November 25 is the deadline to submit to the Bay Area Air District comments on its Draft Guidelines that will govern use of $60 million in Valero fines for the benefit of Benicia and surrounding communities. (Valero was penalized because of its refinery’s over 15 years of undisclosed, massive toxic emissions.)
More specifically, now’s the time to back Mayor Steve Young’s proposal to the Air District: $25 million over five years from that $60 million should go for budget support to help Benicia through the imminent loss of Valero revenues (at about $10 million per year, so totaling $50 million over five years), now that it’s closing the refinery.
Or, if you prefer, you may simply argue for a flexible approach, suggest that more than $25 million is necessary or of course otherwise comment in any way you wish on the Draft Guidelines by the November 25 deadline.
You may submit comments to the Air District by emailing the following: communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov, mhiratzka@baaqmd.gov and vjohnson@baaqmd.gov. Please request that the comments be forwarded to the Air District Board of Directors (and retain your emails because they could come in handy down the line).
If unclear on what you’d put in the subject line, you could write something like:
Comments on the Draft Guidelines for the Local Community Benefits Fund: in favor of a flexible approach.
For additional background and information, including the link to the Draft Guidelines themselves, you may go to the Benicia Independent, at https://beniciaindependent.com/, and scroll down at left to Steve Golub’s detailed November 11 post. Particularly in a subheading titled “Arguments for a flexible approach,” he makes a case for flexibility in this Air District grantmaking.
By Stephen Golub, Benicia, Nov 11, 2025 [First published in the Benicia Herald on 11/09/25.]
An upcoming November 12 Bay Area Air District meeting is vitally important for Benicia … and the City has made participation easy.
At 1 pm that day, the Bay Area Air District Community Equity, Health, and Justice Committee will meet to consider and recommend whether the Air District should adopt guidelines and a call for projects that, if not revised from their current draft forms, could severely hamper or even block the city’s access to up to $60 million in funds that could alleviate our imminent, post-Valero budget crunch. (As you may recall, that sum is part of the $82 million fine/settlement that Valero paid the Air District a year ago in the wake of its Benicia refinery’s over 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions hundreds of times the legal limits.)
As I understand it, on November 12 the Committee will consider (among other items on its agenda that day) draft guidelines for the use of these funds and a proposal to adopt a flexible approach that could permit Benicia access to a good chunk of that $60 million, to support our cash-strapped city budget for several years. The Committee’s important, influential recommendations will be considered for approval by the full Air District Board at a January meeting.
Benicians have several ways to back a flexible approach in general and any Benicia-specific proposal in particular:
Though the Committee meeting is in San Francisco, you can go to the Benicia City Hall Commission Room (not the Council Chambers) on Nov. 12 to observe and (if you wish) offer comments by Zoom. The City Hall address is 250 East L Street. As noted, the meeting starts at 1 pm. We will each have up to two minutes to comment.
The camera in the Commission Room will be set up in a wide-angle such that it should show the Committee how many people are in attendance. So, even if you don’t plan to comment, it would be a great show of support.
You can Zoom in from your home or office to observe the meeting and offer comments, at bayareametro.zoom.us/j/81106820134
You can also access the Zoom by: a) first going to baaqmd.gov/bodagendas; b) scrolling down to the 11/12/2025 Community Equity Health and Justice Committee slot; c) clicking on the Agenda; and d) clicking on the Zoom link (same as the lengthy, multi-number one I just provided) on the first page of the agenda.
In addition to Zooming (but please, if possible, not instead of it), you can email comments to the Air District Community Investments Office (CIO), which will administer these funds, at communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. The deadline for submission is November 25.
In addition to the CIO, you can also try emailing or ccing the Air District Board members (including those belonging to the Community Equity, Health, and Justice Committee) via two Air District staff officials (Marcy Hiratzka and Vanessa Johnson) at mhiratzka@baaqmd.gov and vjohnson@baaqmd.gov, requesting that the comments be shared with the Board (though hopefully and presumably the CIO is doing so).
For those interested in attending in person, the meeting will take place at the Air District Headquarters, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco.
