Category Archives: Benicia City Council

Air Monitoring, Bay Area Refineries, Benicia City Council, Benicia General Plan, Nustar Energy

Bardet & Campbell correspondence: need for southwest Benicia air monitors

By Roger Straw, October 21, 2019

Correspondence now public, “for the record” – City to provide copies at workshop on Oct. 22

Following is an email thread between Benicia activist and environmental watchdog Marilyn Bardet and City Councilmember Tom Campbell, in which they richly detail the need for air monitoring in south and west Benicia.

The exchange follows, first from Bardet, then Campbell, and finally from Bardet:

From: Marilyn Bardet
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2019 9:55 am
Subject: Fwd: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia

Good morning, Mayor Patterson, Councilmembers, City Manager Tinfow and Fire Chief Chadwick,

The article, published yesterday (see link below) about the root cause analysis performed for understanding the Philadelphia Energy Solutions explosion and decimation should give us all pause.

The explosion of Philadelpia’s refinery is a clarion call, especially in light of the “teachable moment” of the Nustar Energy tank farm explosions and fire two days ago. Rodeo and Crockett residents are duly and rightly alarmed, as we all should be, at Phillip66’s plan for extensive expansion that would include construction of 6 new propane/butane spheres in a liquifaction zone within only ~2,300 ft of a residential neighborhood.

A point of fact:  portions of the Lower Arsenal Historic District and port area are in a recognized liquifaction zone with live pipelines crisscrossing the area, including behind Jefferson Street’s Officers Row, and 3 petroleum coke silos and pet coke terminal operations at the end of Tyler Street.

Why is this important to address now?

Our City is in the process of reviewing and considering adoption of a draft set of new design standards applicable for residential and mixed use development in the Arsenal and Downtown historic districts, and throughout the rest of town. While form-based code, established more than a decade ago, aimed to especially address the appearances of our historic districts, the code does not specifically address the overarching goal of our General Plan that calls for sustainable development. As well, the General Plan, in the Community Health and Safety chapter, also directs that new residential development should not put people in harm’s way, e.g. in close proximity to known hazards where soils may be contaminated from former uses. I would extend that concern to airborne toxic emissions, such as in the case where residential development is considered for specific locations in close proximity to pipelines, valves, stacks, and petroleum coke port terminal operations that could  impact residents’ health and safety, (whether from acute or chronic exposures to PM).

For example, refinery pipelines carrying flammable products and crude oil run behind the entire Arsenal Historic District’s “National Register C” which encompasses Jefferson Street and Jefferson Ridge. Unfortunately, residential condos were long ago permitted along Buchanan Street behind which are refinery pipelines.  The whole lower Arsenal, from Jefferson St to Grant St, to the Port area present multiple dangerous hazards, including daily truck traffic that enters and leaves the Lower Arsenal and port area often using Park Road.

I will be submitting comments and recommendations for the new form based design standards within the framework of these concerns for new residential and mixed use developments, which I have often written about, especially during the review of the Arsenal Specific Plan EIR that was not adopted.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Marilyn

From: Tom Campbell
Sent: Sat. Oct 19, 2019, at 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: Fwd: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia

What the Nustar explosions and the recent Martinez flaring prove is that we need a community air monitoring system and information system to get that live time air monitoring information to the public. The south side of Benicia has no such system in place or even being contemplated. With the prevailing wind patterns and recent history it is essential in order to protect Benicians that there be air monitors in the south and southwest side of Benicia. There are none and none contemplated. Mobile monitors only give a short term transit set of information at best and are not enough for daily protection on the south and west side. This is why your approach is not going to work. Also putting the one air monitoring system near Valero is nothing put a redundant system that will only check on the fence line monitors and leaves the entire south and west side of Benicia naked. While you have chosen to concentrate on Valero you have missed all of the air pollutants coming from the refineries south of Benicia. And that is why the Good Neighbors’ choice of spending so little settlement money on air monitors was flat out wrong.

“If you can’t breath nothing else matters” American Ling Association

Tom

Marilyn Bardet <mjbardet@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia

Hello Tom,

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the workshop on Tuesday, and that’s why I’m writing to address your letter sent personally to me  and why I’m copying all the others to whom I’d sent my original message.  I appreciate receiving your conments and your concern to  provide a real-time, 24/7 community-based monitoring station located in the vicinity of downtown neighborhoods in the southwest area of Benicia, for all the reasons you cited: those neighborhoods are downwind of  the Phillips 66 refinery and NuStar tank farm, and depending on wind direction, the Chevron refinery.  I had written the message that your letter responds to about the  dangerous risks posed  to our community in the event of such explosions and fires as we experienced last week. I took pictures at 5pm, downtown from Maria Field and also from the Marina Green of the huge, dark sooty cloud drifting  broadly across our city and likely Vallejo from southwest to northeast.

