Supervisor Candidates Make Their Pitch to Martinez Voters at Forum

Also, Saturday coke dust release at PBF refinery; MUSD releases data on how teacher pay measures up; City Council keeps up streak of midnight meetings as it struggles to fine-tune cannabis rules

Three candidates vying to represent Martinez on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors made their pitch at an election forum hosted by the political action group Thousand Friends of Martinez last week.

There was little in the way of fireworks or heated exchanges during the hour-long forum in which Shanelle Scales-Preston, Mike Barbanica and Jelani Killings — all hailing from East County — introduced themselves to the Martinez community and articulated their vision and priorities if elected to the District 5 seat currently occupied by retiring supervisor Federal Glover.

Scales-Preston, a member of the Pittsburg City Council, emphasized her working-class background as the child of two union members; her desire and work to create programs to benefit the county’s youths; efforts to strengthen public safety in Pittsburg; and her long career helping county residents access government services as a top aide to former and current congressmen George Miller and Mark DeSaulnier. “Public service drives me each and every day,” she told the audience.

Barbanica, a member of the Antioch City Council, emphasized his long career in law enforcement with the Pittsburg Police Department and success in reducing crime in that city. He also touted his work to find solutions to the homelessness crisis, preserve parks and open space, and tackle blight. “I understand public safety and what it means to keep the public safe,” he said.

Killings, another Pittsburg City Council member, also emphasized his local roots and work to improve government accountability and transparency and ensure that the public is aware of how taxpayer dollars are being spent. He also focused on public safety and ending what he called the “revolving door” of crime and theft. “I’m all about good governance, transparency, and how we’re holding ourselves accountable to the public,” he said.

The first question asked of the candidates was the ongoing controversy surrounding PBF Energy’s Martinez refinery and its string of chemical releases over the past 14 months (see below for information on another release Saturday). All three largely agreed on the severity of the issue and the need to ensure that any safety lapses are addressed and fixed.

Killings was critical of what he called regulators that “have been asleep at the wheel in making sure operations at the refinery are up to board.” Barbanica expressed concern about the high employee turnover rate at the refinery and said he would fight for a commitment from the refinery to reduce daily emissions. Scales-Preston said she “would be so livid” if incidents such as these were happening in her community, and expressed support for the county continuing unannounced inspections to ensure that the refinery is operating in a responsible fashion.

All three said they have accepted no contributions to their campaigns from PBF or any other refiners.

One of the few instances of sharp disagreement among the three candidates came when Barbanica, in response to a question about the controversial Faria housing development in Pittsburg, accused Scales-Preston and Killings of failing to protect Contra Costa’s ridgeline from housing development. Scales-Preston and Killings both defended their support as council members for the project, explaining that it was significantly amended to address environmental concerns and preserve open space and that it reflected the wishes of their constituents, who voted in 2005 for housing in the area, and needs of the community.

If no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the March Primary, the top two vote-getters will move on to a runoff in November.

Tuesday’s county supervisor election forum. Seated at the table on the left are, from left, Shanelle Scales-Preston, Jelani Killings and Mike Barbanica.

The forum can be viewed at the following link: https://www.facebook.com/ThousandFriendsOfMartinez/videos/929442908680115

Another marathon City Council meeting

The City Council’s recent streak of four-plus-hour meetings extending until or past midnight continued Wednesday. This time, there was another long debate about proposed updates to the city’s cannabis regulations, focusing primarily on whether the city should continue to require 24/7 onsite security at its two dispensaries.

After going back and forth on the question at its previous meeting in January, the council seemed to land on updating the ordinance to require that at least two security officers be present during business hours and at least one during non-business hours. But on Wednesday, officials from Embarc on Alhambra Avenue continued to argue strongly against around-the-clock security guards (despite the requirement being clearly stated in the city’s 2019 cannabis ordinance and in Embarc’s own permit application that was approved in 2020), claiming that requiring security guards to be on duty overnight places them at risk of harm and is unnecessary. Several members of the community spoke in support of Embarc’s position Wednesday night, and by the end of the night, the council appeared to have been swayed to adjust the minimum requirement for onsite security to “roving patrols” that would inspect the dispensaries periodically as opposed to a 24/7 presence.

Council members also engaged with Embarc officials and city staff about why the 2019 ordinance requirement that at least two security guards be on duty 24/7 was never complied with or enforced until recently. Though Embarc officials had included it in their own proposal that was presented at a 2020 council meetings, discussions with police about the dispensary’s security plan in the period leading up to its opening resulted in the requirement being waived.

