Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald [Editor: These fines are routinely written off by giant Valero as a cost of doing business. Examples from recent years: Valero Benicia Refinery fined $122,500 in 2016. And fined $183,000 in 2014. IMPORTANT: Benicia Mayor Patterson and residents have repeatedly petitioned the Bay Area Air District to channel at least SOME of these fines to the affected community. The District has suggested responsiveness, but failed to engage meaningfully. Again in today’s news, the District will keep the fines for its own use, leaving the polluted community adrift in the wind (as it were). – R.S.]
Valero paying $266,000 for air quality violation
By John Glidden, October 10, 2018 5:45 pm | UPDATED: 7:38 pm
A photo of the Valero Benicia Refinery taken at night in May 2014.
BENICIA — Valero Refining Co. will pay $266,000 to settle 22 air quality violations that took place mostly in 2016 at the Valero Benicia Refinery, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) announced this week.
“This settlement helps to ensure that Valero remains vigilant in running its operations according to all air quality regulations,” said Jack Broadbent, executive officer of BAAQMD, in a district news release. “Our air district enforcement and source testing teams, together with a variety of other tools are in place to ensure refineries comply with their permits.”
Eleven of the violations were for exceeding emission limits, with nine of them being detected by monitors which measure emissions from refinery equipment, the air district said in a news release. Officials said the other two violations were discovered by a source test conducted by the facility’s contractor and by a BAAQMD inspector.
Seven additional violations were recorded for hydrocarbon leaks from storage tanks or lines, while two violations were given because there were errors in an inspection database which resulted in missed leak inspections for valves omitted from the database, officials explained in the same release.
Single violations were assessed for a missed calibration on an emissions monitor and a failed monitor accuracy test, officials said.
The Air District said in the same release that violators must respond to a violation notice within ten days and further submit a detailed description of what actions they will take to correct the problem.
Officials said the settlement funds will be by the air district to fund future inspection and enforcement activities.
A representative with Valero couldn’t be reached for comment prior to press deadline.
Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald [BenIndy Editor: I believe that no current Benicia City Council candidate was involved in nor favors push polls. But the reason for Valero to smear one candidate and lift another is clear. Valero can’t be unaware that Mr. Largaespada stood firm with Valero and against the will of the people during the controversial Crude by Rail debate in 2014-16. Planning Commissioner Kari Birdseye voted with the unanimous decision to stop Valero “in its tracks.” Valero has every reason – and every right – to openly and fairly voice its preference. But to secretly fund dirty tricks to achieve its goal is a tactic that should be soundly criticized by all candidates. I’ll vote for Birdseye, and hope that our next Council will include 3 women for the first time ever. – RS]
Campbell sought tougher response to push poll incident
By John Glidden, October 8, 2018 at 5:51 pm
Tom Campbell
BENICIA — Days after the Benicia City Council met in closed session directing City Attorney Heather Mc Laughlin to seek answers about a controversial polling incident, speculation swirled on which councilor voted against the move.
Councilman Tom Campbell confirmed he was the lone “no” vote in the Oct. 2 closed session decision.
“I wanted a stronger response than the rest of the council members wanted,” Campbell explained in an email to the Times-Herald.
The City Council authorized Mc Laughlin to contact Research America and EMC Research about their respective roles in a series of phone calls made to residents in September. Research America conducted the polling, which included questions about the city’s current council candidates.
The polling firm said EMC hired them, and just last week, Mc Laughlin confirmed that the Valero Benicia Refinery sponsored the entire polling.
Steve Young
Vice Mayor Steve Young, and other residents, have stated they received one of the survey calls which allegedly smeared council candidate Kari Birdseye while championing fellow council candidate Lionel Largaespada. Young called the survey a “push poll,” a type of survey meant to influence voters instead of gathering objective survey information from those called.
Councilors expressed concern that since the survey calls didn’t provide a “paid for by” disclaimer at the end of the phone calls the survey may have violated the city’s municipal code. A claim the polling firms have denied through their lawyer.
