All posts by Editor

Past meetings

Meeting of May 14, 2019 – All about our Air, Monitoring, and Pet Coke

All about Air Quality and Air Monitoring
May 14, Tues 7:00 pm, Benicia Library

Most of our program on May 14 was about air monitoring and air quality in Benicia.  Agenda.

Concerns and questions:

    • What air quality monitors do we have?
    • Where are they?
    • What’s in Benicia’s air? What information is being monitored and collected?
    • What else do we need?

Constance Beutel offered a highly informative powerpoint on air quality, air pollution and its health implications, air monitors and steps we can take in our own lives.

Pet Coke. CBE scientist Greg Karras led us in a discussion of pet coke, which is produced and used by Valero – what pet coke is and what are its uses, and how it affects our environmental health.

Kathy Kerridge shared about the rebirth of Benicia’s community air monitoring program, BCAMP, and Mayor Patterson updated us on efforts between the City of Benicia and Valero to create an MOU to follow-up on actions Valero agreed to after defeat of the proposed Industrial Safety Ordinance.

After the program, the members voted to endorse a candidate for California Democratic Party Chair.  Roger Straw presented the recommendation of the Progressive Democrats of Benicia Steering Committee to endorse Kimberly Ellis.  (Vote results to be posted later…)

California Democratic Party, Endorsements

PDB to endorse a candidate for California Democratic Party Chair

California Democratic Party Chair Election
PDB Candidate Endorsement Discussion
May 14, 2019

The California Democratic Party (CADEM) will elect its State Chair during the State Convention in San Francisco, May 31 – June 2. Five candidates are running for the four-year term as CADEM’s State Chair. The candidates are:

    • Lenore Albert-Sheridan
    • Kimberly Ellis
    • Rusty Hicks
    • Daraka Larimore-Hall
    • Mike Katz-Lacabe

Progressive Democrats of Benicia will discuss the Party Chair race during our May 14 General Membership meeting. After the discussion, members will be given an opportunity to vote to endorse one candidate for State Chair. A candidate receiving 50% + 1 of the votes cast by members present will win the PDB endorsement.

MORE:

  1.  brief biographical information on each candidate

  2.  summary of responses from the candidates to PDB questions asked at an April 7 candidates’ forum in Vallejo

Benicia City Council, Cannabis, Retail business

Benicia City Council to consider re-writing cannabis rules on May 7

By Steve Young, Benicia City Council member
Steve Young, Benicia CA

On May 7, the City Council will consider a proposal by Councilman Largaespada to expand the buffer zones around cannabis dispensaries. The proposed changes would, if adopted, add buffer zones around any day care center (or places where kids congregate), park, or any residential zone.  If adopted by the Council, the practical effect would be to eliminate virtually all retail locations in the City.

Cannabis issues have been on the ballot twice recently. In 2016, Benicians voted 63% in favor of Prop. 64 which legalized personal use of cannabis by adults. In 2018, Benicians voted 68% in favor of letting the Council impose excise taxes on cannabis businesses (which we did last December). The current rules, adopted by the previous Council after more than 18 hearings and dozens of hours of testimony, limited cannabis dispensaries to just a few commercial areas in the City. The Council eliminated First Street and all of downtown, as well as all of the Southhampton shopping center. We also limited the number of dispensaries to just two.

When we finally opened up the application process last fall, we had 9 applicants for these two possible permits. Applicants were required to pay the City $20,000 each for processing their application, including for a Public Safety License to be issued by the Police Department after significant vetting of the applicants. In addition, the applicants were required to show some form of site control. This required them to rent or lease, or obtain an option to lease,  commercial space at significant costs while waiting for the City to finally recommend which applicants were recommended to move forward to the Planning Commission to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). (Some applicants have reported absorbing over $100,000 in costs each.)

In my opinion, regardless of how you feel about cannabis, it is fundamentally unfair to treat these businesses in this manner.  They have followed all the rules set forth by the City in August,  paid substantial fees to the City and even more to rent vacant space, and have waited over 9 months for the City to act on their applications.  It is simply not fair or equitable, at this late date,  to have the City change the rules in the middle of the game.

If you are interested in this topic, please attend the Council meeting on May 7 or let the Council know about your opinions.