Daylight Savings Change! 4PM-5PM
Benicia Protest is Alive in the Light! Vigil For Democracy – Citizen opposition to Trump’s authoritarian takeover continues…
November in Benicia is under a mantle of darkness by 5pm, so we’re gathering an hour earlier beginning this week!
Thursdays at 4pm…
Longtime Benicia organizer-activist Susan Street is calling all of us to assemble for our every Thursday night vigil, starting on 4PM. A good crowd has gathered every Thursday since April 3 at the Gazebo in City Park, First & Military Streets. Here’s the new announcement:
VIGIL FOR DEMOCRACY Every Thursday, 4-5 p.m. On the sidewalk by the Gazebo
[map / directions]Come whenever you can, stay as long or as briefly as you can. Bring your signs, bells, kazoos, noisemakers. Invite ten people to join us.
Stay on the sidewalk. Don’t block anyone attempting to walk through. Ignore any harassment.
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
From his email with permission, by Terry Scott, Benicia City Councilmember, Aug 17, 2025
[Editor: My apologies for tardiness of posting this important piece.]
Benicia City Councilmember Terry Scott.
Ballots are out or coming soon to your mailbox. Hopefully you’ve read the city’s material defining it. Plus, the social media platforms are certainly a buzz with commentary.
Let me start out by saying we can’t change the past. We can try and fix today, but it is this City Council’s responsibility to make the hard decisions that shape the City’s long-term future.
So let’s not make the mistakes that have gotten us to this moment in time. Let’s be willing to change how we operate as a government and be brave and bold.
That’s why supporting our Parks, Lighting and Landscape District Initiative is an investment our community’s future.
Here’s why:
When families and individuals choose to call Benicia home, they come with clear expectations: excellent schools, high quality of life, well-maintained parks, and safe neighborhoods.
PLLAD initiative represents a crucial step forward in meeting these expectations and preserving what makes Benicia so special.
One of the most compelling aspects of this initiative is its financial structure. Funds raised through this district would be deposited into a dedicated special independently audited account specifically earmarked for parks maintenance and identified improvements.
This means our general fund—which supports critical services like public safety, water services, and fire protection—remains untouched and fully dedicated to these essential operations.
This noted separation of funding sources ensures that improving our parks doesn’t come at the expense of the vital services that keep our community safe and functioning.
Yes, I understand the frustration about a lack of sunset. But realistically, things wear out. Sprinklers break. Landscaping is forever.
Does anyone believe that parks and recreational spaces are luxuries?
I’d argue they’re fundamental components of a thriving community. They provide: Safe, green spaces for families to gather, children to play, and neighbors to connect, fostering the strong community bonds that make Benicia special.
As our community’s ages ( both older and younger families) we need to place more emphasis on Health and wellness opportunities through walking trails, sports facilities, and outdoor recreation areas that encourage active lifestyles for residents of all ages.
Speaking to value received for the assessment , I would argue that property values are enhanced as well-maintained parks and landscaping contribute significantly to neighborhood appeal and home values.
New residents don’t just move to Benicia for our excellent schools—they choose our community because of the complete package we offer. When parks fall into disrepair or lighting becomes inadequate, we risk losing the very qualities that attract quality families and responsible community members to our area.
I submit that this PLLAD represents fiscally responsible governance. Rather than competing with essential services for limited general fund dollars, we’re creating a sustainable funding mechanism specifically designed to address our community’s recreational and aesthetic needs.
As you have read in the ballot package, we currently have 5 of our 28 parks covered by the current lighting and landscape district assessment. For you, this represents a $71 dollar a year increase in your property tax to $208 or $5.92 per month more.
For most property owners not in the lighting districts who use the parks and trails, who benefit from the enhanced property values, who have children in athletics, who feel safe and welcomed by our commitment to maintain the quality of life your property tax assessment will increase to $208 or $17.33 per month.
The Parks, Lighting, and Landscape District initiative offers us a path forward that protects our essential services while enhancing the community amenities that make Benicia a place people are proud to call home. It’s a balanced, responsible approach that deserves your support.
The city and other regional agencies should have a seat at the stakeholder table
By Elizabeth Patterson, September 11, 2025 [posted belatedly here on 9/17/25]
Brenden Chavez is a graduate student in Urban Planning at San José State University with roots in Benicia, studying refinery closures, land use & environmental planning, and community health.”
Brenden and I have been discussing the role of the community in decisions about Valero decommissioning and future land uses. He contacted me because of my work as Mayor and using the public process for major issues. Collaborative planning involves empowering the public and not being led by top down process. I will share his paper on this when it is ready. Meanwhile I thought you’d like to see his great questions, as follows:
I saw the recent news about the state possibly giving Valero a bailout of $80 to $200 million to keep them operating. This is a huge development, and honestly, a bit unexpected. My thought is that Sac politicians are motivated by fear of gas going to $8/gallon. If this goes through, it’s a setback to the state’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2045. Unfortunately, there is no concrete ‘just transition’ strategy to help cities like Benicia, which are economically dependent on the fossil fuel industry. I’m trying to wrap my head around what this means for Benicia. A few questions come to mind:
If Sacramento is willing to spend $80 billion to save Valero, why can’t they do the same for the city/county? Backfilling the general fund, remediation seed money, retraining programs, etc.
Is there any way for the city or other regional agencies to have a seat at the stakeholder table, since the state is essentially repaying them their $82 million settlement with taxpayer money?
If Valero gets bailed out, does that give other refineries like Phillips 66 the power to lobby for the same treatment? How does that shift the state’s long-term sustainability goals?
November in Benicia is under a mantle of darkness by 5pm, so we’re gathering an hour earlier beginning this week!
You must be logged in to post a comment.