In yet another marathon meeting that lasted almost until midnight, the Benicia City Council voted 3-2 to reject Mayor Elizabeth Patterson’s request to rehear the council’s June 19 vote on reviewing a draft Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO) for the city. The matter will not be heard again until November at the earliest.
Patterson first requested an ISO reminiscent of the ordinance offered by Contra Costa County following the May 5, 2017 flaring incident at the Valero Benicia Refinery. The issue was not discussed again until June 19 when the decision to review a proposed ISO was struck down, with councilmembers Tom Campbell, Mark Hughes and Alan Schwartzman casting the opposing votes. The general consensus was that a city ISO would be duplicative of the state ISO, which was already based on Contra Costa’s ISO, although the majority felt Valero needed to improve gaps in communication. Additionally, Campbell and Schwartzman said they would change their votes if proposed air quality monitors were not installed by November.
On June 28, Patterson submitted a request for rehearing. At Tuesday’s meeting, Patterson said there were three choices on the table: deny the reconsideration, approve reconsideration for the staff recommendation of an Oct. 2 rehearing while the draft ISO was reviewed or approve reconsideration and agendize the matter for an even earlier meeting, possibly July 24. Among other things, Patterson felt the request to review a draft ISO was not addressed at the previous meeting.
“No need to consider adopting the draft,” she said. “Let’s have a third-party expert in the subject area with public interest, experience and knowledge and legal sufficiency review.”
Additionally, Patterson felt the motion taken by the council did not address what was in the air, provide funds to support staff engagement, tell schools or workplaces what to do during a shelter in place or address what happens at the county level.
“I am asking for reconsideration for review of the draft Industrial Safety Ordinance, not for adoption, not for revision, just a review and report back to the council so we all can be on the same page when it comes to local questions that have been raised about what it does and does not know,” Patterson said.
Speaking on behalf of the ISO Working Group was local attorney Terry Mollica, who said the stipulations requested by the council seemed promising but did not authorize staff to do homework to enable the council to take action in November if nothing changed.
“Not taking action on the reconsideration would just be kicking the can down the road,” he said.
Among other things, Mollica felt certain practices needed evaluation and review, particularly the prevention of power failures.
“Power failures are a fact of life and foreseeable in this community,” he said. “We know that this is a risk that this could happen again, so what steps should be taken to mitigate that issue and has it been adequately mitigated already?”
Valero representatives also spoke to discuss issues brought up at the previous meeting, including the need for information related to the 2017 incident, establishing clear lines of communication, and installing fenceline monitors within 6 months,
“Valero heard very clearly the City Council’s expectations from that meeting,” Don Wilson, the vice president and general manager of the Benicia refinery, said.
Wilson then introduced Rich Walsh, the vice president and deputy general counsel of Valero’s corporate office, who discussed what the Benicia refinery was doing to address the points raised.
“We listened back through all the discussions from the last council meeting,” he said. “We realized we’ve gotta do a better job of communicating.”
Walsh noted in a PowerPoint presentation that a fenceline monitoring team began hosting weekly meetings with engineers and planners as well as representatives from the city, Fire Department and PG&E, and anticipates field construction along the refinery’s fenceline to commence soon.
In regards to the 2017 incident, the PowerPoint noted that Valero has requested a review of PG&E’s overall maintenance program and risk ranked all proposed PG&E work on Valero equipment.
Finally, the presentation discussed actions Valero would do to improve communication. These included providing a 72-hour incident report, collaborating with the city to establish shelter-in-place and evacuation criteria and procedures, coordinating with the Fire Department to incorporate Valero information into the AlertSolano system and work to increase the number of registrants for said system.
“Nobody has more of an incentive to make sure this (incident) doesn’t happen again than us,” Walsh said.”This was a tremendous loss for us.”
After a lengthy public comment period that brought out people from both sides of the issue, the council ultimately voted to deny Patterson’s request for a rehearing, with Patterson and Vice Mayor Steve Young voting in favor of a rehearing, and Campbell, Hughes and Schwartzman voting against.
In other matters, the council voted 4-1 to delay discussion of placing a port tax on the ballot for the 2020 election. Schwartzman was the lone “no” vote.
The council is next scheduled to meet on Tuesday, July 24.
Sharing is caring!
Yes it was a very long night. In spite of that the Mayors Request for ISO Rehearing was soundly defeated. It was defeated by of all people VALERO. Valero made a very sound and well presented presentation. Complete with updates and a firm promise to meet the deadline that the 3/2 vote clearly defined. The ISO Working Group and its public commenters where very ill prepared to take on the responsibility to convince the three councilmembers that they needed that Rehearing. They were soundly defeated by their own words and presentation. Announced City Council candidate Kari Birdseye said it was not about Anti Fossil Fuel or Anti Valero. Oh really. She will have a very difficult time explain that comment during the council campaign. She was one of the unanimous voters to stop Valero’s CBR proposition. The same tactic that worked back then failed this time around. Yes attack City Staff by then Planning Commission member and now councilmember and Vice Mayor Steve Young. This time around by Mayor Patterson using the same tactics. Guess what it backfired and reduced her power hold by a great margin. Yes both of those two are backing Kari Birdseye. We shall see what happens. We must remember both of those backers signed the “Dear Governor Brown” love letter. You know that letter. It stated “End the issuance of permits for new fossil fuel projects”.. Now Kari Birdseye is saying this is not about anti Fossil Fuel and Valero. That will be a very hard one to overcome. So as you see her campaign started on a losing proposition.
