On Thursday last week, city of Benicia staff released the agenda for the crucial and perhaps decisive Sept. 20 meeting of the Benicia City Council.
A staff report accompanying the agenda stands by the staff’s previous positions on Valero’s oil train proposal, recommending on Page 10 that Council approve Valero’s appeal, reject Benicia’s Planning Commission decision and approve the Crude By Rail project.
The staff report fails to quote the city’s own strong defense of local land use authority as stated in its recent legal brief before the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), and attaches the brief seemingly as an afterthought, the 10th among 10 attachments.
Although city staff follows protocol, offering Council four alternative courses of action, including approval, denial, re-working the environmental report and continuing discussion, its recommendation is unenlightened, a repeat of previously heard pro-oil train postures of Valero and the city’s paid consultants.
The one indication that staff is giving Council real alternatives is that they include a ready draft of a resolution to deny the project, a professional courtesy not afforded to Benicia’s Planning Commission last February.
That said, eight of the 10 attachments that accompany the staff report lean heavily in favor of Valero and against opponents. A new memo by Valero Benicia executive Don Cuffel disputes the findings of environmental expert Dr. Phyllis Fox. In the memo, Cuffel touts his own experience and authority, then launches into a 6-page attack on Dr. Fox, characterizing her arguments as based on “ideology or on heated rhetoric.”
The city’s release of Cuffel’s Sept. 13 memo at this late date will no doubt make it difficult if not impossible for Dr. Fox to rebut and defend herself and her positions prior to tonight’s council meeting.
The agenda also attaches a second Sept. 13 memo commissioned by Valero that claims Benicia’s Sulphur Springs Creek is perfectly safe from potential environmental impacts, and that the “proposed project meets the requirements and intent of the city of Benicia’s stream setback ordinance.”
It is interesting that public comment on the proposal has officially been closed, and yet Valero’s latest memos are attached to the official Council agenda. Would the City have given such prominence to an afterword by Dr. Fox? Did staff choose to attach the recent critiques of Benicia structural engineer Amir Firouz or Benicia engineer C. Bart Sullivan, who have pointed out on-site impacts that have nothing to do with rail-related dangers? Of course not. When does manufactured rebuttal by the project applicant come to a close here?
Valero plays hardball, of course, and has done so throughout the more than three years of proceedings. One can only guess at the behind-the-scenes pressure applied by Valero to city staff and supposedly impartial city consultants. Who knows why our city manager, assistant city manager and principal planner have chosen to leave our employ in recent weeks?
Opponents of the project have been waiting and watching for signals from Benicia’s new interim city manager Steve Salomon. It is disappointing– if not alarming– to witness staff’s new (old) approach on Valero’s dirty and dangerous proposal. The lone holdovers on senior staff are City Attorney Heather McLaughlin and Community Develolpment Director Christina Ratcliffe. These two will be responsible, along with councilmembers, if Valero gets its way.
One can only hope that city councilmembers have taken note of the recent derailment disaster in Mosier, Ore.; the consistent input of outside experts, local structural engineers, California’s attorney general and outside attorneys, and make a decision – finally tonight – to be done with Valero’s foolish proposal.
There is ample evidence of off-site and on-site factors that are sufficient for denial of this project. An entirely inadequate environmental review should not be certified, and a permit should not be granted.
Concerned Benicians should plan now to attend this evening’s City Council meeting. Arrive early if you want a seat – some will arrive as early as 5 p.m. for this 7 p.m. meeting! City Hall is located at 250 East L St.
Roger Straw is a Benicia resident and member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.
Sharing is caring!
Sorry Roger everything you wrote about is not new. You have clearly stated your position many times in the past. Now you take swipes at very fine folks that took opportunities in other city’s. I assume you would do the same Reverend.. I assume you have not done your homework on Dr. Fox. If you had you may well understand her motivation. Give you a hint Reverend it is Unions. This issue will be decide tonight. The city and Valero will take all the steps necessary to move forward. But the harm and division of this city and city staff you have helped motivate. I would not be proud of that. Some have said I make personal attacks. I have but only when it is warranted by the behavior of the writer. They present false and misleading info I will call them on it. Yes sometimes it will not be nice. Reverend if there is a law suit after the decision who do you think pays for it? Do you even know. The permit will be denied tonight. Now tell all your fans who pays for that law suit. Reverend it will be the city and it will not be cheap. Which means that the residents will suffer. A scare tactic that you use all the time except mine is not a scare tactic it is the truth.. Ever think of that Reverend. You and your followers had a chance to work this out but instead chose to be very anti resident financial impact. It could be very expensive but you paid no attention to that Reverend. You and your group will have to bare the responsibility for lost services. Think about that Reverend. Reverend you talk about the Oregon incident but fail to tell the public that the Governor of Oregon said they were not prepared. Had they been prepared it would have not been as it was. Talk about the truth Reverend..
My goodness where to start.
1) Dr Fox has a cottage industry of writing negative comments on projects and EIRs for those who oppose projects, for whatever reason. In 1987, her client was Metropolitan Water District of So. Cal, and Kern County Water Agency. She developed the (much ridiculed) “Tule Theory” in an effort to show that tules (the plants) took more water from our Delta prior to the European invasion of California than those nice folks from So Cal and the Central Valley steal today. Got nowhere with that one.
2) Actually, the staff report and the consultants work is in fact appear quite neutral, as it should be. Anything else would make the whole thing extremely vulnerable to a lawsuit from the project proponents, which would take this lousy project out of the hands of the Council and put it squarely in the hands of some judge.
3) I worked with these consultants many times over many years; I always found them to be of the highest integrity (Mr Straw’s snarky remarks notwithstanding). They always tell clients what the facts are, even if the client does not like hearing it one bit. Sorry Mr Straw, you are dead wrong with respect to the consultant.