Campbell, who led the charge for the present campaigning ordinance in the municipal code, said he wanted immediate action in response to the poll.
“What I wanted was that the council authorize the city attorney to immediately go to Superior Court, file an injunction/lawsuit against the pollster and subpoena the records from EMC on who paid for it, how much, and what the exact questions were,” Campbell wrote in the same email. “The council took a little softer line than I wanted. I felt we had to act now to obtain the information as quickly as possible before the Nov. election.”
Lionel Largaespada
Largaespada issued a statement on Sunday in response to the news that Valero paid for the polling.
“I was very disappointed to learn that Valero sponsored the recent polling in Benicia,” he wrote in an email to this newspaper. “As I previously stated, I was not involved in any way with this polling effort, and I did not know who was conducting it.
“As I also stated, push polling, or any misrepresentation of a candidate’s stance or ideals is not something that I support in any way,” he added. “I hope that Valero will provide the content of the poll so that this issue can be resolved.”
Largaespada, who has expressed support in the past for the “crude by rail” initiative, also defended himself from comments made online by residents.
“To the commenters on Nextdoor that have suggested that I am in favor of this type of tactic, or that I am a ‘tool’ or ‘mouthpiece’ for Valero — these comments are completely false and without merit,” he wrote. “I understand that issues involving Valero are polarizing in our community, but to say that because someone believes differently than you do about an issue makes them a ‘tool’ for an entity is nothing more than name-calling.”
Mc Laughlin was also tasked by the council to obtaining a copy of the poll questions. In a letter she sent Research America, and EMC, last Friday, she gave them 72 hours to send a copy of the questions to her office.
Mc Laughlin said she didn’t have a copy of the poll questions as of Monday afternoon and was told she would get a response to her request on Wednesday.
An E-Alert from Mayor Elizabeth Patterson
[Editor: Mayor Patterson has been falsely accused of wanting to run Valero Refinery out of town. A careful reading of her position shows that she wants the City to plan jointly with Valero and economic advisers for a stable future as we face into the predicted and inevitable decline in carbon-intensive industries. Other California cities are planning ahead. Patterson urges Benicia to do the same. See below. – R.S.]
New state laws’ and policies’ impacts on Benicia’s future
By Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia, California, October 2, 2018
Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 – present
Does the city monitor economic trends to forecast the future revenue necessary to operate city services of public safety, road maintenance, safe drinking water, parks and recreation, library and community services? To some extent, yes. To the extent that there is an understanding of shifting economic activity such as declining role of oil and gas, no. We have not done an in depth analysis of the impact of state policies and the law to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
What are the opportunities for the city to benefit from this carbon-neutral goal? Should there be a working group with the city, Valero Refinery, economists and planners to think about 20 years from now?
What are other cities and counties doing to achieve carbon-neutrality? Will we be on the leading edge or play catch up? I will continue to advocate for thinking beyond tomorrow and seizing opportunities for Benicia’s economy to evolve for the future so that we continue to have what I think is the best small town in California.
Below is an article about what San Luis Obispo is doing to meet the challenge of carbon-neutrality by 2045.
Elizabeth Patterson, Mayor, City of Benicia
SLO wants to be carbon neutral by 2035, ahead of California
The City Council wants San Luis Obispo to be carbon-neutral by 2035, an ambitious target that’s 10 years earlier than Gov. Jerry Brown’s statewide goal of 2045.
The council last week directed staff to move forward with a climate action plan that could mean new building codes and ramping up citywide electrical vehicle charging stations, among several other initiatives.
Carbon neutrality, or net-zero energy, is the concept of reducing as much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere as possible, with the overall goal to achieve a zero carbon footprint. It is achieved largely by replacing fossil fuel energy sources that emit greenhouse gases with renewables like solar and wind.
Greenhouse gases are emitted from cars, homes and businesses, as well as from livestock, among other sources.
An example of an electric vehicle charging station designed by Recargo, a Los Angeles-area company that’s planning to build four new DC fast-chargers in San Luis Obispo.
“This is aggressive,” said Councilwoman Andy Pease. “It’s a really big goal. I think we can do it. But I think it should be a goal within our Climate Action Plan development.”
