Benicia City Council, Housing

Benicia City Council approves housing element plan despite concerns

[Editor – Coverage of Council’s ‘Housing Element’ decision on January 24.  For additional background, see earlier stories on BenIndy below.  – R.S.]
Benicia City Council approves housing element plan despite concerns
Benicia City Hall.

The Vallejo Sun, by Ryan Geller, February 2, 2023

BENICIA – The Benicia City Council unanimously approved zoning amendments this week to facilitate new housing over the next eight years as part of a state requirement that cities in California create a long-term growth plan.

This formal adoption of the housing element on Tuesday came on the state deadline for adoption after controversy over the city’s plans. Last week, more than 80 people filled the council chambers to express concerns about historical preservation and equitable growth.

The housing element is part of the City’s General plan and it is intended to insure that the city can meet future housing needs in an equitable manner. Since 1969, the state has required cities and counties to adjust zoning rules every eight years to accommodate each jurisdiction’s share of the state’s housing goals for all income levels, known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

The needs assessment determined that Benicia should add at least 750 new housing units over the next eight years. Benicia’s zoning changes could accommodate up to 1,236 new units.

Most of the zoning changes are to the downtown area and the city’s east side. The permitted density for housing will be increased to 30 units per acre and buildings in residential zones will be allowed to cover 45% of the lot instead of 40%. The building height limit in some zones will be increased to three stories instead of the current limits of two to two-and-a-half stories.

Community comments focused on concerns related to Benicia’s historical sites and districts. Several community members brought up concerns about a portion of the Benicia City Cemetery that had been included in the list of sites for possible development. Others spoke about impacts to historic districts that could affect not only specific sites but the character of Benicia.

Rezoned sites in the Downtown Historic Conservation District.
Rezoned sites in the Downtown Historic Conservation District. Map via city of Benicia.

In preserving the historical aspects of this town, “it’s not just the buildings, it’s the setting, it’s the entire context.” said Benicia resident Linda Chandler.

Many of the commenters requested that the council reject the current housing element and instead revise the proposed project to reflect an alternative identified in an environmental review. The alternative would have significantly reduced impacts to the city’s historic resources by eliminating the rezoning of all of the locations in Benicia’s two historic districts, the downtown area and the Arsenal district.

One of the key complaints from community members about the housing element was that moderate and low income units were more heavily distributed in the east side when the intent of state’s housing law is to create an even distribution of housing units available to all income levels.

Marilyn Bardet, who has lived on the east side for 37 years, expressed environmental justice concerns about locations in the Arsenal Historic district. She noted that one of the locations, 1471 Park Road, is in a high traffic area close to the Valero refinery and the asphalt plant that may emit dangerous chemicals. “It is surrounded by active pipelines and I-780,” she said. “This is no place to put children and families, especially low-income folks.”

1451 Park Road, in the Arsenal Historic Conservation District
The large triangular site, 1471 Park Road, in the Arsenal Historic Conservation District, will be rezoned under the Benicia housing element plan. Map via city of Benicia.

According to the city staff, only certain sites qualify for low income housing and the staff evenly distributed the low income units across all the available sites. But the east side does have two large sites that meet the qualifications and can accommodate a large number of low income units.

They also noted that the downtown area offered sites that furthered local and state goals of reducing vehicle miles traveled by creating housing near transit, jobs and services.

Mayor Steve Young pleaded with the community members to support the housing element, saying the benefits of the housing development planning include creating more walkable cities, reducing homelessness and reducing commutes.

The mayor also broached more personal and localized points in his appeal to Benicia residents, “Our kids would like to live here and they can’t afford to do that because the houses are simply too expensive and there are not enough of them.”

He added that a variety of housing stock could provide more appropriate housing for seniors and improve the city’s finances. “Frankly, more people and more growth means more tax revenue and we need more tax revenue if we are going to maintain the level of community services that people have come to expect,” he said.

Councilmember Trevor Macenski said that he thought the council has gone above and beyond in their community engagement efforts for the housing element, holding 25 public meetings on the issue.

City staff did make one change based on the community concerns by removing a portion of the cemetery from the list of potential development sites. The staff said that the cemetery site was one of the only sites that could be feasibly removed without requiring extensive revisions that would not allow the City to meet the state’s Jan. 31 deadline.

According to the city attorney, failure to meet the deadline would expose the city to lawsuits from housing advocacy groups and the city would be vulnerable to state laws such as the builders remedy which allow developers to circumvent the local approval process in jurisdictions that are not in compliance with state law. The state could even go as far as to revoke the city’s right to issue permits at all.

“It is entirely feasible that if we don’t do the final adoption of the zoning map tonight, a developer… could build anywhere at any height, at any density and the city would lose all discretion,” Young said. “That’s why the Jan. 31 deadline was so important and why we are intent on meeting that deadline to preserve our ability to regulate housing development.”

See earlier on BenIndy:

Air Quality, Bay Area Refineries, RefineryAirWatch.org

Refinery Air Watch Training Feb 2, 7 PM – get detailed data on Valero Benicia and other refineries

[Editor: Previously published – this is a tickler about the important upcoming webinar training this week. – R.S.]