4) The Planning Commission really messed this up by failing to certify the EIR and then denying the permit (along with legally justifiable findings for doing so). If the EIR is inadequate, they should have sent it back to be corrected, then certified it and then denied the project. If not, it should be certified and then deny the project. the Planning Commission has set this up to put the EIR and project in the hands of a judge, who will order revisions, and then certify when the judicial conditions are satisfied. The correct way is to get an adequate EIR, certify it, then deny the project for valid, legal reasons. Now it is up to the City Council to correct that, and they are so far doing it in a way that will protect the City and keep the decision here (even if they are doing it in the face of overwhelming ignorance about CEQA on the part of project opponents).
5) Notwithstanding all that, when the project is denied, nothing (and I mean NOTHING) prevents Valero from taking delivery of crude oil (from Canada or North Dakota) via trains to Seattle, then by tanker along the coast and through the Bay. That is what Tesoro is already doing. No permits, no EIR, no public comment to do that option. Same railroad accident risk, plus the risk of a spill or accident along the coast or in the Bay (imagine a spill of either Bakken crude in the Bay and subsequent explosion and fire). Unintended consequences can be really bad.
It is nice to be the first to comment after a good vote;
Many thanks to the 3 council members who voted to get it right and get the information needed to do it right. You really reduced the odds of an adverse decision by a court.
Thanks also to the council member who did not vote to delay but who raised important issues and worked to eliminate gratuitous language from the findings, However much opponents may like that language, it makes the decision vulnerable in court.
To the Mayor: your stubborn insistence on language in the findings that emphasizes things you don’t like but are not the city’s business and are outside its authority does not help. Drop it if you want to win the lawsuit, keep it up only if you want to lose it.
prior to the European invasion of California — That pretty much tells the readers all one needs to know about this persons bias.
those nice folks from So Cal and the Central Valley steal today SoCal is often demonized for ‘stealing water’ from the north to deliver to the south. Yet the west. ‘steals’ water from the east with very little comment from those that receive that water. We are one state, does the water not belong to everyone?
When a nation or group of nations sends soldiers into a territory for the purpose of taking and holding land and enslaving the native population, that action is commonly called an invasion, even when the territory is California and the soldiers are called Conquistadores (Conquerors). Is there another name for it?
Yes, are one state but we do not all own the water. When California became a Republic, the Legislature adopted English Common Law, which gave the highest right to use water to landowners (of course those troublesome Spanish and Mexican landowners were quickly divested of their property rights with a series of laws). In 1914, the haphazard method of appropriating water by those whose land did not abut the rivers was regularized, but riparian landowners and pre-1914 appropriators to this day have the seniority over the rest of us for using water. Prior to the creation of the State Water Project (SWP) in 1960, a series of laws were passed to protect Northern and Central Californians’ water priorities from Southern Californians; these laws are known as the Area of Origin and Delta Protection Acts (Water Code Sections 11460 et seq and 12200 et seq, and later 1215 et seq.). These laws state (I paraphrase, you can look them up) that the Delta and the watersheds and rivers in which the water originates shall not be deprived of water by the SWP (or Central Valley Project) that is necessary for reasonable use in those areas, nor shall the Delta be deprived of water necessary for salinity control and use by those in the legal boundary of the Delta. These laws only really matter in dry years, when there is not enough water for all needs.
In every drought since the SWP started operating in 1968 (1976-77, 1987-1992, 1994, 2002-2004, 2007-2010, 2012-present) water quality regulations protecting the Delta have been violated and northern Californians in the areas of origin have suffered shortages while the SWP pumps have continuously pumped water, never stopping. When a person walks into a bakery and unlawfully takes a loaf of bread and leaves without paying deliberately, it is generally called stealing bread, even if there is a police officer present who does nothing. And when the SWP unlawfully takes water from the Delta and sends that water to Southern California while the State Water Board and Governor impose unnecessary restrictions and shortages on water use in the area of origin and Delta (not all restrictions were unnecessary, but some were), it should be called what exactly?
If it were not for the historical shenanigans of Eaton and Mulholland, LA would not be the vast sprawl it is today, and we would not have to worry about SoCal’s water woes. People need to start to understand that population growth is not beneficial to anyone.
Thank you. But I well understand the definition of the word. My comment was a reflection on the revealing nature of the use of the word in this context.
Of course, the above diversion into the definition of “invasion” and “stealing” detracts from the main point about Mr. Straw’s article. While I may agree with some of his positions, I absolutely condemn and detest his unfounded attacks on those who disagree with him. Touting someone with a reputation for both bogus arguments and for finding whatever the client wants (simply because he likes what they said) while denigrating (because he doesn’t like what they found) a consultant who has an outstanding reputation for integrity, is despicable and worthy of condemnation by all, even those who might agree with Mr. Straw’s position. Shameful, Mr. Straw, absolutely shameful.
While it is refreshing to read comments from someone who seems to be able to write a simple declarative sentence, its disingenuous, dishonorable, and rude to criticize folks anonymously. So, Real Environmental Expert, if you want your comments to be taken seriously and you have something of substance to offer, then I suggest you drop the silly label and man-or-woman-up. If you are not willing to stand behind your online comments, then your opinions, even if they are professionally experienced are like dust in the wind…
Kind of like a guy who is the CEO of a company that specializes in alternative energy being critical of the petroleum industry.
LOL. Good comment John
John very good comment. Grant does not understand the issues. The denial of CBR was nothing, yet Grant seems to think it will change the world. The refineries will not be gone in two decades. Will change some demands.. In California the re4ductio9n of GHG has been going on for over 70 years.