The specifics of the city’s Net Zero 2035 commitment haven’t been formulated yet, pending the Climate Action Plan update next year.
But efforts undertaken by the city already have reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the city by 10 percent since 2005, with a goal of reaching a 15 percent reduction by 2020.
Ideas to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on California Energy Commission recommendations, include:
▪ Reducing solid waste (including making sure people recycle and reuse items they consume, and compost food scraps), eliminating the need for landfills;
▪ Using carbon-free electricity, while transitioning from fossil-fuel based appliances and technologies (such as phasing out internal combustion-based vehicles in place of electric ones, and ratcheting down natural gas-fired furnaces or water heaters in favor of high-efficiency heat pump models that run on clean electricity, for example);
▪ Creating new laws around building codes to ensure efficient, clean energy uses rather than natural gas ones (pending legal and practical study of that possibility to be reconsidered by the council in 2019);
▪ Finding ways to attain carbon sequestration, meaning strategies to manage city forests that convert carbon dioxide into nutritional benefits for tree growth, and other means;
▪ Encouraging efficient use of water and cars (walking and biking whenever possible, versus driving, for example).
Despite its commitment, the council will wait until its Climate Action Plan Update next year to formally decide on the 2035 goal, but it’s united in trying to implement policy to set that timeline in motion, which council members acknowledge is ambitious.
The council was divided on whether to adopt a formal resolution to set the 2035 Net Zero target – immediately creating a formal policy directive to work from, rather than waiting to formalize that goal after more research on how it would affect city residents, builders, existing policy, land use and other considerations.
Mayor Heidi Harmon argued in favor of adopting a resolution, saying that a formal, “bold” statement targeting a 2035 Net Zero goal could make it harder for a potentially new council, after this November’s election, to roll back that policy.
“I think this is so important, and I know how tough culture shift is,” Harmon said. “But this is one of the main reasons I got elected was to be a champion on climate and have real, actionable things that we’re doing.”
But Councilwoman Carlyn Christianson said that an “action plan” will better inform the council before it signs off on a 2035 policy.
“There are large numbers of people who emotionally react one way or another on these issues,” Christianson said. “We need to know exactly what we’re talking about, and we kind of don’t (without further staff research).”
City Council candidates discuss issues at Chamber of Commerce forum
By Nick Sestanovich, September 13, 2018
(Left to right) City Council candidates William Emes, Kari Birdseye, Lionel Largaespada and Christina Strawbridge answer questions from the audience at Wednesday’s Candidate’s Night forum. (Photo by Nick Sestanovich)
Viewers of Wednesday’s Candidate’s Night forum, sponsored by the Benicia Chamber of Commerce, had an opportunity to ask questions of the City Council candidates and learn their perspectives on hot-button issues facing the city.
The forum was held in the Council Chambers of City Hall and moderated by James Cooper, the president of the Vallejo Chamber of Commerce. All the candidates were present, including Planning Commission Chair Kari Birdseye, retired carpenter William Emes, Economic Development Chair Lionel Largaespada and former Councilmember Christina Strawbridge. Prior to the forum, audience members wrote down questions on cards, which Cooper read to all the candidates. Below is a sample of the candidates’ answers.
Industrial Safety Ordinance
The candidates were asked their stance on a proposed Industrial Safety Ordinance for the city, which among other things would include a more community-involved approach to safety procedures at the Valero Benicia Refinery and other local industries. A draft ISO went before the council in June, but the council voted to delay the ISO to give Valero more time to address some of the concerns resulting from the 2017 flaring incident.
Birdseye felt the proposal should be reviewed.
“I’m all for communications between our great neighbor, Valero Refinery, and the community at large,” she said. “The heart of the ordinance is better communications and better data on what’s in our air.”
She proposed the ordinance should be renamed the “Community Involvement Ordinance.”
Largaespada made five points. He said his top priority was public safety, the city should have an active climate environmental policy, he supports the installation of more air monitors, the council should be vigilant over the council’s execution of Program 4— the state version of the ISO and he supported the expansion of command centers with every vulnerable entity in town, including Amports and schools.