I’d suggest bearing in mind the following if commenting by email or Zoom:
Above all, please be respectful and diplomatic for any number of reasons. First and foremost, the Air District Board and staff, including the CIO, are dedicated public servants working hard for cleaner air and public health in the Bay Area. In addition, Benicia needs the Air District’s help and cooperation not just in making grants from the $60 million but in years to come, as the extensive clean-up of the Valero property takes place and regarding other issues that could well crop up.
In writing to the CIO and the Board, please reference the Draft Guidelines for the Local Community Benefits Fund (LCBF), as these guidelines will govern the use of the $60 million Valero fine money for which a flexible, budget-supporting approach is sought.
For further information, including the draft guidelines, you can go to the CIO’s site, baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/community-investments-office. Once there, scroll down to the Meetings and Events section to access the Draft LCBF Guidelines (though the term used in the link is Investment rather than Benefits), a “Draft Call for Projects: Benicia and Surrounding Communities” and other information – including a “Watch Archives” link to the October 29 CIO webinar at which Mayor Steve Young and Council Member Terry Scott articulated strong arguments for a flexible approach. (Yours Truly offered my two cents’ worth as well.)
FYI, Benicia is by no means guaranteed the $60 million. As a matter of procedure, the money is not simply handed over to us; like other potential recipients of the LCBF and other Air District grants, we must apply for it. Also, quite understandably, the Guidelines provide that surrounding communities arguably affected by Valero’s transgressions can also apply for LCBF funds. Nor is anyone contending that the entire $60 million simply go for Benicia budget support. Some can, should and will be set aside for specific projects in Benicia and in those surrounding communities, above and beyond budget support.
At the same time, Benicia has been the main community bearing the brunt of these particular Valero-generated problems, while lacking the resources of larger communities to address such issues. With the subtraction of roughly $10 million in annual revenue previously provided by Valero, we’re the only Air District city facing such a crushing loss of economic resilience, which is bad in and of itself but also has potentially dire implications for air quality, public health and a proper transition to a post-Valero economy. Perhaps at least partly due to Valero’s violations, our cancer rates are well above state and Solano County levels; they’re nearly twice as high as California for breast cancer.
I plan to argue for $45-50 million over five years for Benicia budget support, so $9-10 million per year to help out our annual $60 million in general budgetary expenditures. But clearly opinions can vary on whether this is an appropriate sum and how much it should be (as well as on everything else!).
In the end, then: Please show up if you can at City Hall or via your own Zoom link on November 12 at 1 pm. I know it’s a bad time for many, but those of us who can attend can help make a big difference, including simply by showing support even if you don’t want to comment.
Regardless, sending comments to the Air District email addresses I’ve provided can also prove useful.
Let’s do what we can to help secure Beautiful Benicia’s financial future.
EDITOR – IMPORTANT: Below is a very helpful post previously published by Steve Golub…
Arguments for a flexible approach:
To Help Prevent a Benicia Budgetary Crisis, Please Circle Nov. 12 on Your Calendar
Benicia’s financial future could well be determined over the course of the next month. On November 12, the Bay Area Air District Community Equity Health and Justice Committee will meet to consider and recommend whether the Air District should adopt guidelines and a call for projects that, if not revised from their current draft forms, could severely hamper or even block the city’s access to up to $60 million in funds that could alleviate our imminent, post-Valero budget crunch. The Air District Board of Directors could act on that recommendation as soon as its December 3 meeting.
As you may know, Benicia faces a loss of roughly $10 million in Valero-related annual revenue starting next year. At the same time, the Air District’s $82 million fine/settlement with Valero for its over 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions (hundreds of times the legal limits) – from which $60 million is available to Benicia and surrounding communities – represents a chance to address our budget crunch. It would seem that the fine for the Valero-sparked environmental and public health harms could help cover the hit that Benicia’s budget is taking due to Valero’s departure.
Ah, if only it if were so simple. At an October 29 webinar convened by the Air District’s Community Investments Office (LCBF), the CIO’s friendly, newly hired representative welcomed questions about the mechanism for awarding grants under the new Local Community Benefits Fund (LCBF). But her well-intentioned answers reflected a possible reluctance to provide budget support for our transition to a post-Valero economy. I hope I prove incorrect in that assessment.
