Tag Archives: Benicia General Plan

Seeno in Benicia – here we go again…

Warning and good advice by architect of Benicia’s General Plan, former mayor Elizabeth Patterson

EL PAT’S FORUM

by ELIZABETH PATTERSON
Benicia, California

May 26, 2022

Tail wagging the dog – a Benicia story

Many moons ago – before the red moon and blue moon – city leaders began the planning process for developing Sky Valley (1990s). Imagine suburban development like what is happening on Columbus Parkway along Lake Herman Road. More streets, water lines for more water and more traffic with more carbon emissions.

The first tail wagging.  Sky Valley planning process was the  tail wagging the dog. Why? Because the then General Plan was old and did not anticipate that kind of growth. The city council decision makers balked at paying for a general plan update. A group of organized citizens proposed to the council that the council establish a task force to determine wither the General Plan should be updated. The task force with a consultant was approved, and reported to the city council the need for an update.  Council adopted a resolution establishing a commission which was charged with leading the community discussion. The Council resolution included substantial city funds for the commission and future consultants including an economic assessment.

Take note that there are details to this story which I have provided in earlier postings such as a citizen collecting signatures in opposition to Sky Valley development and a vote by council to not move forward. This was after the respected city manager at the time initiated a specific plan process. The public was treated like most of these processes — being fed information in meetings and not being part of the ownership of the decision. Indeed one of the finest consultants in California known for her public participation process quit because of this flawed process. But I digress.

What a community-led process is. The General Plan update process was led by the General Plan Oversight Committee (GPOC – pronounced gee pock). There were panels of experts on property rights, geologic issues, affordable housing, open space and conservation and economics. By consensus – not brute power – GPOC found common ground in a shared vision for Benicia. And that shared and adopted vision is our current General Plan.

But that dog’s tail is wagging again. And this story follows a red moon. [This has nothing to do with the story but it does add color].

The second tail wagging. Coincidentally at the May 17th council meetings  two tails were on the agenda. Let me explain: as a result of the community led GPOC, the consensus was that in keeping with the vision for Benicia as a small town, smart growth and sustainable development, an urban growth boundary line (UGBL) would be established along Lake Herman Road excluding urban development requiring municipal services. This is another story I’ve written about and to keep this posting shorter I will just say that because of council wavering on the UGBL, citizens ran an initiative in 2003 to establish the UGBL by a vote that cannot be undone by Council. That initiative must be renewed after twenty years. The council voted to place the renewal of that initiative on the ballot this coming November.

Seeno Again. And at this same May 17 council meeting – coincidentally – council approved a planning process for what is called the Seeno property, establishing a “community-led” process to recommend a “vision” for the Seeno property. The property owner goes by another name now WCHB. But it is Seeno. So who is Seeno and where is the property?

Google Seeno and you will find stories of blatant destruction of wetlands and millions of fines paid – the price of doing business. You will find law suits against communities such as Brentwood for denying one of their projects. You will find in the 1980s about how Seeno built a commercial building in Concord that exceeded the Concord Airport safe aviation height. You will find articles about how the federal government and over 20 agencies “raided” the corporate offices in Concord. It had something to do with politics in Nevada and death threats on both sides. Seeno. They even filed a lawsuit against the City of Benicia for its planning efforts for creating walkable and bikable streets in the Industrial Park. They were not successful. And that family-owned business has owned over 530 acres here in Benicia west of East 2nd and along Lake Herman Road for over 35 years.

The current General Plan is the vision for Benicia. To change that vision requires a public process and an amendment . . .  and CEQA. The overarching goal of the General Plan is sustainable development. There are a multitude of goals and policies about land use, walkability, water, traffic and economic goals and policies. All of these are the guiding principles for development. It’s the constitution for land use. It’s the law.

At the May meeting Council adopted resolutions and approved consultants to determine a “vision” for the Seeno property. The “community-led” process is similar to the failed process in the Sky Valley experience. The planning consultant will meet with the council subcommittee of two (Young and Macenski) and then meet with the “community-led” public meeting.

Community-led process. So what is the community-led process? Three or so public meetings where you can show up and listen and comment. No formal commission. No stakeholder process. No ownership. Will this meeting process review the General Plan especially for the overarching goal of sustainability and more specific considerations of topography, view sheds, and other quality of life and city policies?

