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.
By Roger Straw, May 27, 2020, posting a letter by Don Dean
Roger Straw, The Benicia Independent
Several Benicia environmental advocates are sending last-minute emails urging public attention on a proposal coming to Benicia’s Planning Commission tomorrow, Thursday, March 28, 7pm.
I received a copy of the following excellent public comment submitted to the Planning Commission by Don Dean, Benicia resident and former Planning Commission chair. Don lays out good reasons for opposing the project.
Check out the Planning Commission agenda for details on how to submit comments by email and how to participate in the live videoconference.
Letter by Don Dean…
Submitted Electronically:
May 26, 2020
Chair Birdseye and Benicia Planning Commission Community Development Department 250 East L Street Benicia, CA 94510
RE: Renewable Properties Solar Project on Lake Herman Road.
———————————————————————————-
Dear Chair Birdseye and Commissioners:
I am writing to urge the Planning Commission not to approve the solar project proposed by Renewable Properties on Lake Herman Road. I believe there are a number of issues that have not been adequately addressed, and the project would be detrimental to Benicia’s Open Space reserve and contrary to the letter and spirit of the General Plan. Below, I have outlined a number of shortcomings of the project analysis.
Inconsistent with the General Plan
The Benicia General Plan designates the project site as General Open Space (OS). Designated open space is considered important enough that state planning law requires cities to plan for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. Allowable uses in the Benicia OS designation “include agriculture, horticulture, passive recreation, and mineral extraction in State-designated mineral resource areas only” (GP, page 31).
The intent of the OS designation in the vicinity of Lake Herman Road seems clear as illustrated by the following goals and policies in the General Plan:
Policy 2.1.5–An Urban Growth Boundary is established…in order to separate the City’s urban area from its surrounding greenbelt of open lands and to maintain lands near Lake Herman and north of Lake Herman Road in permanent agriculture/open space use. No urban development is allowed beyond the Urban Growth Boundary.
Goal 2.2–Maintain lands near Lake Herman Road and north of Lake Herman Road in permanent agriculture/open space use.
Program 2.2B–Acquire property, development rights, or easement to preserve open space. § Policy 3.18.1–Preserve rangeland north of Lake Herman Road.
General Plan, page 33–In addition, the UGB will help preserve key land forms which separate Benicia physically and visually from adjacent communities; protect and maintain the rural quality of Lake Herman Road and areas adjacent to it…
As an industrial-scale project on OS-designated land north of Lake Herman Road and outside the Urban Growth Boundary, the proposed project would not be consistent with any of these policies.
Industrial-Scale Project
The staff report stated that the proposed solar project is not an “urban” project because it does not require the extension of city services (that is, sewer, water, police, etc.) beyond the Urban Growth Boundary. However, it seems clear looking at the renderings presented in the staff report (Figure 3, Site Plan; Figure 5, Aerial View; and Figure 12, Approaching Project from East) that this is an industrial-scale project. Figures 1 and 2 (attached) are photos of a similar Marin Clean Energy (MCE) solar facility in the industrial area of Richmond and illustrate the closepacked nature of solar panels. The proposed project will blanket 35 acres of the landscape and would be incompatible with and preclude any of the allowed uses in the OS designation (i.e., agriculture, horticulture, passive recreation, and mineral extraction). Due to the size, scale, and intensity of use, for all practical purposes, this is an urban project. The fact that it does not fit a narrow planning definition of urban development does not mean that it is suitable for Open Space-designated land.
As noted in the staff report (page 25), the zoning code is silent on the classification of renewable energy uses, including solar facilities, wind turbines, and other similar uses. State law requires that the zoning code be consistent with the City’s General Plan. The applicant is proposing that the zoning code be amended to allow large-scale solar facilities. It is up to the independent judgment of the Planning Commission to determine whether that change to the code should be made. I submit that the proposed code changes are not consistent with the intent of the OS designation and undermine the stated purposes of the OS designation; therefore, the zoning amendment should be denied.
Solar Inventory Overly Conservative
The proposed zoning change will affect not just this one site on Lake Herman Road, but 159 parcels (2,170 acres) spread throughout the city. Attachment 4 of the staff report presents a Solar Inventory for other open space parcels considered suitable for solar development. The Solar Inventory concludes that only eight parcels are available for possible solar development, with the implication that any potential impacts from other new solar facilities would be minimal. This conclusion seems based on a number of overly narrow assumptions. For instance, the analysis dismissed any non-contiguous open space parcels less than 5 acres in size as not viable. However, the city solar facility at Rose Drive and East 2nd Street is only 1.5 acres in size. The analysis also removes any parcels that are more than 100 feet from an electrical distribution line. This seems overly restrictive, as 100 feet is less than the length of many residential lots in Benicia. It’s hard to understand why an electrical connection could not be extended further than 100 feet for a major solar project. If the Solar Inventory underestimates the possible number and locations of new installations, it could lead to an inaccurate assessment of possible impacts due to the zoning change.
