Category Archives: Benicia General Plan

Benicia Arsenal, Benicia CA, Benicia General Plan, Jefferson Ridge, Rose Estates, Valero Benicia Refinery

Elizabeth Patterson: Lessons from Benicia’s past have implications for Benicia’s near future…

Telling the Tale of the Tail That Wagged the Dog

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 - present
Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 – 2020

By Elizabeth Patterson (Benicia Mayor 2007-2020), May 29, 2025

The tale is about Sky Valley development for thousands of homes and businesses. Business as usual with city officials and land developers. “Gotta” build in the next undeveloped land. Need more housing to bring revenues to the city. We must grow more housing to survive. I always wonder how far we need to “grow” – to Fairfield, to Sacramento, to Reno? In other words, it makes no sense to say “we have to grow to survive”. What is the alternative? Let me make a suggestion or two.

When there was city leadership driving the development for Sky Valley (this is the Lake Herman area), residents began to question the collective vision of the city. This city vision is required by the State – known as the General Plan. Bob Berman, a planner and leader for smart growth and open spaces – testified and wrote that Sky Valley was the tail wagging the dog. He campaigned for updating the General Plan that would be the legal vison of the city. This was a pivotal moment for Benicia.

There was a citizen driven petition to stop the Sky Valley project. By a city council one vote margin the city driven development for Sky Valley was scuttled. The city council in the mid 90s by resolution created an advisory task force on the nature and extent of updating the General Plan. And by resolution established a seventeen-member General Plan Oversight Committee (GPOC) to prepare the General Plan.

The GPOC decision making was by consensus during open meetings that were scheduled to encourage public participation. Common and shared values were identified and agreed upon by consensus. Each goal and policy had to meet those common and shared values by consensus. Each legally required element and optional element had to be integrated. A kind of holistic process. The future vision was adopted with clarity and purpose. Each element – housing, transportation, conservation, economic development, heathy community – was driven by sustainable development as the overarching goal.

The Urban Growth Boundary Line restricting urban development replaced the thousands of proposed suburban houses. The Benicia Industrial Park association waged a stellar campaign to prevent changing zoning from light industrial to commercial and mixed use with their focus on expansion for industry along East Second. Their point was to avoid conflict with future residents who would complain about industrial noise, big trucks and other incompatible activities.

The GPOC appointed by the council and made up of voices from every corner of our community was tasked with drafting the general plan. GPOC held nearly a dozen panels of specialists on geology, property rights, economic development, urban design, affordable housing, community health, and hazardous waste to inform the committee and public. We had experts educating citizens so that opportunities and constraints – that is what trained urban and regional planners practice – were known and vetted in public.

So is the potential Valero closure the tail wagging the dog of development? Best to start with what are the objective standards for sustainable development. It sure is not building housing that creates more vehicle trips – in fact there is a state law that says just that.

And what does resiliency mean? Public Resources Code 71360 (Senate Bill 246, 2015) established the Clearinghouse to support holistic, science-based climate resilience decisions, planning, and projects across local communities, regions, and the State. Clearinghouse resources include toolkits and templates, example plans and projects, curated case studies, scientific studies, tools and data, guidance documents, and more.

Lastly, homage to historic downtown Benicia is perfect. There are approximately 482 historic towns and cities in California, though none as special as Benicia. And there is only one Historic Arsenal in California, here in Benicia – which is slated through the congressionally established Delta National Heritage Area as a destination for visitors and residents alike.

The current Benicia General Plan stipulates that goals and policies must meet sustainable development overarching goal. Decision makers for “cohesive new neighborhoods like Rose Estates, [Historic Arsenal] Jefferson Ridge and the Valero property” are not the unifying consensus vision of Benicians. Once again, the tail is wagging the dog of Benicia’s future.

Elizabeth Patterson, Mayor 2007-2020

Benicia, Benicia City Council, Benicia Economic Development, Benicia General Plan, Elizabeth Patterson, Sustainability, Sustainable development

Elizabeth Patterson: Do you support sustainable development?

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007–2020.

By Elizabeth Patterson, first published in the Benicia Herald on May 17, 2024

What is sustainable development?

Sustainable development has become a popular planning expression used abundantly but often not understood. “Sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Benicia General Plan, 1999).

Most of us get that we need to reduce greenhouse gases that drive climate change and increase climate instability; in short, stop adding carbon to the atmosphere.  The state has attempted to achieve this by adopting law to reduce vehicle miles traveled.  This makes sense because 40% of carbon is from transportation, and so far there are not enough electric vehicles to drive down the amount of carbon from transportation.

