last question. To answer your comment below you seem to think the numbers do count. Can not have it both ways. Just what way is it Reverend Straw.
Why would anyone oppose a strong EIR for this project? One must suspect their motives, or at the very least their intelligence. Both, I say.
“Why would anyone oppose a strong EIR for this project?”
Not sure what the meaning of a “strong” EIR is, but most people would likely settle for a ‘fair’ and ‘honest’ EIR.
Glad you agree with me. Don’t worry, those of us who actually live here will be vigilant.
Don’t worry, those of us who actually live here will be vigilant.
Interesting. In a comment, which is in basic agreement with your statement, you are able to combine, in a span of just a dozen words, snideness, irrelevance as well as immaturity.
I see I am to become the latest object of your obsessive harassment. Do everyone a favor and focus on your own new community, wherever it may be.
Goes both ways Simon. A wide/vast amount of folks do not agree with your lesanings.
No it does not. There is a significant difference between those words.
Very good Roger.
I have. This is a city iof 10,000 households and possible 17,000 adults who would comment. Reverend Straw just how many individual comments from Benicia residents has Brad Kilger received? Not out side comments just the wide array of formal public comments. 1% would be 100 from household {Some may be multiple from same households}. and 170 would be 1% from Adults{There could be some multible responces from the same people, that is one responce} Could there be more than that>? Reverend Straw give us the breakdown both pro and con. Reverend Straw should be able to give us the exact numnber received. Looking forward to this info on this vast array of responces.
If you have read them Bob, then you can answer your own questions, though I doubt the veracity of any conclusions you might come to. You are too far up Valero’s backside to see straight on this issue. At any rate, the volume of interest has been great enough to cause the planning commission to postpone its vote on the matter by a month, which settles the question about number of responses.
Simon I am just a voter and a property owner like you. I assume you own property in Benicia. We just do not agree on this issue and I assume many others. I do not think you lack intelligence or are you up any ones backside. So I do not think personal attacks are needed here.
Agreed. That was too strong. However, I believe you have shown your hand on this issue. I however remain open minded — in fact I lean toward approval of the project. But an EIR is essential.
Thank you
And you used the word vast, Roger said wide. So stop twisting words.
you used the word vast, Roger said wide
Now that takes nit picking to a new level.
No it does not. There is a significant difference between those words.
wide=covering a vast area
That is not the conventional definition of wide.
Of course there is a difference in the words, but given the context Bob used it in, he was using it as a synonym for wide. The German’s have a great word for those who make an issue of such a trivial items: korinthenkracker.
What’s the German word for a writer who keeps recycling his old work?
Mist Vertreter
Since you asked:
Schlechte Schriftsteller aus der linken
Ms. Bardet’s comments are technically accurate and present a well-educated and fully researched position which is summarized by the simple question: Why would anyone – pro or con this project – object to a fair and comprehensive EIR? The negative comments here seem to revolve around how many questions have been asked of staff, what surveys are done nationally and the usual “anyone-who-questions-any-oil-company-plan-is-surely-anti-fossil-fuel-so-shouldn’t-be-taken-seiously” cliche. Why not an EIR?
I do believe there is more to this issue than an EIR. Past comments tell me that is not the real issue.
What past comments? Please be specific.
An EIR is the issue. There must be one.
If you had followed this group over the past few years you would have the answer. You apparently have not been paying attention. Do your own homework. I am again correct on this.
You are incorrect on this. Your study of “this group” seems incomplete and prejudiced.
Simon as you know I do follow the local political leanings. I have no problem with their leanings I just know what they are and make comments on them. I will accept your help to make my study complete and meet your satisfaction. Please advise. Again I am correct.
I would be glad to help. First, throw out all of your previous research. It is tainted.
Ok , I will set it aside till I hear from you. I would assume your help will not be tainted and fact filled. Looking forward to your research that is not tainted. Thank you for stepping in and telling the public you are going to help. I will hold you to that.
Simon I have followed this group for about four years. I do not need to go into archives to make my point. I will not do the homework for you or anyone else. Sorry Simon an EIR is not the issue. Just google anyone of these folks and you will get the answer. For that matter google the Mayor and you will get a direct answer. It is is a very simple issue that has been blown way out of what it is all about. It is about fossil fuel and renewable energy on their terms. Simon do you think anyone of these folks want Valero in Benicia? They do not care about the down side only the inviro results in their favor. Very narrow and short sided. I have no problem with their agenda backed by the mayor. I just am discussed with the fact that their approach is that everyone else does not care about the enviroment. That is not true. It appears Simon that this project you may favor. I do not know that. I like you like clean air, water and a solution to the problems. I just do not like the approach of scare tactics and we know best you do not. Resonable folks will sit down and work out the issues. It you are anti fossil fuel how can anyone expect a reasonable approach. This is not what this group wants. Believe it or not. I must say I am correct on this issue.
