Monthly Archives: September 2018

Benicia Chamber of Commerce, Benicia City Council, Cannabis, Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO), Local elections, Valero Benicia Refinery, Water rates

Benicia Herald: City Council candidates discuss issues at Chamber of Commerce forum

Repost from the Benicia Herald

City Council candidates discuss issues at Chamber of Commerce forum

By Nick Sestanovich, September 13, 2018
(Left to right) City Council candidates William Emes, Kari Birdseye, Lionel Largaespada and Christina Strawbridge answer questions from the audience at Wednesday’s Candidate’s Night forum. (Photo by Nick Sestanovich)

Viewers of Wednesday’s Candidate’s Night forum, sponsored by the Benicia Chamber of Commerce, had an opportunity to ask questions of the City Council candidates and learn their perspectives on hot-button issues facing the city.

The forum was held in the Council Chambers of City Hall and moderated by James Cooper, the president of the Vallejo Chamber of Commerce. All the candidates were present, including Planning Commission Chair Kari Birdseye, retired carpenter William Emes, Economic Development Chair Lionel Largaespada and former Councilmember Christina Strawbridge. Prior to the forum, audience members wrote down questions on cards, which Cooper read to all the candidates. Below is a sample of the candidates’ answers.

Industrial Safety Ordinance

The candidates were asked their stance on a proposed Industrial Safety Ordinance for the city, which among other things would include a more community-involved approach to safety procedures at the Valero Benicia Refinery and other local industries. A draft ISO went before the council in June, but the council voted to delay the ISO to give Valero more time to address some of the concerns resulting from the 2017 flaring incident.

Birdseye felt the proposal should be reviewed.

“I’m all for communications between our great neighbor, Valero Refinery, and the community at large,” she said. “The heart of the ordinance is better communications and better data on what’s in our air.”

She proposed the ordinance should be renamed the “Community Involvement Ordinance.”

Largaespada made five points. He said his top priority was public safety, the city should have an active climate environmental policy, he supports the installation of more air monitors, the council should be vigilant over the council’s execution of Program 4— the state version of the ISO and he supported the expansion of command centers with every vulnerable entity in town, including Amports and schools.

“We didn’t have to wait for there to be a flaring incident at Valero to take all these actions,” he said. “I assure you as the next councilmember, public safety is what I will think about every day, working with fellow councilmembers and city staff. We will correct and amend our ordinances and our processes along the way.”

Strawbridge said she was concerned about the way the ordinance was presented, namely that she felt the public did not have much oversight and the councilmembers and staff did not have much time to review it.

“I think we need more time to review it,” she said. “I think that it has brought people to the table, which has been really important.”

She noted that the ISO discussion has created opportunities for communication with Valero and suggested people wait and see what the refinery will do in the time given.

Emes felt Valero should be given time to meet the minimum requirements, including installing monitors.

“Over time, my 15 years experience working refineries, they have continually become better,” he said. “It takes time to do this. To demand that it occur instantly in five years is unrealistic given the historic record.”

Water rates

Candidates were asked about the city’s decision to restructure water rates and their views on continued rate increases.

Birdseye noted her family was among those impacted by the water rate increases, and she noted in her experiences going door to door, many residents wanted relief and action. She felt that addressing the city’s “crumbling infrastructure” was the right thing to do.

“We want future generations of Benicians to have access to clean water, and that’s not a god-given right,” she said, citing the incidents of Flint, Mich. and Newark, N.J. as examples of failed leadership resulting in lack of access to clean water.

However, Birdseye felt the city should explore its options and figure out alternatives to rate increases.

Largaespada said he was frustrated by the rates and had been protesting them since 2016 via public comments at council meetings and letters to the editor. He offered a plan for the next council to freeze rates, bring back discounts to those with fixed incomes and extend them to nonprofits such as the Benicia Teen Center, ask for money from state and federal representatives and look at public/private partnerships.

“The reality is Benicia will never have enough money to pay for this,” he said.

Strawbridge said she was the swing vote when the council voted to increase water rates but felt further discussions should be held with residents and advocated freezing the rates to figure out where the city stands with its water and sewer funds. She also suggested developing a water hotline to address the complaints.

Emes felt assistance should be provided to those who need help and the commercial enterprises that use a lot of water should carry their weight.

“My feeling on this sensitive subject is that those in need should get help, and those that can give help should help carry the burden,” he said. “It is that simple.”

Cannabis

The candidates were asked their views on the city’s decision to allow cannabusinesses.

Largaespada rejected assertions that he was a “prohibitionist” or “moralist,” and he accepted the statewide voters’ decision. However, he did not feel the council’s ordinance was well-implemented, particularly the decision to do away with buffers around parks, places of worship or youth centers.

“It is the responsibility of the City Council to ensure that Benicia remains a family-friendly community,” he said. “Those businesses are welcome, but families come first and we will do our best to accommodate the locations that will not come at the expense of the families and children here in Benicia.”