If you support sustainable development, it is helpful to ask questions about the City of Benicia’s projects and processes.  To what extent are the City’s decisions reducing greenhouse gases, or at least not increasing greenhouse gases?  Everything is connected – economics, public works, land use, recreation, culture – like bones in a skeleton – it all has to work together by connecting the dots.

The first dot is, fortunately, defined in the Benicia General Plan.  General Plans are the constitution of land-use planning.  Like the U.S. Constitution, one cannot just have an idea and expect to implement it without an assessment of its consistency with the General Plan and thus its “sustainability.”

It is not advice, it is the law.  Community development and sustainability are at the heart of the goals developed in the Benicia General Plan.  I have heard from time to time that the General Plan is old – it is – and out of date – not really.  Would a new, updated General Plan delete sustainable development?  Anything could happen I suppose – one needs to stay alert.

The second dot is that the Benicia General Plan is the principal policy document for guiding future conservation and development in the city. It reflects the community’s shared values and determination of what Benicia is and should continue to be ­– an uncommonly special place.  Just a quick read of the city-adopted Downtown Conservation Plan reveals how “uncommon” it is:

“The failure of the various attempts in the 19th century to transform Benicia into a major city has resulted in the retention of the scale and character of the historic downtown, which presents a rare view of the evolution of architecture from the mid-19th century to the 20th century in California.”

This means that one should not destroy the “evolution of architecture.”  Goals expressed by city officials at public meetings to be like American Canyon’s “hotel row” is not protecting the gem of the uncommon qualities of Benicia attracting residents, visitors, and businesses.

The third dot to connect is the public process.  You really ought to read about the public process involved developing the General Plan: start at page two here.  People were engaged, met together, received mailed surveys, and we even had help from University of California at Davis for outreach, especially to young people.

Want to know what young people wanted?  Check it out at the link. The General Plan is the outcome of a process which began with the General Plan Oversight Committee (GPOC) and the Work Program (1994–1997). It is a process in which the GPOC held more than one hundred meetings and, with public participation, identified the Goals, Policies, and Programs (GPPs) which are the heart of the General Plan.

The GPOC survey identified the following 10 issues receiving the highest level of support (69% or greater) as being important to the community:

    1. Feeling safe in residential areas at night
    2. Feeling safe Downtown at night [ed: this is before tree lights and mixed-use development in the early 2000s]
    3. Good public schools
    4. Balance growth to ensure maintaining Benicia’s quality of life
    5. Small town atmosphere
    6. Growth should maintain small-town character
    7. Citizens need a voice in growth decisions
    8. Attract businesses that sustain environmental quality
    9. Pedestrian-friendly streets in the Downtown and other commercial areas
    10. Library facilities

The fourth connecting dot is that while the City may decide to amend this plan, the primary position of the City will be to implement it as adopted. This will honor both the principle of stability and the extraordinary degree of community participation that went into the formation of the plan. In short, is the General Plan still in step with community values and conditions, to wit: sustainable development, reducing our carbon footprint for future generations’ quality of life?

The last dot to connect is the so-called Seeno project at Lake Herman Road and East Second.  If we are going to reduce vehicle-miles traveled, do we build the stuff that has been built over decades for car-centric development?  Or do we avoid business as usual and design and build projects that are walkable, clearly reducing the need for increasing vehicle miles travelled?

It is a simple question. Think of roads as bones.  The bones tell us how we move.

Remember Lucy, Australopithecus, discovery by Donald Johanson?  Lucy represents the transition from walking on four feet to walking on two feet by standing up.  Bones tell it all.

Well, the roads of development are exactly the same:  are we going to drive or walk?  The transportation  road design of any project will make that clear. Business as usual or taking the path for future generations to have a livable community and planet?

Here are three planning principles for walkability:

  1. Don’t cluster commercial development in one blob,
  2. Do integrated commercial in workplaces and near residential areas within walking distance, and
  3. Don’t build suburban sprawl.

Watch the decisions about projects and you will learn if we are meeting the vision of sustainable development.  God help us if we are not.

Elizabeth Patterson, MA Urban and Regional Planning
Mayor (2007-2020)

Benicia City Council, Benicia First Street, Benicia General Plan, Benicia Historical Society, Benicia Mayor Steve Young, Benicia Planning Commission, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Benicia Historical Society Seeks Public Input on First St. Height Limits at March 5 City Council Meeting

[Note from BenIndy: The comment the BenIndy received from the person who forwarded this Benicia Historical Society message was, “Our historic protections are unraveling right before our eyes. Are we the next American Canyon?” If you would like to participate in the March 5 Benicia City Council Meeting either to register your opposition or support to increasing the height limit in our Historic Downtown to four stories to allow for hotel development, instructions for accessing that meeting are available at the end of this post. The BenIndy is not affiliated with the Benicia Historical Society and they did not ask us to share their email communication to their supporters; we were forwarded the message by a follower of these developments and we share it to alert our community so they can participate in the public process. Emphases in this message were added by BenIndy.]