Webinar: Introducing Refinery Air Watch: Radical Access to Fenceline Monitoring Data

Thursday, February 2, 7pm PST (zoom link)
Presented by the Fair Tech Collective

Air monitoring is happening at oil refinery fencelines. How can you get your hands on the data?

www.refineryairwatch.org

This one-hour webinar offers an introduction to Refinery Air Watch, (www.refineryairwatch.org), a new website that enables you to download results from fenceline air monitoring–and understand how refineries are making it hard for you to learn what’s in the air.

By the end of the session, you will be able to download data from the site and figure out what the data say about air quality at the fenceline. You will also understand where Refinery Air Watch’s data come from, what its strengths and limitations are, and what regulatory reforms are necessary to secure your right to know what you’re breathing.

Thursday, February 2, 7pm PST
Zoom link:  : Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting

Fair Tech Collective, founded by Gwen Ottinger, believes that science and technology can empower communities—but...
Fair Tech Collective, founded by Gwen Ottinger, believes that science and technology can empower communities—but…

 

 

Gun Violence Archive, Mass shootings, Stephen Golub

Stephen Golub: Guns: Here We Go Again… and again…and again…

Unhappy New Year

A Promised Land, by Stephen Golub, January 25, 2023

Benicia author Stephen Golub, Benicia CA, A Promised Land

California has kicked off 2023 with a bang: two mass shootings in 72 hours. (Mass shootings constitute events in which four or more people are injured or killed, not including the murderer.) This has probably been the country’s most massacre-intensive January ever – and certainly since the Gun Violence Archive started tracking this data in 2014. Only a small fraction of these nearly twice-daily horrors (647 in 2022) gets much media coverage. Still, this seems like a nightmarish Groundhog Day.

Over the course of nearly nine years, the satirical, fake news outlet the Onion has regularly summarized such slaughters 30 times with the same headline,  “‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”

I won’t regurgitate most of the grisly statistics you’ve heard before. But it’s worth noting a few:

Family Values

Here’s one more statistical nugget: America is the only wealthy country in which gun violence is the top cause of death for children and teens.

The comparative data leaves other rich nations buried (so to speak) in the dust. Firearms killed 4,357 young people here in 2020. The next highest nations, based on a recent research review of selected similar societies: Canada and France, with 48 each. Correcting for Canada’s far smaller population, its gun mortality rate for folks aged one to 19 is still less than 10 percent of ours.

Even that shameful ratio under-represents how bad our relative situation is. Canada and France themselves have much higher rates than other wealthy nations. The next highest number on the list is that of Germany, where only 14 young people died due to guns in 2020. Given that its population is one-quarter of ours, that figure would extrapolate to just 56 if we were the same size.

Why?

Now, this is not to say that most gun-owners are fanatics about their weapons. Many are responsible, or support at least some gun safety measures, or legitimately use firearms for protection or hunting.

Still, why are so many Americans (though by no means the majority ) so dedicated to deadly weapons, including assault rifles?

Pick your poison. The National Rifle Association. Our distorted democracy. The self-perpetuating cycle of easy access and ease of use making for a way of life. The legacy of racial animus. The fear of guns being taken away, which drives the purchase of yet more. The related conviction that more guns equal more protection from more guns. Gun collection as a hobby. Americans loving (ahem) Freedom, as long as it’s that of a gun owner and not a gun victim. The reliance on a Second Amendment adopted at a time of muskets and citizen militias. Or maybe all of the above.

There’s yet another view of what drives our gun culture and gun deaths, courtesy of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the film Terminator 2. Though the context for this clip was the threat of nuclear holocaust, it works equally well for a different kind of self-destruction:

Another answer is even simpler and better than the one Ahnold offers. It’s asserted by the Australian comic Jim Jefferies, in mimicing a hypothetical American gun devotee:

“I like guns!”

Here are the two parts of Jeffries’ brilliant commentary on Americans’ penchant for firearms – though be forewarned, he’s very profane, is politically incorrect, and employs a word that’s apparently much more commonly accepted in Australia than here:

A Shot at Success?

Is there any light at the end of the gun barrel? There are glimmers of hope.

In 2022, the United States adopted the first national gun control law in decades, with even a bit of Republican buy-in. It looks like legislators voting for the bill suffered few if any negative electoral consequences. Though an increasing number of states have adopted “open carry” laws – which allow gun owners to carry firearms in public without the need for permits – last year also saw a range of state-level victories for gun safety.

As I’ve noted, loads of evidence indicates that countries and states with stronger gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths; maybe someday such data will mean something for our nation’s public policy.

In fact, we’ve seen instances of public opinion or legislation shifting on other issues more than previously thought possible. The examples range from acceptance of gay and lesbian marriage to last year’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which for all of its flaws was an unprecedented environmental step forward.

Still, manyof us have remained politically unmoved by the Sandy Hook and Uvalde school massacres, by a lone Las Vegas gunman murdering 60 concert-goers and injuring over 400 others, and by so many other atrocities that we lose count.

Now, the sure way to lose the fight is to lose hope. But for now, Americans face the reality of constantly shooting ourselves in the foot, the head, and everywhere in-between.

