by Norma Fox
In Sunday’s Benicia Herald a writer accused me of using “scare tactics” regarding ozone and the Seeno project in an effort to “mislead the public” into voting for Dan Smith for City Council instead of the incumbents, Schwartzman and Hughes.
Is it “scare tactics” to simply state the facts?
1. Data collected from an Air District monitoring station, located in Benicia during 2008, revealed that Benicia was 4th worst in the Bay Area for ozone levels. (Ozone is a carbon-based gas that is caustic to the lungs and aggravates allergies and serious respiratory disorders.)
2. The environmental impact report for the huge and poorly designed Seeno business park confirmed that the project would have exceeded government-established ozone thresholds and greatly increased our already high level of ozone.
3. Regardless of that, both incumbents were quite willing to approve the Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to get the project approved. This "statement" is a required document that governing bodies must sign in order to approve a project that exceeds recommended thresholds for ozone. Their stated "overriding consideration" that they felt justified exposing the entire town to even greater ozone was the expected city revenue the project would generate.
Both incumbents have stated that they don’t believe any large business park development could ever be designed in such a way as to stay within the Air District’s ozone thresholds.
To me, this opinion does not reflect 21st century business thinking. In today’s world of global warming and environmental crisis we need city leaders who understand that the old business development models – sprawling business projects spewing high levels of ozone producing carbon emissions onto the community - are simply no longer acceptable, nor are they necessary. There are many innovative solutions emerging for large scale business developments that are carbon-neutral, healthy and sustainable. We need city leaders who understand these new models and the new constraints of the 21st century and who will set a higher standard for developers.
4. The letter writer then went on to claim that Mr. Schwartzman “did vote to deny the project until Seeno would agree to a specific plan and a development agreement.” Well, I can only assume that this person was not closely watching the Council votes as this project wound its way through the review process in 2008. The fact is that throughout this process, both incumbents consistently voted to accept the project and move it forward, and they never demanded a "specific plan" or a "development agreement," they stated they were quite content with non-binding "conditions of approval."
5. The pivotal vote that finally stopped this dangerous project from final approval occurred on Oct. 7, 2008. In a 3-2 split, Patterson, Campbell, and Ioakimedes voted “no” on the resolution to approve the final EIR Addendum and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, while Schwartzman and Hughes voted to approve it. The results of this split vote (no thanks to the incumbents) essentially meant that this flawed project was dead, because a project cannot be approved without an approved EIR.
Based on the record of the incumbents, and based on Dan Smith’s public recommendations at those Council meetings, I can confidently say that Dan Smith is the only one among the current candidates whom I know you can trust to always stand firm with Seeno and insist that the next business park proposal he presents to us in 2010 must be a 1st class 21st century project that provides high-end jobs for Benicians and does not sacrifice our community health and quality of life.
Showing posts with label Seeno. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seeno. Show all posts
Monday, November 2, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Seeno project is the difference
by Norma Fox, Oct. 16, 2008
Wondering what’s the difference between the three leading candidates (Hughes, Schwartzman, and Smith) in the upcoming City Council election? They’re all well-meaning competent citizens with years of service to Benicia, so what’s the big difference?
The Seeno project is the difference!
When the Seeno project is developed (528 acres of open land, zoned industrial/ commercial, in the north corner of Benicia near Lake Herman Rd.) it will forever change the character of Benicia – for good or ill – depending on the degree of environmental and public health standards that our Council members insist upon.
Over that past couple of years, Mr. Seeno brought forward various versions of a mediocre Business Park plan, one that lacked any serious public transportation component for employees, and which would have snarled our traffic and vastly increased the extreme health-damaging effects of ozone in the air we breathe.
Throughout that process – while knowing that Benicia’s ozone levels are already fourth worst in the Bay Area, and knowing that Mr. Seeno’s plan would greatly exceed government established ozone thresholds – the two incumbents (Schwartzman and Hughes) were consistently willing to approve that project, demanding only cosmetic tweaks and non-binding promises from the developer.
Their response to the issue of increased ozone in our air (an invisible gas which instigates and aggravates everything from allergies to asthma and emphysema) was simply that it’s just an inevitable result of large developments and we just have to accept it.