Strawbridge said she felt the decision was made too fast and felt Benicia should have waited to see how cannabis legalization was impacting other communities.

“I have no problem with legalized marijuana,” she said. “I think it’s been helpful, especially for people for medicinal use for people trying to find relief and pain, but I do have a problem with the fit for here in Benicia.”

Strawbridge said she would continue to fight to ensure cannabis is not used by youth.

Emes agreed with Largaespada and felt there should be zones where cannabis is not allowed.

Birdseye, who was on the Planning Commission that recommended a zoning ordinance, said ensuring public safety in the wake of legalization will be a top priority.

“Our chief of police was there every step of the way in legalizing cannabis and bringing cannabis to our community,” she said. “He will ensure that cannabis will not be a safety nuisance. In addition, because we took advantage of the timing of the state in legalizing cannabis, we will have additional funds to enforce cannabis laws and keep it away from our kids and also education in our schools. I felt that was a very valuable part of what we did.”

The televised broadcast of the forum will be shown again at 7 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 26; 10 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 6; and 7 p.m. Monday, Oct. 15 on Comcast Channel 27.  [Editor: …and streamed on the City website for local access channel 27.]

Christina Strawbridge, Crude By Rail, Kari Birdseye, Lionel Largaespada, Oil trains, Valero Crude By Rail

Birdseye and Strawbridge opposed Valero Crude by Rail – Largaesapada supported oil trains

Pat Toth-Smith: Birdseye puts safety first

By Pat Toth-Smith, September 9, 2018
Pat Toth-Smith

It’s been two years since the 2016 crude-by-rail permit for Valero was denied, but a strong memory of it remains for me and probably for a lot of Benicians.  It’s because of that experience that I’m urging Benicians to vote for Kari Birdseye for the Benicia City Council.

Birdseye was a new Planning Commissioner when the permit process fell into the Commission’s authority, and she really did her homework to keep us safe in Benicia.

When I spoke to her about that process, she said she would stay up long into the night reading the stacks of material submitted to the commissioners and also would focus intently on everything the public said during the Planning Commission meetings.

She added that it was Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general at that time),who made the biggest impact on her in her comment about how local permitting measures absolutely applied to this process.  Birdseye said “I knew then, that the state of California had our back.”

Birdseye voted against the permit along with all the other Planning Commissioners.

When I asked her why she denied the permit besides the significant local reasons, her voice choked when she said “My dad, my husband, my sister and my two children live here, why would I want to risk the health and safety of my family, friends, and all Benicians by bringing in 100 crude oil rail cars into our town, when the safety of this form of transport was in question with the rapid increase of oil train explosions.  I did not want our town to be the next tragic headline news story.

She continued, “After listening to so many of the speakers say, ‘I’m afraid of this,’ ‘Let’s not do this,’ ‘We don’t need this for our community,’ ‘Valero doesn’t need this,’ and ‘There are safer ways to bring in their oil,’ our community certainly wasn’t in favor of it, so how could I possibly vote for it?“

After the planning commission denial, Valero appealed to the City Council to certify the Environmental Impact Report and issue the permit. After a five-month delay, this is where another 2018 City Council candidate, then-Councilmember Christina Strawbridge, also voted to deny Valero’s appeal for the permit. It ended up being a unanimous vote to deny Valero’s appeal for the permit, mostly based on the Planning Commission’s work.

Another 2018 council candidate, Lionel Largaespada, was also involved in the crude-by-rail process. Largaespada was in favor of approving the permit and commented to the Planning Commission before their vote, “I understand the concerns. I understand the risks. But I urge you to be objective and pragmatic. Because the fact — the reality is that we need this project to ensure Benicia’s economic future and prosperity. I urge you to certify the EIR and to issue the conditional use permit.”

Based on this recent history of our town and the way the candidates handled the CBR issue, I’m encouraging Benicians to vote for Kari Birdseye because I think she has the compassion and diligence to do the hard work to put the safety of our community first, especially when the next big permitting process comes along.  Also, praise to Christina Strawbridge, because she did the right thing.

Pat Toth-Smith is a Benicia resident and member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community
California Governor Jerry Brown, Cap-and-trade, Clean energy, Climate action, Communities For A Better Environment (CBE), Greenhouse gas emissions, Oil exports, Oil imports, Oil refineries, Tar sands crude

Until California curbs its oil refineries, it won’t meet its climate goals (Benicia & others are heroes)

Repost from the Los Angeles Times
[Editor: Significant quote, Benicia in final paragraph – “In the absence of action at the state level, it has fallen to localities to prevent refineries from at least increasing crude oil imports to their facilities. Over the last decade elected officials in half-a-dozen communities from Benicia to San Luis Obispo County have blocked refinery infrastructure projects that would allow more crude oil imports. They’re the real heroes of California’s climate saga — too bad they won’t be the ones in the spotlight at the summit.”  – RS]

Until California curbs its oil refineries, it won’t meet its climate goals

By Jacques Leslie, Sep 11, 2018 | 4:15 AM
Until California curbs its oil refineries, it won't meet its climate goals
The Phillips 66 refinery in the Wilmington neighborhood of Los Angeles. (Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times)

While Gov. Jerry Brown and other California leaders bask under an international spotlight at this week’s Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, there is one highly relevant topic they’re not likely to bring up: oil refineries.

