Category Archives: Elizabeth Patterson

Benicia CA, Benicia City Council, Benicia city staff, Christina Gilpin-Hayes, Elizabeth Patterson, Stephen Golub, Tom Campbell

Stephen Golub: Public Service in Troubled Times

[BenIndy: This post was first published in the Benicia Herald (to subscribe to the Herald, scroll to the end to find instructions). You can find more from Steve not only on the BenIndy but also at A Promised Land: America as a Developing Country, where he blogs about domestic and international politics and policy, including lessons that the United States can learn from other nations. If interested, you may sign up for future posts by subscribing to the blog.]

Benicia resident and author Stephen Golub, A Promised Land

By Stephen Golub, originally published in the Benicia Herald, August 11, 2024

Though the presidential campaign is already reaching full steam, things will get even hotter once we hit Labor Day and the attacks, counterattacks, hard truths, big lies, TV ads, online snipes and everything else really kick in.

Which brings me to praising Benicia’s public servants.

It’s never been easy to be an elected, appointed or contracted city official. I’m no expert, but decades ago I worked in the New York City Council President’s office and then on an anti-poverty program in one of the Big Apple’s sprawling bureaucracies. In both jobs, the work was exciting, challenging, difficult and stressful.

Benicia is about as far from New York City as you can get, in terms of being a far more pleasant place to live and work (though I’ll endlessly praise to high heaven NYC pizza and delis, and still get a tremendous charge out of visiting there). But in terms of American society and government, we live in far more distressing times in 2024 than we did when I started my government work way back when, particularly as the current presidential race inevitably turns ugly. And that comes on top of the everyday hassles and even harshness that government personnel can experience.

So please, let’s bear in mind that especially for Benicia’s elected officials governing can sometimes be a thankless task for which the main compensation is certainly not financial, relative to the tremendous time and effort they put in. That compensation comprises a small monthly stipend, plus health care coverage of which some can’t or won’t avail.

The true compensation instead, I would think, is the  satisfaction of doing some good in some ways. A price they pay involves significant amounts of time away from family and friends, for endless meetings and other commitments.

They also experience frequent requests, demands, carping and even condemnation from folks who may mean well but don’t walk in the Mayor’s or City Councilmembers’ shoes. True, such matters come with the territory. But when they become all too frequent they can be burdensome. (I got a brief taste of this a while ago when I was apparently mistaken for Mayor Steve Young by a fellow I was introduced to at an apolitical social gathering. The guy’s first words to me were along the lines of, “I want to talk to you about lights on the tennis courts.”)

This is by no means an argument against criticism of our elected officials or city staff. The freedom and ability to do so is part of what effective democracy is all about.

Nor am I saying that all officials everywhere should be held in high esteem. We can look to other localities and the national scene to find folks who’ve violated the public trust, and perhaps to Benicia’s earlier years before its modern era.

And I’m certainly not suggesting that our city officials are flawless saints. They’re human, just like you and me.

But one of the many things that keeps Benicia special is that by and large (and I know there have been exceptions to this rule) these officials and the rest of us keep things civil and functional.

This civility is especially important as the national discourse turns nasty. The next three months will be rough. Unfortunately, post-election disputes may be even rougher. I’ll continue to voice my own strong thoughts and feelings about what may well transpire in the presidential campaign.

But this column, today, fundamentally focuses on Benicia. I’m thankful that the city is led by Steve Young, one of the most even-keeled individuals I’ve ever met. We may well need his calm leadership here during the troubled times ahead nationally.

I’m also thankful for our current Council as a whole for its service, as praised by retiring Councilmember Tom Campbell.

And for folks such as former Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and former Councilmember Lionel Largaespada, spanning much of Benicia’s political spectrum, with whom I may disagree on some matters but for whom I have considerable respect for their own service.

And for community leader Christina Gilpin-Hayes, who recently tossed her hat into the City Council electoral ring for November, as well as for others for similarly seeking office here this year.