By contrast, candidate and former Council member Dan Smith would attend those Council meetings and warn them not to vote for such a poor project, and urge them to require Seeno to go back to the drawing board and bring forward a fundamentally redesigned project, based on sustainability principles, that would not compromise our public health and our environment.
Early this year Mr. Seeno put the project on hold, but we can be sure he will be back with a new project proposal in the near future. And when that project becomes active again, Dan Smith is the only one in the choice of candidates who can be counted on to refuse to approve any elements of the Seeno project that will sacrifice our public health, our environment, and our quality of life on the alter of economic development.
Dan knows that we do not have to settle for less! Mr. Seeno can still turn a profit on a high quality “green” Business Park, one that conforms to Benicia’s rightful need for clean healthy air and respect for our environment.
Wondering what’s the difference between the three leading candidates (Hughes, Schwartzman, and Smith) in the upcoming City Council election? They’re all well-meaning competent citizens with years of service to Benicia, so what’s the big difference?
The Seeno project is the difference!
When the Seeno project is developed (528 acres of open land, zoned industrial/ commercial, in the north corner of Benicia near Lake Herman Rd.) it will forever change the character of Benicia – for good or ill – depending on the degree of environmental and public health standards that our Council members insist upon.
Over that past couple of years, Mr. Seeno brought forward various versions of a mediocre Business Park plan, one that lacked any serious public transportation component for employees, and which would have snarled our traffic and vastly increased the extreme health-damaging effects of ozone in the air we breathe.
Throughout that process – while knowing that Benicia’s ozone levels are already fourth worst in the Bay Area, and knowing that Mr. Seeno’s plan would greatly exceed government established ozone thresholds – the two incumbents (Schwartzman and Hughes) were consistently willing to approve that project, demanding only cosmetic tweaks and non-binding promises from the developer.
Their response to the issue of increased ozone in our air (an invisible gas which instigates and aggravates everything from allergies to asthma and emphysema) was simply that it’s just an inevitable result of large developments and we just have to accept it.
By contrast, candidate and former Council member Dan Smith would attend those Council meetings and warn them not to vote for such a poor project, and urge them to require Seeno to go back to the drawing board and bring forward a fundamentally redesigned project, based on sustainability principles, that would not compromise our public health and our environment.
Early this year Mr. Seeno put the project on hold, but we can be sure he will be back with a new project proposal in the near future. And when that project becomes active again, Dan Smith is the only one in the choice of candidates who can be counted on to refuse to approve any elements of the Seeno project that will sacrifice our public health, our environment, and our quality of life on the alter of economic development.
Dan knows that we do not have to settle for less! Mr. Seeno can still turn a profit on a high quality “green” Business Park, one that conforms to Benicia’s rightful need for clean healthy air and respect for our environment.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Seeno changes his mind
After Albert Seeno III begged the City Council to rescind their Nov. 18 denial vote on his Benicia Business Park application, insisting that he really wanted to work collaboratively with the community and was eager to get started building a green, sustainable, cleantech business park that the community would be proud of, no sooner had he signed the final agreement resolution in early March, than he came back to the City on March 19 and informed city officials that he had changed his mind about proceeding with the project "due to the downturn in the economy" and he has decided to put the entire project on hold until 2010 at least, "if it makes economic sense to do so."
(It should be noted that by getting the Council to rescind their denial vote on his project application, Mr. Seeno has saved himself at least two and a half million dollars in project impact fees. When he resumes the project in 2010 or later, he will not have to pay the City's current rates on project impact fees, but rather the rates that were in effect when he opened the original application.)
(It should be noted that by getting the Council to rescind their denial vote on his project application, Mr. Seeno has saved himself at least two and a half million dollars in project impact fees. When he resumes the project in 2010 or later, he will not have to pay the City's current rates on project impact fees, but rather the rates that were in effect when he opened the original application.)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Council approves stiff resolution on Seeno project application
After community comments from many citizens and long discussions and negotiations between Council members, the City Council voted unanimously on Feb. 17 to approve a revised resolution which rescinded their previous Nov. 18 denial of the Seeno project application and set many stiff requirements that must be adhered to in order for a new project plan to be developed and eventually approved. The resolution requirements, which will put the city and community in charge of the project visioning and planning process, include provisions such as a Project Manager, a Citizen's Oversight Committee, a community-based Specific Plan process, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and a legally binding Development Agreement between the developer and the City. The costs associated with all of these provisions will be funded by the developer.