While Councilman Satinder Malhi challenged Embarc officials on why they deviated in private conversations with police from their own proposal regarding 24/7 security that was presented to the council and public in 2020 and was required by the city’s ordinance, Mayor Brianne Zorn and Councilman Mark Ross placed the blame on city staff for not enforcing the ordinance or informing the council about the waiver. Left unanswered, however, is whether the police officials who granted the waiver were aware at the time that it would violate city regulations, or whether Embarc broached the topic of the ordinance requirement in their conversations about eliminating the provision from the security plan. During a lengthy back-and-forth with Embarc officials that was eventually cut off by the city attorney over concerns that the agenda item before the council didn’t pertain directly to Embarc’s conditions of operation, those specific questions were never addressed.

The Velvet Cannabis dispensary on Sunrise Drive was granted the same exemption from the 24/7 onsite security requirement, a situation that didn’t come to light until after I questioned the city about the matter following the fatal officer-involved shooting at Velvet last August that remains under state investigation. After the shooting, the city asked both Velvet and Embarc to comply with the city regulations for around-the-clock onsite security, and police Chief Andrew White reported to the City Council last month that there had been no criminal incidents reported at either dispensary since the increased security was implemented.

Whatever minimum standard for onsite security the council ultimately chooses will serve as a “floor,” with the police chief and city manager able to require additional security, up to whatever “ceiling,” if any, is provided for in the ordinance, as they deem circumstances warrant. The discussion Wednesday ended with a proposed ceiling of two security guards on site. State law requires one security guard be on duty during business hours, and shortly before and after opening, but leaves to local jurisdictions the question of whether to require security guards during non-business hours.

Because the dispensaries’ security plans are confidential, the public will have no way of knowing what specific security measures are being required at a given time — beyond the parameters provided for in the ordinance.

The council also assented to a change in the proposed buffer distance between the dispensaries and K-12 schools. Staff had originally proposed increasing the current buffer from 600 feet to 1,000 feet under the assumption that Embarc was over 1,000 feet from Alhambra High School. But after ascertaining that the dispensary is actually about 920 feet from the high school, they dialed back the proposal to 900 feet to avoid any “unintended impacts” for the dispensary.

The council also directed staff to drop a proposed provision to apply the new buffer to colleges and universities, as none exist in Martinez, and staff made clear that they did not intend for that provision to encompass the Martinez Adult Education campus, which borders Embarc and serves students as young as 18. The Martinez Unified School District said last week that currently 45 students between the ages of 18 and 20 attend the adult school.

Councilman Jay Howard had suggested at the Jan. 17 council meeting that he believed a buffer should include the adult school, but there was no further discussion on that idea Wednesday and it appeared to be a non-starter with the rest of the council.

By the end of the night, a clearly fatigued council and staff had decided that the final updates to the ordinance would need to be hashed out at the Feb. 21 meeting, but it appeared that Embarc and its supporters had succeeded in convincing the council to drop the minimum requirement of at least one security guard on duty at all times from the ordinance (though the police chief will retain the flexibility to require such staffing if he deems that circumstances warrant). Howard was the lone council member who continued to advocate during the meeting for a floor of at least one security officer on duty 24/7.

How does MUSD teacher pay measure up

With the Martinez Unified School District and its teachers union at a stalemate in contract negotiations, the district recently released data (see chart below) on how teacher pay here compares with other districts in the county.

The total maximum compensation (salary plus benefits but excluding stipends) for an MUSD teacher, according to the district, is $144,512.44. That currently ranks ninth among 18 districts in Contra Costa, with the county Office of Education at the top ($162,220.80) and Knightsen Elementary District at the bottom ($125,646).

In response to questions from the community, the district also recently released an information sheet on how it spent the $13.8 million increase in revenues that it received in fiscal year 2023. It can be viewed at the following link: https://files.smartsites.parentsquare.com/3306/mea_2_12624_final.pdf

The upshot, according to the district, is that most of the funds were spent “supporting staff salaries in all labor groups.” The MUSD Board of Trustees is expected to receive a budget update at the March 11 school board meeting.

PBF refinery coke dust release

Another coke dust release was reported by the PBF refinery on Saturday afternoon. Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials crews responded to the release shortly after 1 p.m. and quickly determined that there were no offsite impacts from the release. The refinery has experienced several coke dust incidents over the past year.

Correction: My post earlier this week on the March election included an incorrect total for how much money state Senate candidate Marisol Rubio had raised. The correct figure as of Feb. 4 was $74,915, according to the Secretary of State's Office. I had mistakenly included fundraising from previous election cycles/campaigns in her total.

Follow Martinez News and Reviews on Facebook and Instagram