The irony here is that, despite her apparent perspective, many Benicia budget categories and expenditures should seem to qualify under the four LCBF priorities provided at the CIO website: “Funding will support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.”
If the CIO were open to it, such budget support could accordingly cover a variety of current expenditures as well as several new ones under the rubric of one or more of those four priorities.
For instance, many Fire Department services, under public health; air monitoring, under air pollution control and public health; economic development, tourism promotion, permitting, attracting green business to the industrial park and other business-oriented services, under economic resilience and just transition; electric vehicles for police and other services, under public health and just transition; solar power for street lighting and other services, under public health and just transition; water treatment improvements, under public health and just transition; port enhancements, under all four priorities; relief for Benicia residents who are Valero employees, under just transition and economic resilience; aid for our most vulnerable populations as federal cutbacks threaten their well-being, under public health, economic resilience and just transition; and support for our many wonderful community groups cut off from Valero grants, under those same three categories.
I’m sure many readers could name and categorize many other appropriate services and expenditures as meeting the CIO’s basic criteria. I hope and expect that Benicia city staff are doing the same, in preparation for efforts to persuade the Air District to take a flexible approach to LCBF grant-making.
In contrast, at least at the moment it seems that the CIO may take a very restrictive approach that anticipates arrays of relatively small projects rather than the considerable budget support that Benicia needs.
Now, please don’t get me wrong here: The CIO and Air District as a whole are staffed by many dedicated, competent, well-intentioned individuals. In recent years, the Air District has brought on vigorous, well-qualified leadership. We’re dealing with different visions, rather than any ill intent.
Be that as it may, the flexible approach is necessary for Benicia and for many other Bay Area communities that stand to benefit from the LCBF. As Mayor Steve Young, Council Member Terry Scott and others (including me) pointed out in their comments during the October 27 webinar:
Mayor Young in particular emphasized that the highly restrictive approach anticipated by the LCBF draft guidelines and call for projects does not work for Benicia (and I’d argue, for most or all Bay Area cities and nonprofits) in view of our budgetary needs and staffing realities.
Those CIO documents impose very burdensome requirements involving application preparation, grant administration, results measurement and other matters – possibly the most burdensome I’ve seen in my many years of working with grant-making organizations. These might be manageable for large cities like San Francisco (though I’d even doubt that) but would swamp Benicia at the very point where the lack of more general budget support would force staff cutbacks.
As Council Member Scott pointed out, the restrictive LCBF documents ignore the key regards in which Benicia has been disproportionately affected by the history of air pollution violations, threatening incidents and potentially catastrophic consequences associated with the Valero refinery. (Though, as always, I’d emphasize that the responsibility rests with the corporation’s San Antonio headquarters rather than with our good neighbors and other workers at the facility.)
More specifically, we’ve been the main community bearing the brunt of these particular Valero-generated problems, while lacking the resources of larger communities to address them. With the subtraction of $10 million in annual revenue, we’re the only Air District city facing such a crushing loss of economic resilience. Though not at all the fault of the Air District’s current, vigorous leadership and personnel, we experienced over 15 years of egregious, undisclosed Valero violations that the District did not detect, plus remained in the dark for over another three years after the District learned of them. Our cancer rates are well above state and Solano County levels; they’re nearly twice as high as California for breast cancer.
So, what can we do?
Personally, here and in other forums, I aim to push for $50 million in LCBF budget support, spread over seven transitional years, to help Benicia weather its financial storm.
Please circle November 12 to weigh in at that crucial Air District Community Equity Health and Justice Committee. It’s planned 1-5 pm schedule isn’t ideal for many of us. But as information becomes available on Zoom links and whether there are particular times best to participate, the city should be posting them. I will try as well.
For those interested in attending in person, the event takes place at the Air District Headquarters, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco. Again, I don’t yet have information on whether and how participation in person will be possible, but will try to share that down the line.
You can email comments, concerns and questions about the LCBF draft guidelines to the Community Investments Office at communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. If you do email the CIO, I’d strongly suggest that you retain the note, as you may want to draw on it in contacting other Air District officials in coming weeks. I’ll try to provide relevant email addresses should that prove advisable.