It also calls for a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the developer and the School District to ensure that the District's health and safety concerns relating to Semple School will be adequately addressed and protected, and to compensate the District for attorney fees that they incurred as they sought expert advice on how to protect their interests. This issue of the MOU with the School District was not resolved at the Feb. 17 Council meeting and negotiations are continuing, due to the fact that Mr. Seeno balked at paying more than twenty percent of the District's attorney fees.
Assuming that the School District and Mr. Seeno are able to arrive at a mutual agreement on an MOU, the next step will be for the City to initiate a public process for the selection of a Project Manager, and for the City Council to appoint a Citizen's Oversight Panel. The Oversight Panel and the Project Manager would then work together to interview and select a professional consulting firm which would conduct the community-based Specific Plan visioning process and the Subsequent EIR.
It also calls for a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the developer and the School District to ensure that the District's health and safety concerns relating to Semple School will be adequately addressed and protected, and to compensate the District for attorney fees that they incurred as they sought expert advice on how to protect their interests. This issue of the MOU with the School District was not resolved at the Feb. 17 Council meeting and negotiations are continuing, due to the fact that Mr. Seeno balked at paying more than twenty percent of the District's attorney fees.
Assuming that the School District and Mr. Seeno are able to arrive at a mutual agreement on an MOU, the next step will be for the City to initiate a public process for the selection of a Project Manager, and for the City Council to appoint a Citizen's Oversight Panel. The Oversight Panel and the Project Manager would then work together to interview and select a professional consulting firm which would conduct the community-based Specific Plan visioning process and the Subsequent EIR.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
After community workshop on Seeno project, Council votes to rescind denial vote
On January 7, 2009, the City held a community workshop at Mary Farmer Elementary School to discuss the elements in Albert Seeno's Nov. 24 proposed Agreement Letter and to give community members a chance to express their concerns and their wishes for the Benicia Business Park development. All the community comments were recorded on a Wall Board and later summarized in a brief report.
To view an image of the Wall Board comments, click here.
To view the Summary Report, click here.
On January 23, Mr. Seeno submitted a revised Agreement Letter addressing some of the concerns heard at the community workshop.
CLICK HERE TO READ MAYOR PATTERSON'S EDITED VERSION OF SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.
CLICK HERE TO READ STAFF MEMO & TIMELINE REGARDING SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.
[Here is Mayor Patterson's Feb. 2 Commentary on the proposed Seeno Agreement]
Dear Reader,
Your attendance and attention is very much needed for Tuesday's council meeting at which the council will consider rescinding its "no" vote on the Seeno Project.
The Seeno Corporation has taken important steps to keep its current application active. A vote of this council to rescind its November 18, 2008 “no” vote on the current project would keep the application active.
We have some common ground in the community about the development of the Seeno site. It is fair to say that there is agreement on a project that provides jobs for a progressive green economy with clean tech and green tech research and development, a training center and possibly manufacturing.
We agree that the quality of life for our residents should be protected and enhanced. We do not want to degrade neighborhoods and Semple school environment, especially air quality, for economic gain.
There are two paths we can take: one path is the one begun after the “no” vote in November. At the November 18th meeting, staff was directed to propose options to the council for moving forward with a specific plan process. That path is still available and is preferred by me for several reasons.
The other path is the Agreement letter – the item on the agenda for Tuesday, February 3rd. Let me be clear that there is nothing in this Agreement that the city could not do without the agreement. This agreement has been advocated by some because a) the developer would stay at the table, b) the development may qualify for the federal "stimulus package". On both counts there is little substance. First, the developer is at the table. They own the land. Second the stimulus package is actually small for the whole country and we are not nearly as ready or needy to qualify in a very competitive era.
I do note the progress that has been made since 2002 whereby Seeno at long last agrees to a Specific Plan, and subsequent EIR to evaluate a future project in context of AB 32, and SB 375 as well as air quality, traffic impacts – including East 2nd below the freeway and potential urban blight for our downtown and impacts to Semple school and neighborhoods.
