Benicia City Council, Benicia Vice Mayor Steve Young, Local elections, Northern Gateway Project, Seeno property

LETTER SERIES: Steve Young on Seeno land use

October 14, 2016 Roger Straw

[Editor: Benicians are expressing themselves in letters to the editor of our local print newspaper, the Benicia Herald. But the Herald doesn’t publish letters in its online editions – and many Benician’s don’t subscribe. We are posting certain letters here for wider distribution. – RS]

Development of the Seeno Property

By Steve Young, Benicia Planning Commission
October 6, 2016

Recently, a land use application has been submitted for development of the Seeno property, the 526 acre site located at East 2nd Street and Lake Herman Road.

The latest version of this development proposal, now called the Northern Gateway, also has a new lead developer (Schwartz Development) who has done projects with the Seeno family before.

This proposal, as described to me by the developer, calls for the construction of up to 900 single family homes along with some limited commercial and industrial parcels.

There are several problems that I see with this proposal.

First, although they insist there is adequate water for 900 homes, the City is in the middle of an extended drought and we are being asked to save water wherever we can.

Second, the developer has no intention of building either a school or a firehouse. If they don’t build these facilities, the obligation would fall upon the rest of us for those necessary amenities. Students would have to be transported to either Robert Semple elementary school (which is among the oldest properties in the District and is lacking in many amenities) or Benicia Middle School or Benicia High School, both of which are overcrowded.

Finally, the developer bragged that the homes would sell very fast, as they would be priced between $400-415,000. This price range is well below the Benicia median home price, and the addition of that many homes at that price level would not improve the property values of the rest of Benicia homes.

By contrast, at a recent candidates forum, Mark Hughes and Lionel Largaspaeda spoke in very positive tones about the possibility of the growth this project would bring.

I am not reflexively anti-growth, but object to this reactive form of planning.

This parcel will eventually be developed. But it is the City which should decide what type of development will ultimately go there, rather than simply reacting to a developer’s proposal, which is more focused on maximizing profit than in developing the last significant parcel in the City in a way that best serves the community.

Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, Local elections

LETTER SERIES: Mariko Yamada – Elizabeth Patterson for Mayor

October 14, 2016 Roger Straw

Re-elect Elizabeth Patterson

By Mariko Yamada, Assemblymember, 4th Assembly District (Ret.)
Candidate, 3rd Senate District
October 4, 2016

As a public servant for over 40 years, I’ve had the privilege of working at the federal, state, regional and local levels of government
from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. to San Diego, and for the last 22 years here in Northern California. Over the decades, I’ve had the opportunity to meet and interact with literally hundreds of public officials from the east coast to the west coast, and up-and-down the State of California, during some of our country’s best times as well as some of our worst.

So when I say that Benicia is very fortunate to have Mayor Elizabeth Patterson at the helm of the city, I believe I have credible comparative evidence on which to make this claim.

Elizabeth is both smart and knowledgeable, characteristics highly desirable in a leader. At the same time, when she doesn’t know about a particular topic (which I have found to be rare), she seeks to learn all she can, and does so quickly, asking all the right questions. Elizabeth is energetic and hardworking, sets high standards for herself, and expects the same from others, especially those who also serve her Benicia constituents. I know, because while representing Benicia in the California State Assembly for four years, Mayor Patterson was as cordial as she was clear and exacting about the needs of her city — and those needs always came first.

What I admire most about Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson are her courage, her integrity and her values, particularly around issues of the environment. Her work to address the hazardous materials left behind at the Benicia Arsenal and her leadership in the fight against the Valero expansion are testimony to her consistent leadership in protecting public safety and public health.

Sadly today, political valor is becoming rarer and rarer in the public domain. Honesty, doing what you say you’re going to do, and upholding the public trust in the face of unrelenting pressure isn’t “rewarded” with large political donations or being part of the “in-crowd”. Yet, Elizabeth Patterson has demonstrated, time and again, that her background, experience and temperament resonate with the voters. She is tenacious, authentic, and highly principled – and the only woman mayor in Solano County.

Benicia has been the beneficiary of Elizabeth Patterson’s many years of unselfish public service. She is poised and ready to continue her work on your behalf, and deserves your votes to return as your mayor for four more years. Please join me in supporting Elizabeth Patterson for mayor of Benicia.

Mariko Yamada,
Assemblymember, 4th Assembly District (Ret.)
Candidate, 3rd Senate District

Benicia City Council, Local land use authority, Local Regulation, Public permitting, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

BREAKING NEWS: City of Benicia releases final Resolution to Deny Valero Crude by Rail

October 13, 2016 Roger Straw

By Roger Straw, October 13, 2016

Today the City of Benicia released the final draft of the City Council’s Resolution No. 16-150, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BENICIA DENYING A USE PERMIT FOR THE VALERO CRUDE BY RAIL PROJECT AT 3400 EAST SECOND STREET (12PLN-00063)

This document represents the “wordsmithed” version created during the City Council’s October 4 meeting. This final version has not been previously seen by the public.

At the October 4 meeting, Council members insisted on strengthening the section (now numbered 1. on page 4) that describes the Surface Transportation Board’s decision, clarifying its opinion “that the City has the police power to protect public health and safety so long as it does ‘not discriminate against rail carriers or unreasonably burden interstate commerce.'”

The Council also directed staff to make substantial changes in the format of the staff’s draft version, moving all references to rail-related impacts to a single “informational” item (now numbered 2A-2F on pages 4-6).

The heart of the revised document – findings for denial – are numbered 3-6 on pages 6-9.

NOTE: The 10-page PDF document linked above is large (4.8MB) and slow to download from the City’s website, so be patient. A smaller unofficial version can be downloaded here or you can download the original from Google Drive here.