You can also consult the CIO’s site, at baaqmd.gov/en/community-health/community-investments-office, for further information. Among other things, in view of a few recent glitches this would be the best place for any updated contact information should that email address change. And if you scroll down the site, you’ll find a link to subscribe for CIO updates.
Hope to see or hear you, whether in person or online, on November 12!
By Stephen Golub, Benicia resident and author. October 26, 2025. [First published in the Benicia Herald on 10/26/25.]
This really is important: On Wednesday, October 29, the Bay Area Air District is holding a 5:30-7 pm Zoom meeting (Webinar) to discuss draft guidelines for use of penalty/settlement funds for air pollution violations. As a result of the $82 million Air District fine for Valero’s 15 years of undisclosed toxic emissions, Benicia is by far the greatest potential beneficiary so far: $54 million (plus possible interest) is supposed to be set aside for Benicia-specific projects.
But there’s potentially big trouble in paradise, which is why Benicians’ Zoom participation in the October 29 meeting is crucial. The devil is in the details of how the Air District’s new Local Community Investment Fund’s (LCIF) grants will be awarded for Benicia and other communities, starting next year. If the guidelines impose a bureaucratic, restrictive process, Benicia will have considerable trouble weathering the financial storm that will lash us (also starting next year) as Valero’s contributions to the city coffers come to an end.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions or urge others to do so. But I fear that the restrictive approach could be the direction the Air District takes. I hope that I’m wrong.
We’re talking about $54 million or more that could and should mainly be decided on by Benicia, rather than the staff of the Community Investments Office (CIO), which administers the Fund.
A restrictive, top-down approach dominated by CIO staff rather than driven by Benicia and other communities may also limit our ability to best grapple with the very challenges the CIO’s site says the Fund aims to address: “Funding will support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.”
Along with serving other purposes, the Fund can and should contribute to budget support that will help close the city’s post-Valero financial gap for a number of years. This will strengthen Benicia’s “economic resilience for a just transition.”
I emphasize this because there’s another Benicia-specific factor at play here. The Air District failed to uncover Valero’s egregious toxic emissions for over 15 years. It certainly fell short by waiting over three additional years to inform Benicia after it found out.
Had this information come to light far sooner, might it have helped cut down on Benicia cancer rates that are far higher than state and county levels (including nearly double California’s breast cancer incidence)? That’s hard to say.
Furthermore, it might be counterproductive to press this point on the Air District, or to do so in any but the most diplomatic ways.
Finally, to the Air District’s great credit, it installed new, vigorous leadership after this fiasco came to light in 2022. But this all weighs in favor of the Air District awarding the LCIF grants flexibly to Benicia.
Another factor that weighs in terms of the flexible approach is Benicia’s nearly unprecedented situation: Refineries don’t close every day, to put it mildly. From financial recovery to environmental clean-up (complicated by Valero land previously being used for military ordinance testing), our challenges are daunting – even as the opportunities for our community’s quality of life, public health and economic prosperity (such as through tourism development) are inspiring. A just transition requires that the Air District take a just approach to partnership with Benicia.
Thus, if the CIO finalizes the guidelines in ways that allow our city appropriate flexibility in the use of the funds, it will be a boon to Benicia. But the benefits extend beyond Benicia; similar flexibility will be best for other Bay Area communities regarding other Air District fines.
The 90-minute October 29 Webinar is our only chance to hear about and weigh in on the draft guidelines via a public forum (with perhaps two minutes per public comment). Let’s not let it slide by. Even if you don’t want to comment during the meeting, simply showing up (albeit via Zoom) can show that we care.
There’s already cause for concern, in that the draft guidelines won’t be released until tomorrow, October 27, just two days before the meeting. That’s precious little time for the public to review them. But let’s try.
When you reach that link, please scroll down to the “Meetings and Events” section. Click the “Pre-register” box there and fill in the required information.
Once you get the CIO confirmation email, scroll down to a blue box that says, “Join Webinar.” (While that link is functional, of course it won’t actually become active until the October 29 meeting.)