But more work needs to be done to make this agreement the kind of document our citizens can feel confidence and trust in - in us - your elected representatives - the city and ultimately the developer.
FROM MAYOR ELIZABETH PATTERSON, Feb. 2, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOLLOW UP NOTE ON FEB. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
At the February 3 City Council meeting, the Council voted their intent to rescind their previous denial vote on the Seeno project (the vote was 4-1 with Mayor Patterson voting no). But their vote did not mean they were agreeing to the terms of Mr. Seeno's January 23 Agreement letter. Instead, they instructed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for the Feb. 17 Council meeting which would include all the language changes and additional elements that were raised at the Feb. 3 Council meeting by members of the public, and by Mayor Patterson's revisions to Mr. Seeno's Jan. 23 letter. It remains to be seen whether the Council will be able to agree on the terms of the Resolution that is brought forward on Feb. 17, and whether Mr. Seeno will agree to it.
To view an image of the Wall Board comments, click here.
To view the Summary Report, click here.
On January 23, Mr. Seeno submitted a revised Agreement Letter addressing some of the concerns heard at the community workshop.
CLICK HERE TO READ MAYOR PATTERSON'S EDITED VERSION OF SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.
CLICK HERE TO READ STAFF MEMO & TIMELINE REGARDING SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.
[Here is Mayor Patterson's Feb. 2 Commentary on the proposed Seeno Agreement]
Dear Reader,
Your attendance and attention is very much needed for Tuesday's council meeting at which the council will consider rescinding its "no" vote on the Seeno Project.
The Seeno Corporation has taken important steps to keep its current application active. A vote of this council to rescind its November 18, 2008 “no” vote on the current project would keep the application active.
We have some common ground in the community about the development of the Seeno site. It is fair to say that there is agreement on a project that provides jobs for a progressive green economy with clean tech and green tech research and development, a training center and possibly manufacturing.
We agree that the quality of life for our residents should be protected and enhanced. We do not want to degrade neighborhoods and Semple school environment, especially air quality, for economic gain.
There are two paths we can take: one path is the one begun after the “no” vote in November. At the November 18th meeting, staff was directed to propose options to the council for moving forward with a specific plan process. That path is still available and is preferred by me for several reasons.
The other path is the Agreement letter – the item on the agenda for Tuesday, February 3rd. Let me be clear that there is nothing in this Agreement that the city could not do without the agreement. This agreement has been advocated by some because a) the developer would stay at the table, b) the development may qualify for the federal "stimulus package". On both counts there is little substance. First, the developer is at the table. They own the land. Second the stimulus package is actually small for the whole country and we are not nearly as ready or needy to qualify in a very competitive era.
I do note the progress that has been made since 2002 whereby Seeno at long last agrees to a Specific Plan, and subsequent EIR to evaluate a future project in context of AB 32, and SB 375 as well as air quality, traffic impacts – including East 2nd below the freeway and potential urban blight for our downtown and impacts to Semple school and neighborhoods.
But more work needs to be done to make this agreement the kind of document our citizens can feel confidence and trust in - in us - your elected representatives - the city and ultimately the developer.
FROM MAYOR ELIZABETH PATTERSON, Feb. 2, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOLLOW UP NOTE ON FEB. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
At the February 3 City Council meeting, the Council voted their intent to rescind their previous denial vote on the Seeno project (the vote was 4-1 with Mayor Patterson voting no). But their vote did not mean they were agreeing to the terms of Mr. Seeno's January 23 Agreement letter. Instead, they instructed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for the Feb. 17 Council meeting which would include all the language changes and additional elements that were raised at the Feb. 3 Council meeting by members of the public, and by Mayor Patterson's revisions to Mr. Seeno's Jan. 23 letter. It remains to be seen whether the Council will be able to agree on the terms of the Resolution that is brought forward on Feb. 17, and whether Mr. Seeno will agree to it.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Community workshop to be held before reconsideration of denial vote
On Dec. 2, the City Council briefly discussed the circumstances and terms of the Nov. 24 Seeno agreement letter (terms of the agreement arranged by Councilmember Mike Ioakimedes). They voted to hold a facilitated community workshop in January to allow the community to add their input to the process of refining and augmenting the terms of the agreement, and to dialog and negotiate with Seeno on those revised terms. The Council also voted to agendize, for the Feb. 3 City Council meeting, a reconsideration of their Nov. 18 project denial vote, and take a vote on whether to rescind that denial vote . Their reconsideration decision will be based on the terms of the revised agreement that will evolve out of the community workshop. In the meantime, their Nov. 18 project denial vote remains in full force.