I am certain that other GNSC members and new BCAMP board members agree—  a second monitoring station located in a southwest side neighborhood could/would be desirable to catch  those “downwind” air quality conditions. However, I disagree with your assessment of the location of the BCAMP station as “flat wrong” and that our station would somehow (impossibly) be primarily focused on refinery emissions and be thus redundantly measuring gases already captured by Valero’s fenceline openpath monitors. That just ain’t so.

The GNSC, and now the new BCAMP board, accepted that the location of the first BCAMP monitoring station was in part  determined  by the availability of a secure location with access to power—a small former cell tower cement block building now owned by Ruszel Woodworks and located on their property along Bayshore Rd. The site will sample air in the general vicinity  of the port, I-680 corridor, industrial park, Southern Pacific tracks, and the Valero southeast tank farm nearest residential neighborhoods of the upper eastside.

Our mission is to sample ambient air quality. BCAMP’s location was not chosen to selectively focus on refinery emissions, even if that were possible.

We have worked to get the Air District, meeting with Eric Stevenson, to agree to establishing a District-operated and funded monitoring station within a Benicia community neighborhood.

It is my understanding that they will be looking to assess particular opportunities with the City to identify a possible City-owned securable site for a permanent “real time” community-based monitoring system.

The GNSC is well aware, as is the BCAMP’s board, that in the future our monitors can be moved, housed in our trailer, and relocated to another secure site somewhere else in town. Perhaps BUSD could make assessments for siting a trailer on one of their school properties? The caveat:  any location identified must allow for access to the station by persons contracted to operate the systems  and perform routine maintenance and re-calibrations of equipment as necessary.

Have you got suggestions for such an optimum location for sampling ambient air quality? I see no reason why you couldn’t be involved on the part of the City in such an effort to find that additional site!

Thanks for your comments. I’m always willing to discuss!

🙂 Marilyn

Summary background: Bardet & Campbell: Benicia needs air monitors on south and west sides

Please attend the City workshop on air monitoring on Tues Oct 22, 6pm at City Hall, 250 East L Street Benicia.

Air Monitoring, Bay Area Refineries, Benicia City Council, Benicia General Plan, Nustar Energy

Bardet & Campbell: Benicia needs air monitors on south and west sides

By Roger Straw, October 20, 2019

Fascinating email conversation between environmental watchdog Marilyn Bardet and Councilmember Tom Campbell

The Benicia Independent was copied on an important email conversation calling for better monitoring of air quality on Benicia’s south and west sides.

Longtime Benicia activist and environmental watchdog Marilyn Bardet wrote to Benicia City Council members and staff in anticipation of the October 22 City workshop on air monitoring.

Councilmember Tom Campbell replied, and Bardet responded.

It is newsworthy that both are calling for monitoring of the air that blows our way from refineries and petroleum storage farms south and west of Benicia in Contra Costa County.

There are currently no monitoring stations in south and west Benicia.

Taking off from new findings detailed in a CNBC report, “We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia” and in light of the recent massive fire at Nustar Energy tank farm, Bardet wrote about toxic hazards affecting businesses and homes near Valero Refinery.

Also responding to the Nustar fire – and recent flaring in Martinez –  Campbell wrote about the need for more monitoring of air on Benicia’s south and west sides.  Bardet agreed emphatically, calling for suggestions for the location of air monitoring stations in southwest Benicia.

The City plans to provide a written copy of their exchange at the workshop on Tuesday.  The conversation may be read here on the Benicia Independent: Bardet & Campbell correspondence.

And… please attend the City workshop on air monitoring on Tues Oct 22, 6pm at City Hall, 250 East L Street Benicia.

Benicia City Council, Cannabis

Benicia cannabis compromise explained in detail

Mary Amey (writing as Manoa Kahalaopuna) has paid close attention to the cannabis controversy in Benicia, posting regularly and in detail on Benicia Nextdoor.  This review (and a second comment far below) is helpful…  

On the June 18 Benicia City Council cannabis decision

By Mary Amey (Manoa Kahalaopuna), Nextdoor

So to explain specifically what happened (there was a lot of back and forth and there was a last minute pivot on the motion to secure Campbell’s vote)…

The motion that passed last night approved ALL of Largaespada’s proposed buffers from the May 7th meeting (600′ around childcare center, youth center, learning center, residential, park – which would ban all appropriately zoned properties), but with the caveat that the the motion would apply to any future dispensary applicants and the existing 9 applicants would be grandfathered in and be allowed to proceed forward under the existing rules that were in place when they applied.