The scope of work for the two consultants – planner and economist – make no mention that the General Plan is the first step for considering the use of the Seeno property. Opportunities and constraints are fundamental planning approaches. I wrote a white paper on this very topic in anticipation of development of the Seeno site. The General Plan goals and policies are where one starts for “opportunities and constraints”. If the current planning process anticipates changing the land use, start with the existing framework. By the way, in the 1990s the Benicia Industrial Park Association conducted a robust campaign against housing/mixed use for the whole area including Seeno.

Best planning tool is not being used. Secondly and for a technical reason, a review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not going to be done. The technical reason reminds me of the expression of “do what you want and ask for forgiveness later”. Why? Because CEQA is the best planning tool we have in California.  CEQA is intended to inform government decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities and to prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage. It asks nearly all the questions one would want to ask about development. Think about it. Would we have built an asphalt plant near residential development if CEQA had existed? When will the carbon footprint be assessed? What are the potential off-setting strategies for the carbon footprint?

Water. Water supply. The cost of water treatment. When will these issues be addressed and what will be recommended and how much will it cost?

Not doing a CEQA-like process means that is less likely a proposed development will avoid impacts. What is more commonly done is mitigation for impacts. Meaning instead of avoiding potential water supply issues, CEQA could address with rain water capture, industrial above the ground cisterns. Avoiding storm water pollution and flooding would be designed up front in the potential future project feasibility. But waiting until an impact is formally identified, the typical mitigation would be water supply and storm water treatment. Such mitigation approach is expensive and not sustainable.

Carbon Footprint. How will there be an assessment for avoiding adding to our carbon footprint? Better yet, will there be a benefit of reducing our carbon footprint? Or are we going along in willful ignorance? Without some kind of CEQA assessment the answer is disturbing.

Economics. Speaking of economics, the second consultant is the economist. And the consultant is the same firm that did the 1999 General Plan economic study and EIR assessment. Their scope of work has nothing in it to assess development for consistency with the General Plan goal of sustainability. Nor does it lay out a decision making process for life cycle cost analysis. This means the real cost of maintenance and operations for roads, water lines, water supply, waste water treatment, and other municipal services. For instance, residential development property taxes don’t keep up with the cost of things and therefore some municipal services such as roads are not maintained as good as they should be. Or there may be a need for higher sales tax to cover these. Or… there could be other strategies so the city does not dig its financial hole deeper with added cost of residential development or any development.

What Kind of Retail Matters. The economic scope of work will assess retail. Retail that provides services within commercial and light industrial development (the current general plan designation) is sustainable and should reduce driving because these services are within walking distance. But. Large scale retail – including a movie complex or chain retail – will wreck downtown. Just look around and see: Pleasanton, Fairfield, Vallejo. Where is the analysis for this effect?

We as a city have had the best planning processes in the past as described earlier for GPOC. We had internationally regarded planners conduct meetings, seminars and charrettes. We had a nationally recognized economist detail what cities need to think about when doing development. At one time we were leaders in reducing our carbon footprint. Best of all we have a specific plan for the Seeno site based on the opportunities and constraints of the land and policies and a graphic supporting the specific plan.  This was the product of a citizen-led effort.  Have we learned from our past efforts?

Oh, and did I mention that Seeno is paying for this work?

My recommendations are for the council to

  • Establish a formal task force perhaps along the lines of the Waterfront Park process (done by the same firm that the current planning consultant worked for). This would be a community-led process.
  • Ask how can we add value to what we have and avoid failed business as usual development.
  • Adopt a CEQA approach that is not an actual legal CEQA but uses the tools and approaches for assessment of development choices.
  • Ensure by council resolution that any agreement for potential future specific plan includes a development agreement.
  • Adopt a resolution affirming the General Plan goal for sustainable development and no net increase in our carbon footprint. Climate crises is real. Business as usual is unforgivable. I expect nothing less from our council.

    Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 – 2020
    Elizabeth Patterson After three terms as Mayor of Benicia CA, Elizabeth retired from Benicia’s city council in 2020. She is vice-chair of the Delta National Heritage Area Advisory Committee; serves on the North Bay Watershed Association representing Solano County Water Agency; is policy chair for AAUW; is a lecturer for a grant funded semester course at Sonoma State on land use planning and management and water.  She loves to walk and hike with Alex, her 18 month-old puppy.

