When: Sunday, October 27, 2024 for 5pm and 6:30pm seatings
Details: The proceeds of this event go towards an excellent cause. Benicia Fiestas Primavera Celebrating Diversity is an inclusive and interactive educational and cultural event celebrating the cultural and historical of all immigrants, past and present. Our efforts are to unify and celebrate Benicia and the surrounding communities through dance, music, poetry, ritual, art displays and educational activities.
The fundraiser at Drift is $60 per plate, which includes Pasta Primavera, Caesar Salad, Glass of Wine, and Dessert. Live music will be performed by Sobrecuerdas, Andy Brunt, and Ruben Brunt.
Due to limited seating, reservations are required by October 22. Please contact Monica at Monica@DriftBenicia.com or 707-750-6516.
Sponsors: Benicia Public Library, Benicia Unified School District, Kyle Hyland Foundation, Benicia Black Lives Matter
About us: The Solano Aids Coalition (EIN 36-4639664)provides services, education, information and assistance to those in our community affected by the HIV virus. We build community support and awareness in the fight against HIV.
The Benicia Performing Arts Foundation (EIN 45-0531250) is dedicated to promoting the performing arts and education to the community, especially the youth of the community.
[BenIndy: This win shows why Benicia residents are demanding local oversight through the enactment of an Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). While we’re grateful to Baykeeper for taking a stand for our health and safety, we shouldn’t have to rely on nonprofits for protection. Nor should we accept City leaders’ seeming reluctance to rock the boat in a refinery town by supporting an ISO. The polluted waters this metaphorical boat now floats on demonstrate that inaction and waffling in our leadership is as risky as industrial pollution. It’s time for Benicia’s leaders to pick up their oars and navigate us all to safer, cleaner shores—even if it means making waves.]
Valero and Amports Agree to Clean up Their Acts
Baykeeper drone footage of a petcoke spill at the Port of Benicia. | Baykeeper.
Baykeeper’s 300th Legal Win: Hard Evidence Holds Polluters Accountable
After four years of drone investigations, rigorous evidence collection, and court filings: We won! Valero and Amports—the two companies operating an export terminal at the Port of Benicia—have agreed to stop polluting the Bay and nearby neighborhoods. What’s more, this settlement officially marks Baykeeper’s 300th legal victory over 35 years, and it includes the largest Clean Water Act mitigation payment in our history.
It all started with a report to Baykeeper’s pollution hotline. The tipster let us know that the companies were spilling some dark material into the water while loading cargo ships at the port.
When our field team investigated, we documented long black plumes of petroleum coke drifting out into the Bay. We also recorded clouds of petcoke dust rising off the conveyor belts, fouling the air and threatening people in nearby neighborhoods.
Companies Commit to Cleaner Operations
Valero and Amports have agreed to make significant infrastructure upgrades and operational changes to improve activities at the site. These changes will include thorough cleaning and maintenance, installing state-of-the-art equipment to prevent spills and aerial drift, as well as monitoring and recording all petcoke loading operations. Baykeeper’s experts will be evaluating the companies’ compliance with the agreement over the next three years to ensure they are no longer polluting.
$2.38 Million for Local Nonprofits
The companies have also agreed to pay $2.38 million in environmental mitigation payments to help offset the harm of their past pollution. They will send the payment to our partners at the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, which will re-grant it to non-profit organizations around the Bay Area to fund projects that benefit the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed. None of these grants will go to Baykeeper.
With this latest pollution settlement, Baykeeper has directed more than $15 million to the community over our 35-year history. Those funds have supported hundreds of Bay-focused environmental initiatives.
“Baykeeper stood up to these two big companies and made them clean up their acts,” said Baykeeper executive director Sejal Choksi-Chugh. “It’s a big win for the Bay and the people around Benicia. It makes me proud to know that there will be less toxic pollution harming the community, and that lots of local grassroots nonprofits will get a big funding boost to support projects like creek cleanups, wetlands restoration, and environmental education programs because of our win.”
This victory was made possible because of our dedicated supporters. Thank you for enabling us to hold this major fossil fuel polluter accountable, defend local communities, and protect San Francisco Bay.
In a previous post, I shared the Baykeeper press release announcing the photo and video evidence of illegal polluting of the Carquinez Strait and San Francisco Bay by Benicia AMPORTS.