If you wish to weigh in before or after the meeting – and perhaps to receive the guidelines as soon as they are issued on October 27 – you can email you comments, questions and guidelines request to communityinvestments@baaqmd.gov. (The comments deadline is less than a month later, on November 25.)
If you do decide to participate, be it via Zoom or email, I’m sure you’ll have your own ideas on what to prioritize. But for what it’s worth, to my mind the most basic message is that Benicia and other beneficiary communities standing to benefit from the Local Community Investment Fund should have as much leeway as possible in utilizing the settlements/penalties they each receive, as long as they broadly fit within the Air District funding parameters I’ve flagged: “support community-driven solutions that reduce or mitigate air pollution, improve public health, and build economic resilience for a just transition.” This is consistent with and in fact mandated by the Air District’s emphasis on partnering with rather than dictating to Bay Area communities.
I’m harping on all this not just because of the impact on Benicia, but because most of my career involved advising funding agencies on the best foci and approaches for awarding grants for community-oriented, environmental and other projects. I worked for and with the Asia, Ford and Open Societies Foundations, as well as the American, British and Danish aid agencies and numerous other funders.
The single biggest lesson I took away from those 35+ years of work was this: Grants work best when they are as simple as possible and provide as much leeway as possible to responsible local governments or community groups that receive them, as long as sensible financial auditing is in place.
If the CIO goes down this flexible road, it will be best for Benicia (and the Bay Area) in terms of advancing clean air, public health, economic resilience and the post-Valero transition. It also will ensure the most efficient use of funds.
To be clear, I’m not saying that the Air District, via the CIO, should simply turn over the $54 million or more to Benicia; though that might make sense, I don’t believe that Air District rules allow this. I also don’t doubt the sincerity and dedication of the CIO staff who will administer the Fund.
But the finalized guidelines should provide the necessary flexibility for Benicia and other communities to decide how to use the funds within the broad parameters the CIO has already set. It’s our future that’s on the line.
BACKGROUND (by BenIndy Editor): On October 1, City Councilmember Terry Scott distributed without comment a link to a website, “Moving Benicia Forward”, movebeniciaforward.com. The front page invitation there reads, “We invite you to share your thoughts” and offers visitors to click on “Share Feedback.” This goes to a page with information about Signature Development Group, which is under contract with Valero “to evaluate redevelopment opportunities for the Benicia refinery property.” The page also offers a blank box for “FEEDBACK – Share your thoughts about the potential redevelopment.”
In my view, Signature Development Group’s setting up of an online platform inviting the public to submit ideas and comments for post-closure redevelopment of Valero’s ~900 acres seems like a well-meant gesture toward public involvement. I say “gesture” because such an approach to communication can lead to one-directional, top-down decision-making.
Since Valero’s announcement in April, Signature has been under contract with Valero to come up with a comprehensive re-development plan whose options would presumably be contingent upon, and possibly limited by, findings from investigations of soil and water contamination remaining from all uses by Responsible Parties, including the military. Yet, since April, the public has learned little or nothing from Signature about their initial thoughts, their approach, and preliminary reviews of conditions. What have the mayor and council members learned in conversation with Signature?
I’m seasoned in this: we’re well past the point of needing more info than has been spoken in generalities. We must get conversations out into the open.
BENICIA’S GENERAL PLAN AND A CITIZEN TASK FORCE
I don’t believe there is any substitute for the kind of “roll-up-your-sleeves-put-on-your-thinking caps” work done in person, when learning and respectful deliberation can take place among a broad-spectrum of community stakeholders. Any discussions on this momentous venture should be under guidance of the goals and policies of the Benicia General Plan.
Such a public oversight process is necessary and foundational to any plans for the Valero properties if those plans are to gain public approval. I believe Elizabeth Patterson’s reasoning and recommendation for establishing a community stakeholder task force now is absolutely sound, based on a proven record of what such an open deliberative process nets.