That’s because refineries are crucially absent from California’s climate change strategy. The state has justifiably gotten credit for addressing climate change issues that the nation won’t — promoting renewable energy, cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emission limits, and electric vehicles — but it has backed off from challenging refineries, the centerpieces of California’s oil supply infrastructure.

Concentrated in Los Angeles’ South Bay and the San Francisco Bay Area, the state’s 17 refineries comprise the largest oil processing center in western North America. Unless emissions from those refineries are curbed, the state has no chance of meeting its long-range climate change goals.

Greg Karras, a senior scientist at Huntington Park-based Communities for a Better Environment, calculates that without restraints on refineries, even if emission reductions from all other sources hit their targets, oil sector pollution through 2050 would cause the state to exceed its overall climate goals by roughly 40%.

“Refineries have been largely exempted from the state’s cap and trade program, which charges fees for emissions.”

That’s primarily because refineries have been largely exempted from the state’s cap and trade program, which charges fees for emissions. Last year, the legislature extended the program for another decade, from 2020 to 2030, but only after bowing to the oil industry’s wishes. To win a needed two-thirds majority, cap and trade supporters exempted the industry from fees for all but a tenth of refinery emissions through 2030. The legislation also prohibited regional air districts from imposing their own limits on refinery carbon dioxide emissions, a severe blow to communities suffering from pollution from nearby operations. Instead of curbing refineries, these provisions gave them a decade-long free pass.

To make matters worse, the oil that is being processed is bound to get dirtier, resulting in a higher rate of greenhouse gas emissions throughout the fuel-production chain. Oil used by the state’s refineries already contains the highest intensity of greenhouse gas pollutants of any refining region in the country. As drillers pump the dregs from the state’s nearly spent fields, that intensity is increasing.

With California oil extraction in decline, its refineries will want to import more crude oil from other states and nations. That could include tapping the Canadian tar sands, notorious for its off-the-charts, climate-busting pollutants. Completion of the stalled Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in Canada would facilitate what Greenpeace calls a “tanker superhighway” from Vancouver to California ports. California refineries have tried to win approval for rail terminals and ports that would receive tar sands oil but have so far been blocked by local governments.

The refineries’ contributions to greenhouse gas emissions don’t end with their own production, of course. When the fuel they produce is used, it’s one of the primary contributors to climate change. As California shifts to renewable energy and electric vehicles, less refined fuel will be consumed here and more will be exported to other states and nations.

As a result, the state could become, in Karras’ words, “the gas station of the Pacific Rim.” And as exports grow to countries like India with lax environmental standards, refineries won’t even need to meet California’s more stringent regulations on fuel composition; instead, they will export more pollution.

The main reason state leaders have done little to limit oil supply is obvious: The oil industry remains a formidable adversary, wielding its financial and lobbying might to head off restraints. For virtually all Republican state legislators and a substantial number of Democrats, oil supply is too hot a topic to touch, Karras told me.

Meanwhile, state policy calls for greenhouse gas emissions to drop by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. Given the oil industry’s cap and trade refinery exemptions in place through 2030, the only way to achieve that level is to place drastic limits on refineries as soon as those exemptions expire, which is unlikely to happen. A more realistic approach would remove the oil industry’s exemptions and impose cuts of 5% a year on refinery emissions immediately — an urgent task that state leaders have shown no interest in carrying out.

In the absence of action at the state level, it has fallen to localities to prevent refineries from at least increasing crude oil imports to their facilities. Over the last decade elected officials in half-a-dozen communities from Benicia to San Luis Obispo County have blocked refinery infrastructure projects that would allow more crude oil imports. They’re the real heroes of California’s climate saga — too bad they won’t be the ones in the spotlight at the summit.

Jacques Leslie is contributing writer to Opinion.
Benicia City Council, Kari Birdseye, Local elections

Get a yard sign for Kari Birdseye for Benicia City Council!

Repost from BirdseyeForBenicia.com
[Editor: Kari Birdseye on our Benicia City Council is the best way to assure environmental awareness and constructive dialog in a progressive Benicia atmosphere.  Please help Kari win by taking action today!  – RS]

GET YOUR YARD SIGN HERE!

AUGUST 31, 2018

It’s time for yard signs!

Order yours today – go to How Can I Help, fill in your info and check off “Place a campaign sign in my yard”.  Someone will stop by with your sign.

Let everyone know – Birdseye For Benicia!