Stephen Golub, Benicia – A Promised Land: Politics. Policy. America as a Developing Country.

Benicia resident Stephen Golub offers excellent perspective on his blog, A Promised Land:  Politics. Policy. America as a Developing Country.

To access his other posts or subscribe, please go to his blog site, A Promised Land.

Ariana Martinez, Benicia School Board, Benicia Unified School District

Ariana Martinez for Benicia School Board, April 11 Special Election

Ariana Martinez has more experience working with a wide range of children than any other candidate

By Betty Lucas, Benicia resident, January 23, 2024

Ariana Martinez, LCSW, candidate for Benicia Unified School District Board of Trustees, Area 5

Ariana Martinez is the best candidate to serve as the Board Member (Trustee) for Area 5* of the Benicia Unified School District, in the special election that will be held on April 11. To start with, she has more experience working with a wide range of children than any other candidate. More specifically:

As a social worker with a Master’s Degree in Social Work, Ms. Martinez assists a wide array of children of all ages, as well as their parents and other family members, in dealing with various educational and other challenges. She weathered the dark days of the pandemic and all of the new problems it brought, helping children and parents get through the worst of the storm. A passion for helping families still drives her.

In addition, her experience with the Benicia school system is personal, direct and in key respects more recent than other Board members or candidates. After graduating from high school here, Ms. Martinez also helped her significantly younger siblings navigate their schooling in Benicia. She remains an active member and resident of our community.

How else do I know that Ms. Martinez is the most qualified candidate for Board Member? Because, after a careful, thorough application and review process, the BUSD Governing Board chose her for the position back in November. Along with her many other qualifications, the Board took into consideration her dedication to a fair and effective school system and knowledge of special education issues.

So if she was already chosen as the most qualified applicant, why is Ms. Martinez running for the same office now?

To start with, no one ran to represent Area 5 last year, resulting in the vacancy that the Board was required to fill. Any interested, eligible candidate (parent or non-parent) could accordingly apply for the post.

As a result, in November, the Governing Board interviewed four applicants for the position. Ms. Martinez was one of them. After comparing the needs of the district with the experience and backgrounds of each of the candidates, the Board chose by a majority vote to provisionally appoint Ms. Ariana Martinez.

Once Ms. Martinez was chosen, the three unsuccessful applicants – who, again, could each have run in an election for the position last year if they were so inclined – aired various concerns to the Board. They questioned Ms. Martinez’s qualifications, alleged conflicts of interest and suggested that the Board intentionally excluded parents of current pupils from serving on the Board.

The Board took these three unsuccessful candidates’ complaints very seriously. Each complaint was repeatedly reviewed in view of relevant policy regulations and with the assistance of legal counsel. The review firmly determined, among other things, that Ms. Martinez was indeed qualified for the post, that there was no conflict of interest, that Ms. Martinez could be appointed without creating a conflict of interest, that the Governing Board did not violate policy and that there was no reason to reverse the appointment decision made last November.

Ariana Martinez is not a parent, but she brings a wealth of professional and personal experience to the table. And let’s bear in mind that she does not need to be a parent to serve Benicia’s children admirably, just as she has not needed to be a parent to be a social worker serving children. Teachers do not have to be parents to teach; pediatricians do not have to be parents to see patients; the list goes on.

In addition, the majority of current Board members have had children attending Benicia’s schools, so it’s not as though the Board lacks experience in that regard.

Our school boards need people whose dedication and experience enable them to best meet the needs of the children and schools. Even better if their qualifications complement those of other board members. Ms. Martinez was chosen because she passed all of those tests with flying colors.

In response to the Board’s justified and carefully considered decision, the three unsuccessful applicants chose to in effect cost Benicia’s schools anywhere from roughly $60,000 to $80,000, by demanding the April 11 special election for Ms. Martinez’s position. One of their number is now an opposing candidate.

That’s $60,000-$80,000 that could have gone toward an additional student/teacher(s), school supplies, computer resources, athletic equipment, school maintenance or many other needs. That’s $60,000-$80,000 that would not need to be spent now if one of the unsuccessful applicants had opted to run for the position last year. That’s $60,000-$80,000 that Benicia’s schools cannot afford to spare.

Sadly, the expenditure of $60,000-$80,000 was triggered by the unsuccessful applicants circulating a petition that required only 62 signatures to initiate a special election. This imposition on the school budget works out to about $1,000 or more per signature.

Shame on those who decided to waste valuable school dollars on an unnecessary special election, especially since they could have easily run for the position last year and saved the schools all that money.

I sincerely hope that Area 5 residents vote for the most qualified person, Ariana Martinez, on April 11, 2023 or through the mail-in ballots that will be provided in March.

BUSD Area Map (click to enlarge)

*Area 5 includes: Mathew Turner School, Lake Herman, Water’s End areas.  Click on map to enlarge. Area 5 is in purple.

More information on this matter can be found by searching online for “Important Message From BUSD Governing Board re: Trustee Area 5 Appointment and Petition“.

Betty Lucas, Benicia


Betty Lucas
Benicia Resident