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 – 2020Elizabeth 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.
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 SUBCOMMITTEE. This is all about the SEENO PROPERTY, and appears in the CONSENT calendar, Item 20 B. on p. 7.
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
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
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.