The task force could resemble a modified version of the General Plan Oversight Committee [GPOC], a council-appointed 17-member committee charged in 1995 to rewrite the city’s outdated 1978 general plan. (Note: in 1978, the refinery, then owned by Exxon, was new—only 10 years old!). As a professional planner, Elizabeth was appointed to facilitate the committee’s work, and under her leadership, GPOC members dove into discussions and debates on often contentious issues concerning land use, sustainable economic development, community health and safety, and community identity. Outside speakers offered expertise to inform GPOC and the public. The goals, policies and programs hammered out by consensus became the integrated guidance document required by the state, with legal standing, that we have today, inclusive of periodic updates. Our Benicia General Plan has stood the test of time and will keep evolving.
In effect, any decisions made for the Valero properties will shape the city’s future, for good or ill, and could represent a significant general plan “update”, thus invoking need for such a citizen task force.
The visions we collectively hold for our city’s sustainability and future development must entail hard-nosed assessments of prospective major changes over the next 5 – 10 years: changes that will be cumulative. (Think large-scale residential development currently proposed for Seeno property, the Arsenal, and now, possibly for portions of Valero property). Such changes deserve open public discussion that an on-going task force would serve as vehicle for: a public process oriented toward specific goals to ensure far-sighted oversight of what will unfold through cleanup investigations and redevelopment planning, inclusive of CEQA reviews.
While it may seem early in the game, so far, five months into it, no such public process has been set up by the city council to proactively engage residents as full participants in an endeavor that has apparently already begun.
CLOSURE CLEANUP BONDING — AND A NEVER IMAGINED REFINERY CLOSURE
In 1995, Koch Industries had come to town exclaiming the benefits of permitting a development proposal for a massive petroleum coke storage and shipping terminal at the port, which would serve all five Bay Area refineries. The public’s outcry in protest was enormous, and successful. Notable at that time, activists spoke up about the need for a secure bond to be required of Exxon that would pay for a future refinery cleanup. While Koch failed in its development bid, nothing came of recommendations for a “closure cleanup bond” to be put up by the refinery.
In 1999, the new general plan was adopted, just when Valero was negotiating terms with Exxon for purchase of the refinery. Though the general plan did not directly incorporate goals that specifically addressed the refinery’s possible closure, key policies addressed the need to protect residents from exposure to contaminated soils—the concern expressed based on the city’s oversight debacles revealed by the Rose Drive/Braito Landfill investigation and cleanup.
All that said, Valero Energy Corp’s announcement of its options for shutting down by April 2026, was a stunner. It became the hottest concern of the city, and respectively for the governor and legislature: nobody was prepared. The city instantly worried about projected serious “gap” in revenues, and the state, the significant “gaps” in the gasoline supply chain that shuttering production at the Benicia refinery would/could cause. Once it was determined that Valero wasn’t “taking” any of the state’s offers to stay open, the state seemed to walk away from the problems for the City raised by prospects of closure.
So, unfortunately, the city never imagined a future refinery closure, and thus, what legal obligations attendant on such an undertaking should be raised, such as a condition of any future development permit applied for by Valero. (For example, Valero’s permit for the 10-year Valero Improvement Project begun in 2003.) Thus, the city missed several key opportunities to impose a permitting condition that would, at the very least, require that Valero put up a bond dedicated for funding of closure and thorough cleanup of refinery properties.
As City Manager Giuliani said to me recently when I met with him to discuss my concerns, “We’re on our own now”. I’d just stated that there is no state law that requires full disclosure of total costs of a thorough cleanup. This bears repeating: there’s nothing in either our municipal laws or state law that would protect the City from any Valero failure to meet what the state and city should have formerly considered firm obligations for refinery closures and cleanups. Expecting a lawsuit to resolve such issues would be a David and Goliath contest.
WE’RE LEFT WITH QUESTIONS…
Will a citizen task force be established by council for the long-haul, to be dedicated to oversight of a cleanup process, and, ultimately, for reviewing re-development plans as proposed?
We of the Benicia community are now in the responsible position to publicly model what we mean by a process that oversees “refinery closure, cleanup and restoration” and appropriate sustainable future land uses for former refinery/military lands.
Marilyn Bardet Good Neighbor Steering Committee BCAMP Board Member BISHO Working Group Valero Community Advisory Panel
You must be logged in to post a comment.