The staff report (page 7) discounts the possible impacts of additional solar sites in the city and states, “there is no causal connection between the creation of a new land use classification in the OS District and induced development of utility solar projects within the city of Benicia.” This statement is unfounded, for though you can’t prove the new use classification would induce additional solar projects in Benicia, it’s only reasonable to assume that they would occur, as the opportunity has not existed until now. The staff report also acknowledges that there will be effects from the potential development (though isolated), but makes no attempt to identify those effects and where the impacts might occur, in spite of the fact the new classification will affect all the 159 OS-designated properties throughout the community. If there really are so few other viable parcels for solar, is the Commission essentially making this city-wide change for the benefit of one applicant?
Visual Analysis
The Visual Assessment (Staff Attachment 5) illustrates the future views of the project along Lake Herman Road. The Assessment states that “the project will not substantially contrast with the dominant form of the existing landscape.” I would argue that the Visual Assessment illustrates exactly the opposite point–that the views from Lake Herman Road will be permanently altered from a natural agricultural landscape to an artificial, man-made one. (See Figures 11 through 14 of the Visual Assessment.)
The question asked in the Aesthetics section of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is “Would the project—In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?” The visual analysis responds by stating that “While the visual character of the project site would change from an undeveloped hillside to a solar array, there would be no adverse effect on a recognized scenic vista or degradation of public views.” By focusing on the recognized scenic vistas, the analysis misses the larger point. There are multiple public views of the project site along Lake Herman Road. It seem clear from the applicant’s Visual Assessment renderings, that the character and visual quality of the existing open space would be adversely affected by the project.
Independent Review
Has the City conducted an independent review of the Solar Inventory, the Visual Assessment and other relevant material presented by the applicant? CEQA requires that the decisionmaking body of the lead agency shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines 15074(b)). I would encourage you to make sure you are confident in the accuracy and objectivity of the information presented to you before taking action.
Conclusion
Open space provides a real amenity to Benicia’s residents, both physical and psychological. Approval of this project will erode the City’s inventory of open space without providing any corresponding benefit to the city. The electrical supply is inherently fungible; there is no reason to believe that the electricity produced here will be used here. It will enter the larger grid for use where demand is greatest. There are other locations in Benicia where a solar project could be placed. There are acres of paved surfaces in the industrial park and elsewhere that could be covered with panels. In approving this project the Commission will be setting a precedent that development of designated open space is acceptable.
One of the conundrums of planning is sometimes you have a good project in the wrong place. This is one of those times. It seems unnecessary to sacrifice a community amenity for private benefit. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny the proposed zoning change and use permit on the basis that it is not consistent with the General Plan.
Sincerely,
Donald Dean
Resident and former Planning Commission Chair
257 West I Street
Benicia
Attachment: Figures 1 and 2: Photos of MCE Solar Facility in Richmond
Correspondence now public, “for the record” – City to provide copies at workshop on Oct. 22
Following is an email thread between Benicia activist and environmental watchdog Marilyn Bardet and City Councilmember Tom Campbell, in which they richly detail the need for air monitoring in south and west Benicia.
The exchange follows, first from Bardet, then Campbell, and finally from Bardet:
From: Marilyn Bardet
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2019 9:55 am
Subject: Fwd: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia
Good morning, Mayor Patterson, Councilmembers, City Manager Tinfow and Fire Chief Chadwick,
The article, published yesterday (see link below) about the root cause analysis performed for understanding the Philadelphia Energy Solutions explosion and decimation should give us all pause.
The explosion of Philadelpia’s refinery is a clarion call, especially in light of the “teachable moment” of the Nustar Energy tank farm explosions and fire two days ago. Rodeo and Crockett residents are duly and rightly alarmed, as we all should be, at Phillip66’s plan for extensive expansion that would include construction of 6 new propane/butane spheres in a liquifaction zone within only ~2,300 ft of a residential neighborhood.
A point of fact: portions of the Lower Arsenal Historic District and port area are in a recognized liquifaction zone with live pipelines crisscrossing the area, including behind Jefferson Street’s Officers Row, and 3 petroleum coke silos and pet coke terminal operations at the end of Tyler Street.
Why is this important to address now?
Our City is in the process of reviewing and considering adoption of a draft set of new design standards applicable for residential and mixed use development in the Arsenal and Downtown historic districts, and throughout the rest of town. While form-based code, established more than a decade ago, aimed to especially address the appearances of our historic districts, the code does not specifically address the overarching goal of our General Plan that calls for sustainable development. As well, the General Plan, in the Community Health and Safety chapter, also directs that new residential development should not put people in harm’s way, e.g. in close proximity to known hazards where soils may be contaminated from former uses. I would extend that concern to airborne toxic emissions, such as in the case where residential development is considered for specific locations in close proximity to pipelines, valves, stacks, and petroleum coke port terminal operations that could impact residents’ health and safety, (whether from acute or chronic exposures to PM).
For example, refinery pipelines carrying flammable products and crude oil run behind the entire Arsenal Historic District’s “National Register C” which encompasses Jefferson Street and Jefferson Ridge. Unfortunately, residential condos were long ago permitted along Buchanan Street behind which are refinery pipelines. The whole lower Arsenal, from Jefferson St to Grant St, to the Port area present multiple dangerous hazards, including daily truck traffic that enters and leaves the Lower Arsenal and port area often using Park Road.