The Benicia Planning Commission is considering amending the development standards in the Town Core Zone in the Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan (DMUMP) to allow a height of up to four stories (50 feet) with a use permit. The Planning Commission did not adopt the proposed amendment and recommended that the City Council direct staff to conduct public outreach on this important issue. | beniciahistoricalsociety.org message.

Message from Benicia Historical Society:

On February 7, 2024 the Benicia Herald printed an Op-Ed from the Benicia Historical Society on the proposed building height increase in Downtown Benicia. The Benicia Planning Commission on February 8, 2024 considered amending the development standards in the Town Core Zone in the Downtown Mixed Use Master Plan (DMUMP) to allow a height of up to four stories (50 feet) with a use permit. The Planning Commission did not adopt the proposed amendment and recommended that the City Council direct staff to conduct public outreach on this important issue.

We would like to thank the dozens of people who attended the meeting in person and Zoom and spoke passionately on this issue. Your attendance and comments, along with the comments of the Historical Society made a difference in the outcome of the proposed height increase. We would also like to thank the Planning Commissioners for listening to the public and the concerns that were raised, and their thoughtful deliberation of the issue. It was a testament to public participation.

If you attended any of the Q&A meetings on the city’s financial challenges, you would have heard that increasing the height limit in our Historic Downtown to four stories would allow for hotel development.  At the Q&A session on February 27, at the Southampton Fire Station, Mayor Young reiterated that a four story hotel with a roof top bar was proposed for the corner of First and East D St. (the Avant Garden site). He further stated that additional hotels could be built on First Street similar to the hotel boom in American Canyon along Highway 29.

What hasn’t been discussed or presented is that the increase in the height limit to four stories (from 2.5 and 3 for housing opportunity sites) would apply to all buildings and vacant parcels in the Town Core Zone. Once approved, the development standards in the Town Core Zone to allow for four stories (50 feet) with a use permit will cause property values to rise and place economic pressure to redevelop, increasing the potential for demolition of existing buildings including historic buildings. It would also allow for four story buildings adjacent to residential homes on the side streets.

The Historical Society is concerned that the character and historic fabric of our Historic Downtown will unravel as development occurs with higher building heights. Our history is the city’s richest asset; it sets us apart from other Solano County cities, and downtown entices visitors to its small scale and walkability. Visit California, which markets California in partnership with the state’s travel industry, states this about Benicia. “As one of the oldest cities in California—and the third city to have served as the state’s capital, from 1853–54—Benicia is filled with vintage architecture and historic landmarks that date back to the Gold Rush, the Wild West, and the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad.” Our historic downtown matters and is our best marketing tool. If First Street is lined with multiple four story buildings overwhelming historic structures and disrupting the continuity of our small scale walkable downtown, who will be staying in the hotels?

On Tuesday, March 5, the Benicia City Council will hold a public hearing to adopt the resolution amending the height limit of the Town Core in the DMUMP allowing for four story (50 ft.) buildings on every parcel along First Street south of K Street. The staff report on this item mentions the Planning Commission recommendation to conduct further public outreach, but fails to propose any action on the recommendation.

We are all aware at this point of the financial issues of the city. We are aware that change will occur, as it always has, but what we need is thoughtful consideration of how change is allowed in our downtown which still reflects much of our history left by earlier generations. We are in favor of compatible development that follows existing zoning and complies with the Downtown Historic Conservation Plan. We need to value the historic integrity of downtown and be assured that our ability to market and attract visitors to our stores and restaurants will not be diminished. This can only happen with additional public involvement.

Sincerely,

Board of Directors
Benicia Historical Society

Accessing the March 5, 2024 Benicia City Council Meeting

The Benicia City Council Agenda Packet for March 5 is your first and best resource for accessing this meeting because it contains the best and most recent instructions. However, here is a quick guide for participating in person, by Zoom, or through written comment. The following was cribbed from that packet and adjusted slightly to accommodate the format used here.