“We didn’t have to wait for there to be a flaring incident at Valero to take all these actions,” he said. “I assure you as the next councilmember, public safety is what I will think about every day, working with fellow councilmembers and city staff. We will correct and amend our ordinances and our processes along the way.”
Strawbridge said she was concerned about the way the ordinance was presented, namely that she felt the public did not have much oversight and the councilmembers and staff did not have much time to review it.
“I think we need more time to review it,” she said. “I think that it has brought people to the table, which has been really important.”
She noted that the ISO discussion has created opportunities for communication with Valero and suggested people wait and see what the refinery will do in the time given.
Emes felt Valero should be given time to meet the minimum requirements, including installing monitors.
“Over time, my 15 years experience working refineries, they have continually become better,” he said. “It takes time to do this. To demand that it occur instantly in five years is unrealistic given the historic record.”
Water rates
Candidates were asked about the city’s decision to restructure water rates and their views on continued rate increases.
Birdseye noted her family was among those impacted by the water rate increases, and she noted in her experiences going door to door, many residents wanted relief and action. She felt that addressing the city’s “crumbling infrastructure” was the right thing to do.
“We want future generations of Benicians to have access to clean water, and that’s not a god-given right,” she said, citing the incidents of Flint, Mich. and Newark, N.J. as examples of failed leadership resulting in lack of access to clean water.
However, Birdseye felt the city should explore its options and figure out alternatives to rate increases.
Largaespada said he was frustrated by the rates and had been protesting them since 2016 via public comments at council meetings and letters to the editor. He offered a plan for the next council to freeze rates, bring back discounts to those with fixed incomes and extend them to nonprofits such as the Benicia Teen Center, ask for money from state and federal representatives and look at public/private partnerships.
“The reality is Benicia will never have enough money to pay for this,” he said.
Strawbridge said she was the swing vote when the council voted to increase water rates but felt further discussions should be held with residents and advocated freezing the rates to figure out where the city stands with its water and sewer funds. She also suggested developing a water hotline to address the complaints.
Emes felt assistance should be provided to those who need help and the commercial enterprises that use a lot of water should carry their weight.
“My feeling on this sensitive subject is that those in need should get help, and those that can give help should help carry the burden,” he said. “It is that simple.”
Cannabis
The candidates were asked their views on the city’s decision to allow cannabusinesses.
Largaespada rejected assertions that he was a “prohibitionist” or “moralist,” and he accepted the statewide voters’ decision. However, he did not feel the council’s ordinance was well-implemented, particularly the decision to do away with buffers around parks, places of worship or youth centers.
“It is the responsibility of the City Council to ensure that Benicia remains a family-friendly community,” he said. “Those businesses are welcome, but families come first and we will do our best to accommodate the locations that will not come at the expense of the families and children here in Benicia.”
Strawbridge said she felt the decision was made too fast and felt Benicia should have waited to see how cannabis legalization was impacting other communities.
“I have no problem with legalized marijuana,” she said. “I think it’s been helpful, especially for people for medicinal use for people trying to find relief and pain, but I do have a problem with the fit for here in Benicia.”
Strawbridge said she would continue to fight to ensure cannabis is not used by youth.
Emes agreed with Largaespada and felt there should be zones where cannabis is not allowed.
Birdseye, who was on the Planning Commission that recommended a zoning ordinance, said ensuring public safety in the wake of legalization will be a top priority.
“Our chief of police was there every step of the way in legalizing cannabis and bringing cannabis to our community,” she said. “He will ensure that cannabis will not be a safety nuisance. In addition, because we took advantage of the timing of the state in legalizing cannabis, we will have additional funds to enforce cannabis laws and keep it away from our kids and also education in our schools. I felt that was a very valuable part of what we did.”
The televised broadcast of the forum will be shown again at 7 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 26; 10 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 6; and 7 p.m. Monday, Oct. 15 on Comcast Channel 27. [Editor: …and streamed on the City website for local access channel 27.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.