It appears the ISO Working Group wants a review, then debate, then implementation of an ISO that will do nothing more than implement action items that are already being done by Valero. So what is the point of the ISO?
Simple answer: it is a layer local bureaucracy that will harass Valero at every turn. It will be a form of Big Oil punishment. Nothing more.
Valero clearly knows the mistakes. They are working with PG&E to remedy the power situation. They are working to improve communications to community. The ISO isn’t needed!
Matter, you nailed it…it is only a method of harassing Valero and getting Valero to pay through the nose for the harassment.
This was all done by a “Shadow Government” run by Mayor Patterson and her followers. The voters/residents should be outraged. An attempt at a revisit of “TAMMANY HALL” and Artie Samish the notorious California lobbyist. Soundly defeated.
I was educated on the history of the absence of a port tax during Councilman Campbell’s comments. This stinky deal goes back to 1965, and many seasoned citizens believe there were old school brown bags of cash involved. As indicated by multiple council members, the port tax is the undoing of a bad deal that has deprived us of over fifty years of revenue from port operations in our community. I especially enjoyed Campbell’s retort to the port operator’s attorney, who assured us we would be sued (again?). Some of our neighbors advocated for negotiating with affected businesses on the tax rate. One woman expressed being appalled by the course of action recommended by staff. Most concerning to me was the acknowledgement by staff, after Campbell’s prodding, that the annual revenue projection of a million dollars was pulled out of staff’s south end.
The blame could well be on the original contract. AmPorts is a willing company to sit down and negotiate an agreement. Threats of being sued and used as a tactic that could be interpreted as bring it on gets you no where fast. The past is the past and we are in real time now. Something will be done to the benefit of all. The revenue projection was just an example as the City Attorney clearly explained in a very short remark. This is a very open discussion by the council, Amports , City Manager and City Attorney not at all like the hi-jacked SHADOW government of Mayor Patterson on the ISO. very BIG DIFFERENCE. Want to blame someone blame past City Councils they have five votes.
Could be. Might make sense. However, Benicia must remain competitive. If the tax is extreme or induces companies to use other facilities, it will be a huge loss for Benicia. While there is no direct revenue from the lack of port tax, the city does enjoy revenue streams from the businesses operating out of the port. If those businesses move due to a new port tax, and the related cost increases … this could be bad.
Mayor Patterson has proven to be anti business and an economic moron. She views companies as entities to attack and punish as she furthers her green utopia. I don’t trust her to wisely impose any tax. She will use the occasion of a port tax to punish the involved businesses. In her world, businesses will never move even if punished.
When I speak of a Shadow Government I mean the one the Mayor set up to drive home the ISO using outside folks to drive it home {Not elected officials}. She was the elected representative of this shadow government to get what she wanted. All along trying to use it as the peoples will. No it was the Mayors will and she was their sole representative to push it forward. Just ignore all other elected officials and move around them. Very bad for this city. The three councilmembers saw that very clearly and stuck to it. Only Vice Mayor Young seemed to be in support of it on principal ,and maybe not knowing fully how it was backed. Not good on his part for not understanding what she was up to. Both lost as did the PDB and a candidate for city council in 2018. I do not think politically she understands the consequences. She will have to explain her position. The candidate that says it is not about anti fossil fuel and anti Valero. Three of her supporters as listed all signed the love letter to governor Brown and also contributed to her campaign. Not a political position as a candidate I would want to be in. Not very up to date on political do’s and don’ts. She will own her position.
Paul Drake: Where is Della Street? Being that I am Perry Mason you work for me.
NEWS ALERT: See CPUC probe!!! Time for the ” Patterson Twelve”: to get WOK. Mayor Patterson you lost your request because of bad info and your stubborn outlook and anti Fossil Fuel and anti Valero. Your attempt at a Shadow Government failed because you did not let the professionals do the work. Just released as by now you know; “CPUC probe says PG&E mistakes led to refinery outage” In conclusion “CPUC probe says PG&E at fault for Valero shutdown and the toxic release” Now what are you going to blame Valero for. Oh I got it. The CPUC is in the tank for Valero. I know you will think of something negative about Valero and at the same time take 2018 council candidate down with all this nonsense. TIME FOR YOUR GROUP TO RE-GROUP AND GO INTO HIDING. THEY ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO HARM THIS CITY AND AT THE SAME TIME TO STACK THE CITY COUNCIL.