How to Participate in the Meeting:

1) Attend in person at Council Chambers
2) Cable T.V. Broadcast – Check with your cable provider for your local government broadcast channel.
3) Livestream online at www.ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas.
4) Zoom Meeting (link below)

The public may view and participate with a public comment (via computer or phone) link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88508047557?pwd=cHRsZlBrYlphU3pkODcycytmcFR2UT09

  • If prompted for a password, enter 449303.
  • Use participant option to “raise hand” during the public comment period for the item you wish to speak on. Please note, your electronic device must have microphone capability. Once unmuted, you will have up to 5 minutes to speak.
  • To dial in with phone, view the Benicia City Council full agenda packet for March 5 here and follow instructions.

How to Submit Written Public Comments for this City Council meeting:

Besides appearing in person or by Zoom and offering public comments, members of the public may provide written public comment to the City Clerk by email at lwolfe@ci.benicia.ca.us. Any comment submitted to the City Clerk should indicate to which item of the agenda the comment relates. Specific information follows:

– Comments received by 2:00 pm on the day of the meeting will be electronically forwarded to the City Council and posted on the City’s website.

– Comments received after 2:00 pm, but before the start time of the meeting will be electronically forwarded to the City Council but will not be posted on the City’s website.

For inspiration for a written comment, check out what other Benicia residents have sent regarding the controversial DMUMP amendment.

Benicia, Benicia City Council, Benicia Economic Development, Benicia General Plan, Benicia's Budget Crisis, East Fifth Gateway, Elizabeth Patterson

Elizabeth Patterson: Blaming “stagnant population growth” for our budget crisis is wrong…and risky

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007–2020.

Stephen Golub submits many interesting and important writings in the BenIndy, the local newspaper, blogs and so forth.  His insights are helpful.

But I am disappointed about his statement about “stagnant population growth” as one of the reasons for the city’s budget woes.

It seems he has unintentionally been captured by the influence of “development machine” (which happens to be the title of a 25-year-old University of California book on developers and their practices).  A casual reference to “stagnant population growth” does not make population growth itself a legitimate path to economic prosperity.  For just a few examples, this EPA report titled “How Small Towns and Cities Can Use Local Assets to Rebuild Their Economies: Lessons from Successful Places” highlights what small cities can do for economic health with a stable population.

It is true that we need to provide for housing, and I like the idea of tasteful additions of duplexes, ADUs and multifamily units as infill development.  But, of course, it is the developers who build – not the cities – and developers have shown their true intentions when they have the chance to build expensive housing instead of affordable or middle-cost housing.  They go for the higher profit.  We are told they have to do this because of the fees, time to process and so forth.

But a recent incident in San Jose demonstrates that this is false.  In this case, the developers were approved with entitlements for high-density residential and mixed-use.  Perfect.  But when they learned that San Jose may have been late in approving its housing element, what did the developers do?  They resubmitted their plans under the “builders’ remedy” for high-end single family units and condos.  

Anyone read The Ox-Bow Incident?  You should.  It would teach you about what the “market can bear” the intentions of the commercial class – in this case, the railroads.  And yes, we are being railroaded into building anything, anywhere, no matter what.

So, back to Stephen’s piece.  The population growth issue is being used by the city in support of sprawl development out by Lake Herman Road.  Now back up a second and think about population growth and the need to develop outside of the city’s urban footprint.  If it were true that we must have population growth to thrive, when does it stop?  We just keep having population growth to the end of time?  Of course not.  This is a failed concept and people should stop saying that we must approve development inconsistent with the city’s General Plan due to stagnant population growth (General Plans regard the constitution of land use development and fealty to them is the law, not a choice).

To be clear, Stephen does not say he supports sprawl development.  He doesn’t.  In fact, he supports the East Fifth Gateway mixed-use plan. It’s a good plan and needs city initiatives to encourage development. But he does use the “stagnant population” theme, which is troubling.

I suggest that we dig deeper into this concept of population growth and connect the dots of congested roads, long lines at National Parks, food shortages and pollution.  There is a connection.  It is not likely that we will solve problems like these by having more people.

And lastly, population growth is projected to begin to decline near the end of the century.  This is certainly true in the US and California.  We could wind up with lots of empty residential development just like we are seeing with the over-built, retail commercial development that we were warned about years ago.

What then, is the answer?

Consider economic development with the increasing need for manufacturing that is green, more local shopping at smaller, more community-based stores, not to mention the arts and entertainment. Our aging population  will need services and housing accommodations over the next 25 years.

Thoughtful development with these needs in mind will create a place that people want to visit, shop in and work in.  This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea, but it does take hard work and we, the people, need to do our part and help with city revenues for our infrastructure.  And maybe with less stress the city council and staff can focus on the future so clearly described in the General Plan.

Elizabeth Patterson