The current version of the Seeno agreement has many pros, but also many cons. Some of the language is vague, or contains loopholes; some important provisions are not mandated, only suggested "if Council so desires;" and many important provisions are not mentioned. Please read the letter carefully and submit your comments and proposed additions to the City Council members. (If you email your comments to acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us they will be forwarded to all Council members.) And please plan to attend the public workshop in January when the date is announced, as well as the Feb. 3 City Council meeting.
The current version of the Seeno agreement has many pros, but also many cons. Some of the language is vague, or contains loopholes; some important provisions are not mandated, only suggested "if Council so desires;" and many important provisions are not mentioned. Please read the letter carefully and submit your comments and proposed additions to the City Council members. (If you email your comments to acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us they will be forwarded to all Council members.) And please plan to attend the public workshop in January when the date is announced, as well as the Feb. 3 City Council meeting.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Council to discuss reconsideration of Seeno denial vote on December 2
There will be a crucial discussion and vote at the City Council meeting Tuesday, Dec. 2, concerning the future of the Seeno Project in Benicia.
After the Council voted to deny the project on Nov. 18 (following up on a previous denial vote on Oct. 7), the property owner, Albert Seeno III, wrote a letter agreeing to major concessions and modifications to the current version of the project if the Council would reconsider and rescind their Nov. 18 denial vote. There are many pros and cons to this choice. Please read the Seeno letter and decide for yourself. (The letter is also posted on the city website as a link to item XI. on the City Council Agenda.
The discussion of the Seeno letter and a vote on whether to reconsider their Nov. 18 denial vote is scheduled (item XI.) on the City Council agenda to begin approximately 9:20 p.m. on Dec. 2. Please try to attend this meeting if you are able; inform yourself about this important decision that will greatly affect the future of Benicia and let the Council hear your wishes.
If you cannot attend the Council meeting, please email your comments to the City Council members. If you email your letter acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us , it will be forwarded to all Council members before the meeting.
This Nov.29 Vallejo Times Herald article provides some additional details about this recent new turn of events. You can also read background information about the Seeno project and the process that has brought us to this point at http://www.beniciafirst.com/
After the Council voted to deny the project on Nov. 18 (following up on a previous denial vote on Oct. 7), the property owner, Albert Seeno III, wrote a letter agreeing to major concessions and modifications to the current version of the project if the Council would reconsider and rescind their Nov. 18 denial vote. There are many pros and cons to this choice. Please read the Seeno letter and decide for yourself. (The letter is also posted on the city website as a link to item XI. on the City Council Agenda.
The discussion of the Seeno letter and a vote on whether to reconsider their Nov. 18 denial vote is scheduled (item XI.) on the City Council agenda to begin approximately 9:20 p.m. on Dec. 2. Please try to attend this meeting if you are able; inform yourself about this important decision that will greatly affect the future of Benicia and let the Council hear your wishes.
If you cannot attend the Council meeting, please email your comments to the City Council members. If you email your letter acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us , it will be forwarded to all Council members before the meeting.
This Nov.29 Vallejo Times Herald article provides some additional details about this recent new turn of events. You can also read background information about the Seeno project and the process that has brought us to this point at http://www.beniciafirst.com/
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Corporate development vs Community rights; who wins?
by Will Gregory, Oct. 2008
" Voting no on Seeno is the right first step."
Nicole Byrd–Greenbelt Alliance, Fairfield. (Bencia Herald. 9/24/08)
I noticed in the Vallejo Times Herald that Mayor Elizabeth Patterson stated to reporter Jessica York that she did not consider the " no " vote on Oct. 7 a victory.
" This was, take a deep breath and get back to the drawing table." Patterson said.
(See: Seeno plan flawed for Benicia: Council votes 3-2 to bar development. VTH. 10/9/2008)
I was confounded by this comment. With all due respect to the Mayor, in my estimation this was a victory.