Also, the Council will be allowing 1 retail cannabis license (down from the original 2).

Next step will be the 2nd reading of the ordinance change. Per the Staff Report presented last night, this will occur on July 2nd. So mark your calendars and spread the word! We’ll need as much live in-person support as possible!

It was incredibly frustrating last night is that Largaespada continued to spew misinformation about his buffer zone change claiming all cities have these buffer zones, after I very specifically corrected the record on that item during my statement. His residential buffer zone of 600 feet is the most aggressive buffer zone for residential zones in the Bay Area (and only 2 Bay Area cities with operating dispensaries have such an aggressive residential buffer zone).

And Largaespada showed his true colors by voting against the very buffer zones HE proposed in the first place (just with a compromise to avoid lawsuit). It’s clear he just wants a ban under the guise of him “protecting the people.”

The buffer zones are totally disappointing, but I can accept major compromises needed to be made to prevent an outright ban. And the 9 applications can proceed forward under the old rules for the 1 retail cannabis license, which is a good thing!

[…and a second comment in a later Nextdoor post by Manoa Kahalaopuna…]

There was a lot of discussion regarding clarifying the definition of “schools” in the City Code and adding a 500-600 foot buffer around city public parks. But the Council pivoted at the very last second and modified the motion *right* before the final vote to garner Campbell’s vote because he said he wanted all the buffers (it happened so fast that I missed it last night and had to rewatch the motion this morning after the video was posted online to fully understand the specifics of the motion that was passed).

The motion that was approved was to amend the zoning code to include “all the buffers around the list that we had on the request” (i.e. Largaespada’s full buffer zone list) and “all the applicants would go forward with the hearing process” (i.e. grandfathering existing applicants), and it was further clarified that the new buffers would apply to all future applicants (not existing applicants).

Video below – Fast forward to 4:18.

http://benicia.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=3112

Benicia City Council, Cannabis

Summary and analysis of Benicia City Council’s compromise and reversal of retail cannabis ban

By Craig Snider, Benicia, June 19, 2019

The meeting went about the same as the last few.

The same string of opponents highlighted the same issues as before.  Who knew (?!) that…

    • administering cannabis retail will cost a city nearly $1,000,000 per year,
    • kids should not smoke weed,
    • you could turn into a murderer of old ladies if you smoke pot,
    • a cannabis shop could get robbed at gunpoint with dire consequences,
    • crime skyrockets in towns with cannabis shops,
    • home values will plummet by $100,000-$200,000 in the vicinity of a cannabis shop,
    • the presence of even one cannabis store will destroy a town’s reputation and send it on the road to ruin,
    • the black markets will persist despite the presence of legal cannabis stores, etc., etc.

The pro-retail cast of characters was smaller than past meetings, and continued to refute the outrageous claims of the Reefer Madness crowd.  I’m guessing many are simply suffering from CMF (Cannabis Meeting Fatigue).

I presented the petitions with 593 signatures.  About half came from the online benicacannabis.org.   The Council asked me about next steps and I said we were encouraged by the ease of a handful of folks gathering so many signatures in just two weeks, and would likely move forward with a ballot initiative if a retail ban were enacted.

Not surprisingly, Largaespada and Strawbridge were unmoved by any sort of argument.  They are both aligned with the Reefer Madness crowd and unwilling to view the issue objectively.

As demonstrated often in the past, Tom Campbell sought a compromise position and to his credit, decided to honor the current process by “grandfathering in” the nine applicants under the Feb. 20, 2018, ordinance; but awarding just one permit (not two).  In a nod to the anti-retail crowd, he agreed to impose more restrictive buffers around parks, etc. for any future retail cannabis applicants.  This was a compromise on Tom’s part because throughout the process he’s been steadfast in restricting retail to the industrial park.

Personally, I was disappointed that we won’t have two locations.  From a business perspective, with a goal of fostering successful small businesses in Benicia, it would be better to have some competition and, if one fails, the other would hopefully succeed.  On the other hand, one store will still be competing with the well-greased Vallejo contingent and a single store might be more likely to succeed in the more limited Benicia and vicinity market.

Of note was the discussion of administrative costs to the City.  The council peppered city staff with questions about cost, especially after Largaespada suggested it run over half a million dollars. City staff consistently stated they didn’t know, but that it would not differ much from other businesses.  Staff deferred to Chief Upson, who suggested they would likely hire a contractor to do periodic compliance checks regarding security and operations for two cannabis shops.  He suggested the cost could be as high as half an employee-year, but he would contract that work at significantly less that the cost of a police officer.   He thought it could run $30,000 per year for the contract.  With only one retail store, the cost would, of course, be much less.

Craig Snider