I will be submitting comments and recommendations for the new form based design standards within the framework of these concerns for new residential and mixed use developments, which I have often written about, especially during the review of the Arsenal Specific Plan EIR that was not adopted.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Marilyn
From: Tom Campbell
Sent: Sat. Oct 19, 2019, at 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: Fwd: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia
What the Nustar explosions and the recent Martinez flaring prove is that we need a community air monitoring system and information system to get that live time air monitoring information to the public. The south side of Benicia has no such system in place or even being contemplated. With the prevailing wind patterns and recent history it is essential in order to protect Benicians that there be air monitors in the south and southwest side of Benicia. There are none and none contemplated. Mobile monitors only give a short term transit set of information at best and are not enough for daily protection on the south and west side. This is why your approach is not going to work. Also putting the one air monitoring system near Valero is nothing put a redundant system that will only check on the fence line monitors and leaves the entire south and west side of Benicia naked. While you have chosen to concentrate on Valero you have missed all of the air pollutants coming from the refineries south of Benicia. And that is why the Good Neighbors’ choice of spending so little settlement money on air monitors was flat out wrong.
“If you can’t breath nothing else matters” American Ling Association
Tom
Marilyn Bardet <mjbardet@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 11:03 PM Subject: Re: [refineries-rule-group] We finally know what caused the refinery blast that rocked Philadelphia
Hello Tom,
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the workshop on Tuesday, and that’s why I’m writing to address your letter sent personally to me and why I’m copying all the others to whom I’d sent my original message. I appreciate receiving your conments and your concern to provide a real-time, 24/7 community-based monitoring station located in the vicinity of downtown neighborhoods in the southwest area of Benicia, for all the reasons you cited: those neighborhoods are downwind of the Phillips 66 refinery and NuStar tank farm, and depending on wind direction, the Chevron refinery. I had written the message that your letter responds to about the dangerous risks posed to our community in the event of such explosions and fires as we experienced last week. I took pictures at 5pm, downtown from Maria Field and also from the Marina Green of the huge, dark sooty cloud drifting broadly across our city and likely Vallejo from southwest to northeast.
I am certain that other GNSC members and new BCAMP board members agree— a second monitoring station located in a southwest side neighborhood could/would be desirable to catch those “downwind” air quality conditions. However, I disagree with your assessment of the location of the BCAMP station as “flat wrong” and that our station would somehow (impossibly) be primarily focused on refinery emissions and be thus redundantly measuring gases already captured by Valero’s fenceline openpath monitors. That just ain’t so.
The GNSC, and now the new BCAMP board, accepted that the location of the first BCAMP monitoring station was in part determined by the availability of a secure location with access to power—a small former cell tower cement block building now owned by Ruszel Woodworks and located on their property along Bayshore Rd. The site will sample air in the general vicinity of the port, I-680 corridor, industrial park, Southern Pacific tracks, and the Valero southeast tank farm nearest residential neighborhoods of the upper eastside.
Our mission is to sample ambient air quality. BCAMP’s location was not chosen to selectively focus on refinery emissions, even if that were possible.
We have worked to get the Air District, meeting with Eric Stevenson, to agree to establishing a District-operated and funded monitoring station within a Benicia community neighborhood.
It is my understanding that they will be looking to assess particular opportunities with the City to identify a possible City-owned securable site for a permanent “real time” community-based monitoring system.
The GNSC is well aware, as is the BCAMP’s board, that in the future our monitors can be moved, housed in our trailer, and relocated to another secure site somewhere else in town. Perhaps BUSD could make assessments for siting a trailer on one of their school properties? The caveat: any location identified must allow for access to the station by persons contracted to operate the systems and perform routine maintenance and re-calibrations of equipment as necessary.
Have you got suggestions for such an optimum location for sampling ambient air quality? I see no reason why you couldn’t be involved on the part of the City in such an effort to find that additional site!
Thanks for your comments. I’m always willing to discuss!
Fascinating email conversation between environmental watchdog Marilyn Bardet and Councilmember Tom Campbell
The Benicia Independent was copied on an important email conversation calling for better monitoring of air quality on Benicia’s south and west sides.
Longtime Benicia activist and environmental watchdog Marilyn Bardet wrote to Benicia City Council members and staff in anticipation of the October 22 City workshop on air monitoring.
Councilmember Tom Campbell replied, and Bardet responded.
It is newsworthy that both are calling for monitoring of the air that blows our way from refineries and petroleum storage farms south and west of Benicia in Contra Costa County.
There are currently no monitoring stations in south and west Benicia.
Also responding to the Nustar fire – and recent flaring in Martinez – Campbell wrote about the need for more monitoring of air on Benicia’s south and west sides. Bardet agreed emphatically, calling for suggestions for the location of air monitoring stations in southwest Benicia.
The City plans to provide a written copy of their exchange at the workshop on Tuesday. The conversation may be read here on the Benicia Independent: Bardet & Campbell correspondence.
You must be logged in to post a comment.