Re: Notice of Ongoing Violations and Intent to File a “Citizen Suit” Under the Clean Water Act
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) regarding violations of the Clean Water Act1 (“CWA” or “Act”) at the Amports Port of Benicia Terminal, owned and operated by Amports, Inc. (“Amports”) at 1997 Elm Road, Benicia, CA 94510 (“Facility”) and 1007 Bayshore Road, Benicia, CA 94510. The purpose of this letter (“Notice Letter”) is to put Amports on notice that, at the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date the Notice Letter is served, Baykeeper intends to file a “citizen suit” action against Amports in U.S. Federal District Court. The civil action will allege significant, ongoing, and continuous violations of the Act and California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit2 (“General Permit”) at the Facility, including but not limited to, the direct deposition of petroleum coke (“petcoke”) into the water from the conveyance system, equipment, and ship, aerial deposition of petcoke directly to the water from the deck of the ship, and the uncontrolled discharge of polluted storm water to the Carquinez Strait, a part of the San Francisco Bay.
Detailed list of violations
As described in detail below, Amports is liable for ongoing violations of the Act as a consequence of the Facility’s: (1) direct discharge of petcoke into the Carquinez Strait, both through deck washing and direct aerial deposition; (2) inaccurate use of SIC code designations to avoid coverage for regulated industrial activities under the General Permit; (3) failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the General Permit resulting in unpermitted storm water discharges, including but not limited to the preparation and implementation of a proper Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan related to Amports’ petcoke loading operation, preparation and implementation of a Monitoring Implementation Plan, and compliance with technology-based Effluent Limitations.
60-day notice and offer of settlement
CWA section 505(b) requires that sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of a civil action under CWA section 505(a), a citizen must give notice of their intent to file suit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b). Notice must be given to the alleged violator, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the State in which the violations occur. As required by section 505(b), this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit provides notice to Amports of the violations that have occurred and which continue to occur at the Facility. After the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit, Baykeeper intends to file suit in federal court against Amports under CWA section 505(a) for the violations described more fully below.
During the 60-day notice period, Baykeeper would like to discuss effective remedies for the violations noticed in this letter. We suggest that you contact us as soon as possible so that these discussions may be completed by the conclusion of the 60-day notice period. Please note that it is our policy to file a complaint in federal court as soon as the notice period ends, even if discussions are in progress.
Background and photos
A. San Francisco Baykeeper
San Francisco Baykeeper (“Baykeeper”) is a non-profit public benefit corporation….
Members of Baykeeper reside in Benicia, California, as well as in many of the surrounding communities. Baykeeper’s members and supporters use and enjoy San Francisco Bay and other waters for various recreational, educational, and spiritual purposes. Baykeeper’s members’ use and enjoyment of these waters are negatively affected by the pollution caused by the Facility’s operations….
B. The Owner and/or Operator of the Facility
Amports, Inc. is a dba of APS West Coast Inc. and is identified as the owner and operator of the Benicia Port Terminal Company. All three entities have the same address, CEO, Secretary, CFO, and Controller.
C. The Facility’s Industrial Activities and Discharges of Petcoke and Other Pollutants
The Facility is a roughly 400-acre site which includes marine cargo loading equipment, the petcoke loading equipment and conveyor system, parking for cars, docking area and equipment for ships, silos to store petcoke, train car petcoke offloading area and equipment, vehicle maintenance, equipment cleaning, ship cleaning, ship maintenance, and other facilities. According to Amports’ 2015 Notice of Intent to comply with the General Permit under the Clean Water Act, at least 8 acres at the Facility consisted of areas that were exposed to storm water.
The Valero Benicia Refinery processes crude oil by separating it into a range of hydrocarbon components or fractions. Petroleum fractions include heavy oils and residual materials used to make asphalt or petcoke, mid-range materials such as diesel (heating oil), jet fuel, and gasoline, and lighter products, such as butane, propane, and fuel gases.
The petcoke is transported via rail to the Facility and is stored there in silos. Amports transfers the petcoke from the silos to a ship’s hold at the Facility’s dock by way of a covered conveyor system. During this process, the petcoke may escape in half a dozen or more ways.
First, petcoke spills off of the conveyor belt system and is deposited onto the wharf and directly into Carquinez Strait. This occurs while the crane boom is in the lowered position, and, as depicted below, continues as the boom is raised while the conveyor continues to operate.
March 2021
Second, petcoke is deposited onto the deck of the ship and into the water, potentially due to overspray from the loading mechanism or other operations, leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.
February 2021
Third, at the conclusion of the loading, longshoremen hose off the deck of the ship, and the related loading equipment on and around the ship, cleaning the equipment and forcing contaminated runoff directly into the Carquinez Strait, again leaving visible plumes of petcoke that can be seen in the water.