And for the city staff who keep Benicia running and thriving.

In some ways, we’re in the calm before the national electoral storm right now. Let’s be grateful for what we have as our local campaigns unfold, and for the chance to make Benicia even better.

[The Benicia Herald  does not have an online edition. Supporting local journalism is crucial for ensuring communities are informed and facilitates transparency and accountability during important local events and initiatives. You can subscribe to the Herald by email at beniciacirculation@gmail.com or by phone at 707-745-6838.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Economy, Elizabeth Patterson, Environmental Impacts, Environmental review

Walking Back CEQA Protections Will Leave Californians Paying the Price for Ignoring Impacts

Introduction from Elizabeth Patterson, July 30, 2024

CEQA is the strongest planning tool we have. Before CEQA we had hydraulic gold mining ruining hills and raising Sacramento River by 15 feet – due to washed out sediment – making navigation difficult.

Before CEQA, and after gold, we had timber harvesting cutting down the world’s oldest and tallest trees.

Before CEQA we had water development, which led to crashing salmon species and extirpation of many native fish, and subsidence of 30+ feet that we the taxpayer are paying for – the repairs caused by private industrial farms over-pumping groundwater.

CEQA helped us focus on consequences of land development, thus protecting CA coast for all Californians not just wealthy property owners. CEQA helped us correct some water diversions thus recovering streams for fish.

CEQA helped identify cumulative effects of multiple projects.

CEQA provides consistent checklist to consider impacts and change design to avoid significant impacts.

CEQA can be used for selfish reasons, but MOST projects are approved, while few are challenged.

The development machine is the last extractive activity focused on wrecking land for ill-advised development. CEQA constrains bad projects. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best tool we have. Without it we will do to the land what we have done for gold, timber, and water. Mining California is profitable for a few, but leaves a wounded state for the rest of us. We pay the price for ignoring impacts.

For the life of me, I can’t understand how people making decisions think that build-build-build anywhere solves problems perpetrated by major land investors flipping it for a buck.

Addressing the wage gap is a good first step. Addressing capital gains tax to help fund affordable housing is a good step. Preventing corporate land speculation works. All of these actions actually address the root cause of affordable housing.

But no, the dismantling of the best planning tool in California is being proposed.

How sad. Half a century of clear-eyed assessment is in the way of bulldozing our way to ruin.

Little Hoover Commission’s Recommendations Undermine Fundamental CEQA Protections

Image by BenIndy, not original to the post.

Daily Journal, by Jennifer Ganata and Douglas Carstens, June 10, 2024

The Little Hoover Commission’s recent report, CEQA: Targeted Reforms for California’s Core Environmental Law, proposes to amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in six areas and recommends “in-depth studies” of several others. While Commission Chair Pedro Nava notes that California has “incalculably benefited from CEQA,” the report’s specific proposals would make fundamental changes to the law, dangerously undermining CEQA’s protections for communities and the environment.

The Little Hoover Commission is supposed to be a fact-finding body. Its charge is to perform the difficult task of collecting facts—hard evidence, verifiable data—to identify specific problems to be solved through legislative action. Here, the Commission failed to perform that function: not only are the report’s proposals to weaken CEQA unsupported by credible evidence, but in some cases, the report’s own facts and analysis contradict its recommendations.

The report characterizes its “reforms” as “targeted and limited,” measures that would “improve the functioning of CEQA … without sacrificing necessary environmental protections.” The public should not be fooled. The proposed amendments would dismantle key elements of CEQA, weakening environmental review requirements and threatening communities’ ability to enforce the law in court. Further, the report recommends these changes even while acknowledging “[o]ften CEQA’s protections have been most profound in the most disadvantaged in vulnerable communities, where negative environmental impacts have often been the greatest in the past.” Why would the Legislature choose to weaken CEQA when the state’s vulnerable residents most need its protections?