Bob Livesay is not “correct” on this issue or any other, he simply has an “opinion,” one of hundreds in town and he measures all his opinions as being “correct.” In 30 years in this community, I have never once seen his name as a volunteer on any committee, or appointee, or elected official. Only a continuing “jabber” on these online pages. Sorry, but in my mind that’s worth as much as a dull lead pencil and an empty stack of newsprint. I rest my case.–pb
“I will not do the homework for you or anyone else.” Yourself included.
It’s your phrase — “Past comments tell me that is not the real issue.” So tell us, what past comments?
I must say you are not convincing anyone you are correct on this issue.
CEQA letters alone should open some eyes. This act is part of the “not in my back yard” group to stall and eventually bring an issue to litigation or just stop it completely. Backed my most very left leaning folks in Benicia and parts of California. Tell these folks that the Gov wants to revise CEQA and they are very upset. CEQA is like the Bible or reasonable factsimile of such to these folks. Its is there biggest resource to use to stop, stall and just gum up a project. Reduce the initial impact or take some of the bite out of the overall CEQA and they feel slighted on their rights not yours. This project is about three rail lines on Valero property. It is not about Alberta Tar Sand crude as the writer is talking about. I do suggest the readers read the comments on the other article about this. A much different feeling. I still am confused on “the volume of public comments”. Just how many have been revieved and how many are pro and con. We will know at some time.
Let the full EIR process proceed. There is no other option. Public comment on whether there should or should not be an EIR, or on notions as to any “group’s” (welders included) goal, is fruitless, irrelevant and a waste of energy.
I am inclined to agree with the waste of energy comment. My concern would then be why all this so called public comment which is being encouraged by this small agenda driven group?? If the only issue is a EIR, why not focus on just that and stop the scare tactics and long draw out public comments and articles.
“Scare tactics” = anything Bob disagrees with.
“Uncertainty looms like a dark cloud over the track the city appears to be traveling down with Valero. We all understand Valero’s contribution to the city’s tax base and laud the fact that, comparatively, the refinery is well run as currently managed; but the rail project appears to serve Valero Energy Corporation and its investors best.”
“Investors” is the general public. It is in the best interests of the general public that Valero process oil sands crude. With the latest finds, the USA now has access to vast quantities of new oil supplies, lowering the costs of energy and literally all market prices, while moving the country towards energy independence. The geo-political ramifications combined with the great economic boom as a result, the Valero project is fantastic opportunity for this community. The stated concerns of this article surrounding processing the dirty oil pales in comparison to benefits. Trains are economically and environmentally sound means of transportation. I cannot help but to believe the “anti” crowd is searching for any reason to to develop our natural resources.
I challenge the “anti” crowd to consider the costs involved by not developing oil sands. Tell the next poor person or unemployed person you see “sorry about your current condition but I chose not to support a project that could have helped you.”
There are real human costs involved here.
Vert good Matter.
should be very
It is very interesting to read the comments to the city. At present I would say the support for the Three Rail Project has a slight advantage. The writer of this article has sent more than one comment and they take up more space than the rest combined. I would say to the writer you got your point across. Maybe the change date was because the writer submitted very lengthy comments that the members will need much time to try and figure out just what of the comments pertain to this project. It could be a good tactic but then again it could be just an agressive approach by the writer and a couple other repeat and lengthy comments presenters. We shall see.
” I would say to the writer you got your point across.”
I would say to the commenter, you got your point across. Not a good idea, Bob, for you to go counting comments.
I do not mind if anyone does not agree with my comments. But at the same time I do think I have the same right to not agree with others either. Just an opinion that is for sure correct.
How many comments does “volume of public comments” represent? Thousands, hundreds or just a few public, agencies and groups. I think the readers need to know what volume means. It sure would be helpful to just what the public outcry is. Small, medium or large. Thanks M. Bardet.
There will be an EIR and it will go to the PC in Dec or Jan.
I told you so. Read the Benicia Herald article on this EIR. Very good reporting. Thanks Benicia Herald