February 2021
Fourth, as the ship is being loaded, large visible clouds of black particulate matter, presumably petcoke dust, drift through the air away from the ship before being directly deposited into the water and/or onto the nearby shoreline.
Additionally, petcoke may escape and be deposited onto the Facility or into the water during: (a) the offload from trains, (b) the movement of petcoke around the Facility, (c) storage at the Facility, (d) from equipment and vehicle cleaning, (e) from equipment and vehicle maintenance or repair, and (f) each time a sufficient rain event occurs due to the Facility’s discharge of pollutants from industrial activity in storm water, through direct discharges of industrial pollutants.
The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds.
Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
Detailed harmful effects of Petcoke
The deposition of petcoke and other pollutants into San Francisco Bay is harmful and deleterious to the Bay’s wildlife and communities. Petcoke is a petroleum byproduct and is known to contain pollutants including heavy metals such as copper, zinc, nickel, arsenic, mercury, and vanadium, all of which are harmful to aquatic life, including fish and birds. Additionally, people exposed to petcoke pollutants can experience severe health problems like asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease.
Amports is permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to process and load 2 million tons of petcoke onto export ships over a 12-month period. Amports does not have any permits from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”). Amports is not permitted to discharge petcoke directly into the Carquinez Strait. And Amports is also not permitted to discharge any storm water, directly or indirectly, that is the result of industrial activity, including water that is commingled with industrial discharges.
Baykeeper’s suit will allege that petcoke is deposited on the site with every instance of: petcoke being transported by rail to the site, petcoke offloading from a train at the Facility, and petcoke being handled and transported on the Facility’s premises. Additionally, Baykeeper will allege that petcoke enters the Carquinez Strait with every instance of: petcoke being loaded and/or oversprayed onto a ship docked at the Facility, petcoke-related equipment, including the conveyor systems, cranes, and ships, being maintained and/or cleaned, and each storm event at the Facility in excess of 0.1” of precipitation.
The discharge of pollutants from industrial facilities contributes to the impairment of surface waters and aquatic-dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for ecosystems to regain their health and to protect public health. As part of its investigation of the Facility, Baykeeper observed and documented by video numerous instances of illegal discharges during Amports’ various activities and handling of marine cargo (specifically petcoke) at the Facility between November 2020 and March 2021.
Additionally, with every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm water originating from industrial operations such as the Facility pour into storm drains and local waterways. The consensus among agencies and water quality specialists is that storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution entering surface waters each year. Such discharges of pollutants from industrial facilities contribute to the impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for the ecosystem to regain its health.
Click image for full 20-page notice
THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENT is organized into the following sections, which you can study at length here.
II. THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 7) A. The NPDES Permit Program (p. 7) B. California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit (p. 8) C. The Facility’s Permit Enrollment Status (p. 12) III. NAME AND ADDRESS OF NOTICING PARTY (p. 13) IV. COUNSEL (p. 13) V. VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND GENERAL PERMIT (p. 13) A. Amports’ Direct, Non-Storm Water Discharges Without an NPDES Permit (p. 14) B. Amports’ Illegal Indirect Discharges Without An NPDES Permit (p. 15) C. Amports’ Illegal Storm Water Discharges (p. 15) D. Violations of the Act and General Permit Reporting and Monitoring Rules (p. 16) E. Violations of the General Permit’s SWPPP Requirements (p. 17) VI. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (p. 17) VII. CONCLUSION (p. 18) ATTACHMENT 1: DATES OF ALLEGED EXCEEDANCES BY AMPORTS FROM OCTOBER 4, 2016 TO OCTOBER 4, 2021 (p. 19) ATTACHMENT 2: SERVICE LIST (p. 20)
By Mayor Steve Young, originally published in the Benicia Herald on October 6, 2024
Over the past four years of serving as your Mayor, I’ve been immensely proud of our Council’s achievements. We’ve made tough decisions, some of them unpopular.
However, these decisions have significantly streamlined and improved our City’s processes, finances, and safety services.
As we continue to build on the progress we’ve made, it’s crucial to address our City’s ongoing needs to ensure a thriving future for Benicia. We have proposed Measures G and H for your consideration, which are designed to enhance Benicia’s future financial stability and infrastructure.
Together, these measures will empower Benicia to better manage its resources and address the critical needs of our community. By supporting Measures G and H, we can continue to build a stronger, more resilient Benicia for all residents.
However, I’ve become aware that there’s significant misinformation circulating about these measures. Given that, I would like to dispel some of the misleading, falsehoods and rumors surrounding them.