A project as the Mayor has said, has been flawed, from day one.
The community has been waiting for this moment, this vote, for years.
Individual activists as well as collectivist clubs - Benicia First ; Green Gateway Group have worked tirelessly to secure this decision- one that favors the community over a recidivist corporation.
Using every means available the community was made aware of this corporate entity's criminal justice record, disregard for the environment and influencing peddling at the local government level: Newspaper/editorial accounts; documented records from the past; and eye-witness stories. This was a victory for community activism.
When you consider that this project would take over 20 years to complete, and as Vice Mayor Tom Campbell has stated, would cause "... traffic, grading, view, watershed and air pollution problems make the present Seeno Project unacceptable to Benicians."
(See: Inside Benicia.. City Coucil Update. April/2008.) ...this was a victory for our environment.
This was a crucial victory for the" rule of law. " In our esteemed and well thought out 1999 General Plan-the principal policy document for guiding future conservation and development in Benicia-one of the primary goals of the GP as stated on page #33-listed as Goal 2. PRESERVE BENICIA AS A SMALL SIZED CITY.
Policy 2.1.1: states- Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development and doesn’t detract from Benicia’s small town qualities and historic heritage.
This was a victory for a community vision by diversifying the city’s portfolio-(see: http://www.greengatewaygroup.org/) that will enable the city of Benicia to become the leader in Solano County for green growth, green jobs and a green future. This is the A+ project Mayor Patterson has been fighting for our " little town."
Still there are cheerleaders for Seeno..
The recent Vallejo Times editorial.(10/10/2008) asks "What message was city trying to send Seeno?" Is the VTimes seeking increased circulation and advertisers by this message? The local newspaper's editorial uses the tired rhetoric of fear-in this case, revenue stream for the city vs the values and character of our community.
Growth friendly, council members Alan Schwartzman and Mark Hughes voted in favor of the project. That is their right. Even though they both promised in their campaigns for council in 2005 that they wanted to protect our small town atmosphere. When it comes my turn to vote next November, I’ll be voting for candidates that keep their words about our special small town. I won’t vote for folks that have ties to the chamber of commerce or unscrupulous corporations. That is my right.
Other cheerleaders for Seeno included- (our) non-elected city staff : or more appropriately a pro growth shadow government. City Manger Jim Erickson; City Attorney Heather Mclaughlin; and Community Development Director Charlie Knox have been leading the charge for this project. The only prop missing- is the pom poms!
What is galling, here, is that these public representatives through their advocacy and strong influence have been avid supporters of a private corporation over and beyond their concerns for the public they are suppose to serve. I think it is fair to ask: What does the city staff not understand about the 3-2 vote? Has our city staff been coopted by the forces of growth promotion? Never a word about Seeno’s development history in Contra Costa County in general or more specifically its record in Pittsburgh influencing elections and politicians. Or how Seeno was involved in our own elections, here in Benicia.
See: "Connecting the Dots". Inside Benicia. City Council Update. Elizabeth Patterson.. April/2007.
It is important to note: that our well-paid public employees Ms. Mclaughlin ($189 thousand) lives in San Ramon and Mr. Knox ($158 thousand) lives in El Cerrito. Mr. Erickson ($197 thousand) lives in Benicia . (Source: Human Resources Dept., City of Benicia) Interesting, how some of these folks won’t have to deal with the ramifications of a decades long project that they are demanding- but won’t have to live with.
Now, these same folks, in today’s Vallejo Times Herald (See: "Staff asks council to delay Seeno vote." 10/19/08.) want another round of talks with our elected officials. After the final 3-2 vote! This is unprecedented in Benicia politics.
According to the Green Gateway Group web site- members received an earlier copy of the staff report. Activist Mr.Roger Straw had these cogent remarks:
" Let me say that [City] staff’s Report and Recommendation is an apparent effort to try and save the Seeno Project in its current form after the council's NO vote of Oct.7. [City] staff seems to be heavily invested in getting Council to approve this project. They believe it is a good project."