ALERT: Benicia City Council subcommittee to explore Seeno development plans – proposed at Council on Tuesday, Aug 17

 By Roger Straw, August 13, 2021

Important to read the agenda, comment by email, attend and voice your thoughts at the August 17 zoom meeting

The Aug 17 Benicia City Council agenda is PACKED with important items.  One is the ESTABLISHMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF THE NORTHWESTERN STUDY AREA SUBCOMMITTEEThis is all about the SEENO PROPERTY, and appears in the CONSENT calendar, Item 20 B. on p. 7.

The agenda’s Staff Report – Establishment and Appointment of Northwestern Study Area Subcommittee, is measured and thoughtful, well worth reading (note some details here below).

The intent is to set up a Council Subcommittee composed of Mayor Young and Councilmember Macenski, who will “help City staff and consultants facilitate discussions about considering potential future land uses” of the Seeno property.

In my opinion, this initiative somewhat misleadingly re-names the Seeno property the “Northwestern Study Area”.  Renaming the area will not remove the deservedly untrustworthy reputation of the Seeno family and its corporate entities.  Utmost caution must be urged as the City moves forward to consider development there.

A Few Details
Download Green Gateway Business Community – A 21st Century Possibility, September 2008

The Staff Report accompanying the item, Establishment and Appointment of Northwestern Study Area Subcommittee includes a short section on Previous Planning Efforts, very briefly summarizing two previous Seeno proposals, and highlighting our 2008 community-led Green Gateway Plan.

 

It’s good news that the staff report mentions a City-sponsored “Specific Plan” 3 times, including a reference to the fact that adoption of a Specific Plan (Master Plan) is required by Benicia’s General Plan for any development of 40 acres or more.  A Specific Plan was a primary focus of our 2008 Green Gateway Plan.  Reference – see Benicia General Plan Policy 2.3.1, PDF pages 48-49, [document pages 34-35].

A Few Questions

Will the renaming confuse or fail to alert those of us who have been through battles concerning the Seeno property?  Should the committee include citizen representatives in addition to the two Council members?  Will the Committee recommend the City require a Specific Plan for any new development?

Alert!

Your continued vigilance and thoughtful input is needed!  See

Benicia Planning Commission decision – another important perspective

By Roger Straw, posting a comment by Benicia resident Kathy Kerridge, May 28, 2020

Yesterday I posted an article, “Benicia Planning Commission to consider permitting commercial facility in Benicia Open Space Reserve,” in which my friend and colleague Don Dean urged opposition to a project to build a solar panel field in Benicia’s beautiful open space hills.

Later, I heard from several Benicia environmental advocates who favor the project.  The Planning Commission will have to weigh the pros and cons of this one carefully.

Check out the Planning Commission agenda for details on how to submit comments by email and how to participate in the live videoconference.

Kathy Kerridge, Benicia

Here’s my friend Kathy Kerridge’s reasoning:


May 27, 2020

Re: Agenda item 11B, Lake Herman Road Solar Project

Dear Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to voice my support for the Solar Project proposed for Lake Herman Road.

We are in the midst of a climate crises.  Scientists have said we need to act within the next 10 years to substantially reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.  We are starting to see the world change around us, with increasing fires, droughts, stronger storms, floods, sea level rise and even plagues of locus.   The ocean is increasingly becoming acidic.  The coral reefs are dying. We cannot wait to act.  We must act now to reduce emissions.  This project can be part of the solution.

This project will sell power to Marin Clean Energy, our local power provider. A company that is run by the communities it serves.  It will add to their renewal energy portfolio.   It will provide local jobs.  It is located in open space that is near a nice recreation area, Lake Herman, but I don’t believe it will be visible from the trail around the lake.  Even if it is the benefits out weight the costs.  The Lake Herman area is within a stone’s throw of a major oil refinery.  We are not talking here about a pristine wildness area being developed, but are putting a solar facility pretty much across the street from an industrial park.  If not here where?  Of course the ideal location for solar would be on rooftops, over parking lots and over roads, but I don’t believe this is an either or decision.  Ultimately we will need solar in both places.

If local projects like this do not get approval we will never make progress in fighting the climate catastrophe that we are facing.  Delay is also not an option.  We need to start acting now on the transformation of our society.  No project is ever perfect.  But we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  This is power that will be used by our local power company.  If we say no to projects like this I don’t know how we will ever make progress in reducing our emissions.  Please approve this project for the sake of our future.

Sincerely,

Kathy Kerridge
35 year Benicia resident