First, the Sept. 22 op-ed by the Committee against G and H included the following statement:
“Measure G will give City Hall the green light to increase permit fees, license taxes, parking fees, usage fees and special assessments beyond the caps.”
This is misleading:
As a General Law City we already have the power and the authority to raise fees such as parking and building permits without a vote of the people. Switching to a Charter City would not affect this in any way. Raising Water rates and fees for Lighting and Landscaping Districts requires a vote by ratepayers through a voting process governed by proposition 218. Our proposed Charter City Measure does nothing to change this.
Other concerns I have heard include:
“Measure H will rob my kids of their inheritance if I pass my house on to them.”
False: The tax only applies if the property is sold. There is not tax if the property is transferred to family members through inheritance or divorce.
“Measure H will raise taxes for renters.”
False: If an owner of a rental complex sells a property, it is possible the new owner may raise rents. But a current or future owner can already do so within the limits of California law, and it would not be due to this proposed, minimal increase to one-time closing costs.
“If the measures pass, the money will just go into the black hole of the General Fund where it will be spent on salaries for city workers who are backing the measures.”
False: Earlier this year, this City Council passed a policy stating that any surplus funds (including any from Measure H) would be placed into the capital reserve fund. To spend any funds from the capital reserve now requires a super-majority 4/5 vote.
The larger impact of Measure H is being missed.
While residential sales only average 250-300 houses per year (and are on track to be less than 200 this year), we need to look into the future.
The Seeno property (Northern Gateway) will likely be developed in the next few years. That proposal calls for the construction of 1,100 homes. If sold at the current average Benicia single family sales price of $880,000, these transfers could generate nearly $4 million for Benicia —if tax Measures G and H were approved.
Importantly, the tax would be paid by either the developer or the home buyers, not Benicians.
There is also the possibility that Valero may, at some point, decide to sell the refinery. At its current value of around $2 billion, a sale would generate $16 million for Benicia…paid either by Valero or another oil company, not Benicians.
Additionally, the number of commercial properties listed for sale in Benicia represents another potential revenue source.
For example, the Economic Development Board reported this month that there are 18 active commercial properties in Benicia that are listed for sale which total over $30 million– taxes on those sales would be taxes paid by the commercial buyer– if tax measures G and H were approved.
At $4/6/8 dollars per $1,000 (depending on purchase price), there’s a significant amount of money that would be left on the table that Measures G and H would provide.
All the above represents real money for our future which would dwarf the amount paid by Benicians on the sale of their homes.
I understand that people don’t like paying taxes. I don’t like paying taxes either. But the City has, over the course of months and years of careful planning under City staff and our leadership, developed a comprehensive plan to address our looming infrastructure challenges. A crucial part of the plan rests on the passage of these tax Measures.
Voting against the passage of these Measures is a vote to do nothing.
It is a vote to kick the can down the road yet again, and not face our future with open eyes.
It is a vote to watch as our roads and other facilities continue to fall further into disrepair.
It is a vote for a future of higher costs and diminished quality of life for Benicia.
Please join me and the rest of City Council, labor and citizens groups and vote for Measures F, G and H.
Let’s stop kicking the can down the road. Let’s work together to make hard decisions today that will provide for a stronger, vibrant, more fiscally sound Benicia tomorrow.
A Breath of Fresh Air: For City Council, Back Democrat Gilpin-Hayes Over Republican Largaespada
Christina Gilpin-Hayes, Benicia City Council Candidate. | Campaign photo.Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land
By Stephen Golub, originally published in the Benicia Herald on October 7, 2024
Images added by BenIndy.
While four candidates are vying for two Benicia City Council slots this November, the key race (for reasons I’ll explain in a subsequent column) is really between Democrat Christina Gilpin-Hayes and Republican Lionel Largaespada. They’re both good, smart people, with backgrounds in business and public service. They both love Benicia.
But they differ in crucial ways, which is why Gilpin-Hayes is by far the better choice.
Energy and Perspective
Gilpin-Hayes is a breath of fresh air with creative ideas on everything from addressing the budgetary crisis that threatens our city services to better community outreach that will keep us updated about vital government deliberations and decisions.
In contrast, Largaespada is on his fourth run for City Council in eight years. The one time he won, in 2018 (before losing again in 2022), he wore the mantle of supposed fiscal responsibility – yet sat on the Council during a crucial period when our budget crisis intensified and went unaddressed.