Five “reforms” exemplify the Commission’s determination to roll back longstanding CEQA protections.

First, the report proposes a new limitation on plaintiffs’ “standing” in CEQA cases, a restriction that does not apply to any other public interest litigation in the state. If adopted, this proposal would have a chilling effect on meritorious CEQA claims, closing the courthouse doors to many community members seeking to enforce law. Tellingly, the report includes no specific analysis or findings to explain the need for this drastic change.

Second, the report recommends an extreme proposal to restrict the public’s right to comment on environmental documents; the restriction would apply to any project, no matter how destructive. This proposal would undercut CEQA’s longstanding guarantee of public participation in the land use process—a hallmark of the law. Frontline communities already overburdened by pollution should not be prevented from speaking out against harmful developments. Their comments on environmental documents do not stop projects, but improve them.

Third, the report proposes a new, “simplified” exemption for all housing on sites that are at least three quarters surrounded by existing urban uses, “with no conditions or qualifications.” If adopted, this change would represent a radical departure from the Legislature’s previous approach to CEQA exemptions. Unlike previous legislation, this exemption would include no requirements to protect natural and cultural resources and no condition that some housing units be affordable. Nor would the exemption include any restrictions on the location or size of the project or any other safeguard against urban sprawl. Indeed, the “simplified” measure would be broader than any housing exemption ever enacted by the Legislature.

Remarkably, the report does not attempt to explain the need for this extreme measure. Instead, it concedes the Legislature has already adopted broad new exemptions for housing in 2023, and opines that “the state should wait to measure the success of recent reforms before embarking on major additional changes.” The Legislature should follow this advice, taking the time to assess how existing exemptions are working—and their possible pitfalls—before adopting new ones. They should also focus on the real impediments to housing production, such as high land and construction costs, high interest rates, market timing by developers, and lack of subsidies for affordable housing. Additional proposals to exempt housing from CEQA review will not solve the housing crisis because—as multiple experts have found—CEQA didn’t cause the crisis in the first place.

Fourth, the report recommends that the Legislature study a proposal requiring plaintiffs to post bonds when filing CEQA challenges to certain types of development projects. This extreme proposal would effectively do away with CEQA enforcement for such projects, as non-profit organizations, who already bear a heavy financial burden in bringing CEQA actions, could not afford the risk of paying the bond if they lose. Citizen suits are the primary driver behind CEQA enforcement, with the Attorney General bringing enforcement actions only rarely. Thus, where bond requirements are imposed, CEQA could be violated with impunity.

Fifth, the report recommends that the Legislature study a proposal that would permit lead agencies to “lock in” analytical models for “some reasonable period” regardless of any new scientific information that might emerge. This proposal is misguided. Allowing agencies to approve development projects based on obsolete science or discredited data undermines effective decision-making and threatens California’s environment. Again, the report provides no justification for this dangerous proposal. In particular, it does not document its claim that agencies must “throw out” analyses when new modeling options become available.

These proposals, long sought by the building industry, are not targeted “reforms,” but major alterations to CEQA’s essential components. If they are implemented, Californians will lose the vital protections that CEQA has provided for half a century. Projects that threaten public health and/or natural resources could go forward without transparency and mitigation—exactly the problem CEQA was designed to address. Environmental justice organizations and other vulnerable California residents would suffer the most. Because the report never makes a case for such a drastic transformation, the Legislature should view it with great skepticism.

Jennifer Ganata is Communities for a Better Environment’s (CBE) Legal Department Co-Director. CBE is one of the preeminent environmental justice organizations in the nation. Prior to becoming Legal Department Co-Director in 2024, Jennifer was CBE’s senior staff attorney since 2018.

Douglas P. Carstens is board president of the Planning and Conservation League and managing partner of Carstens Black & Minteer LLP. His law firm specializes in environmental, land use, municipal and natural resources law.

This article originally Appeared in the Daily Journal on June 10th, 2024.

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, 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