Endorsements
Moderate Democrat Gilpin-Hayes has endorsements stretching across much of Benicia’s and Solano County’s political spectrums. They include Mayor Steve Young, Vice Mayor Terry Scott, Council Members Kari Birdseye and Tom Campbell, former Mayors Jerry Hayes and Elizabeth Patterson, Solano County Supervisors Monica Brown and Wanda Williams, Supervisor-elect Cassandra James, State Senate candidate Christopher Cabaldon and, last but not least, the Solano County Democratic Party.
To his credit, conservative Republican Largaespada has secured labor endorsements, including from our police and fire unions – though that does not mean those groups or individual members necessarily oppose Gilpin-Hayes. On the other hand, the largest though indirect backing he’s received over the years has come from Texas-based Valero Energy, through political action committees (PACs) that have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting him and/or attacking his opponents in misleading and mean ways.
Our Budget Crisis and Credibility
Along with Mayor Young, other Council members and other leading Benicians across the political spectrum who have made courageous decisions to back steps to balance our budget, Gilpin-Hayes supports Ballot Measures F, G and H, which will help repair our decaying roads and more generally shore up the City’s finances.
She also favors revenue-enhancing initiatives that will increase Benicia’s appeal as a place to visit and spend money and to make it easier to do business here, without sacrificing our community’s charming, small-town character.
Former Benicia City Council Member Lionel Largaespada, pictured at a 2022 candidate forum in Benicia, CA. | Vallejo Sun / Scott Morris.
Largaespada agrees that Benicia needs to be more business-friendly. But he opposes the three tax-oriented measures without proposing effective alternatives for maintaining our police, fire, parks, public works and other services. Instead, he promises apparently illusory savings: e.g., from the $9 million of spending that the City currently contracts out annually. In doing so, he overlooks the fact that such contracted-out expenditures could be even more burdensome if they instead involved hiring additional City personnel, in view of City employees’ benefits, pensions and other accompanying costs. In this and other instances, he seems to juggle budget categories without providing sound solutions.
What’s more, such services are by and large for crucial public works and public safety needs, ranging from protecting our water supply to employing the license plate readers that have helped keep Benicia safe. We can’t simply cut them.
One has to wonder, again, where was fiscal conservative Largaespada when he served on the Council in 2018-22 as our current fiscal crisis overtook the City, and why his return to the Council would prove more effective this time around.
Public Safety and Health
Gilpin-Hayes takes a responsible position in backing full funding and support for Benicia’s Police and Fire Departments. She favors a strong industrial safety ordinance (ISO), while also taking account of Valero’s financial and other contributions to the community and what she feels are at least a couple of legitimate concerns it raises about a draft ISO prepared by a Council subcommittee.
Valero’s Benicia Refinery during a flaring event. | Pat Toth-Smith.
I do not trust Valero and I feel that Vice Mayor Scott and Council Member Birdseye have done a fine job in spearheading that draft, which among other things could prevent Valero from again pouring tremendous toxic emissions into our air for at least 15 years without informing us – as it finally was forced to do in 2022. But I also respect Gilpin-Hayes’ position in staking out (along with Mayor Young and Council Member Trevor Macenski) a moderate middle ground that hopefully will still yield a strong ordinance.
Contrast this with Valero’s indirect but massive and often misleading campaign backing for Largaespada over the years, and what this might portend for future industrial safety-and-health challenges. Consider too his unfounded suggestion that the proposed ISO would duplicate the work of a rather toothless Solano County agency.
I’m not questioning his integrity at all here; but I am wondering about why the Texas-based oil giant has chosen to make such a political investment in him. Maybe it has something to do with his supporting its extremely dangerous but fortunately unsuccessful crude-by-rail project several years ago or potentially aligning with the corporation on other hazardous initiatives down the line.
I’m also concerned about whether our Police and Fire Departments, which consume a large chunk of Benicia’s budget, could continue to function well despite the inevitable City cutbacks that Largaespada’s opposition to additional revenues entails. I’ll equally admit to uneasiness about his stance opposing a mask mandate back when Covid raged, as well as his apparently solicitous stance toward the Solano County public health director, whose questionable advice at the time starkly contrasted with that of most other public health authorities, including throughout the Bay Area.
Finally, let’s note Gilpin-Hayes’ dedicated, longstanding involvement with rescue services for endangered and abandoned dogs. That won’t necessarily make her a City Council star. But as a fellow dog lover, to me it marks her as someone with a big heart.
Christina Gilpin-Hayes has my vote for Benicia City Council.
[Note: I have donated to the Gilpin-Hayes campaign.]
The BenIndy has also endorsed Christina Gilpin-Hayes for City Council. Learn more about her campaign by clicking the image below and visiting her website.
You must be logged in to post a comment.