Mr. Straw continues.. " this can only be interpreted as an attempt to entice Council to reverse its vote of Oct. 7. [City ] staff has received Seeno’s o.k. on the plan to once again extend conversation- "
" ... many (citizens) are wondering if it is appropriate for [City] staff to recommend continuance, and to encourage project approval, given the council’s meeting of 10/7. It borders on [City] staff advocacy, or perhaps crosses the line.
" Voting no on Seeno is the right first step."
Nicole Byrd–Greenbelt Alliance, Fairfield. (Bencia Herald. 9/24/08)
I noticed in the Vallejo Times Herald that Mayor Elizabeth Patterson stated to reporter Jessica York that she did not consider the " no " vote on Oct. 7 a victory.
" This was, take a deep breath and get back to the drawing table." Patterson said.
(See: Seeno plan flawed for Benicia: Council votes 3-2 to bar development. VTH. 10/9/2008)
I was confounded by this comment. With all due respect to the Mayor, in my estimation this was a victory.
A project as the Mayor has said, has been flawed, from day one.
The community has been waiting for this moment, this vote, for years.
Individual activists as well as collectivist clubs - Benicia First ; Green Gateway Group have worked tirelessly to secure this decision- one that favors the community over a recidivist corporation.
Using every means available the community was made aware of this corporate entity's criminal justice record, disregard for the environment and influencing peddling at the local government level: Newspaper/editorial accounts; documented records from the past; and eye-witness stories. This was a victory for community activism.
When you consider that this project would take over 20 years to complete, and as Vice Mayor Tom Campbell has stated, would cause "... traffic, grading, view, watershed and air pollution problems make the present Seeno Project unacceptable to Benicians."
(See: Inside Benicia.. City Coucil Update. April/2008.) ...this was a victory for our environment.
This was a crucial victory for the" rule of law. " In our esteemed and well thought out 1999 General Plan-the principal policy document for guiding future conservation and development in Benicia-one of the primary goals of the GP as stated on page #33-listed as Goal 2. PRESERVE BENICIA AS A SMALL SIZED CITY.
Policy 2.1.1: states- Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development and doesn’t detract from Benicia’s small town qualities and historic heritage.
This was a victory for a community vision by diversifying the city’s portfolio-(see: http://www.greengatewaygroup.org/) that will enable the city of Benicia to become the leader in Solano County for green growth, green jobs and a green future. This is the A+ project Mayor Patterson has been fighting for our " little town."
Still there are cheerleaders for Seeno..
The recent Vallejo Times editorial.(10/10/2008) asks "What message was city trying to send Seeno?" Is the VTimes seeking increased circulation and advertisers by this message? The local newspaper's editorial uses the tired rhetoric of fear-in this case, revenue stream for the city vs the values and character of our community.
Growth friendly, council members Alan Schwartzman and Mark Hughes voted in favor of the project. That is their right. Even though they both promised in their campaigns for council in 2005 that they wanted to protect our small town atmosphere. When it comes my turn to vote next November, I’ll be voting for candidates that keep their words about our special small town. I won’t vote for folks that have ties to the chamber of commerce or unscrupulous corporations. That is my right.
Other cheerleaders for Seeno included- (our) non-elected city staff : or more appropriately a pro growth shadow government. City Manger Jim Erickson; City Attorney Heather Mclaughlin; and Community Development Director Charlie Knox have been leading the charge for this project. The only prop missing- is the pom poms!
What is galling, here, is that these public representatives through their advocacy and strong influence have been avid supporters of a private corporation over and beyond their concerns for the public they are suppose to serve. I think it is fair to ask: What does the city staff not understand about the 3-2 vote? Has our city staff been coopted by the forces of growth promotion? Never a word about Seeno’s development history in Contra Costa County in general or more specifically its record in Pittsburgh influencing elections and politicians. Or how Seeno was involved in our own elections, here in Benicia.
See: "Connecting the Dots". Inside Benicia. City Council Update. Elizabeth Patterson.. April/2007.
It is important to note: that our well-paid public employees Ms. Mclaughlin ($189 thousand) lives in San Ramon and Mr. Knox ($158 thousand) lives in El Cerrito. Mr. Erickson ($197 thousand) lives in Benicia . (Source: Human Resources Dept., City of Benicia) Interesting, how some of these folks won’t have to deal with the ramifications of a decades long project that they are demanding- but won’t have to live with.
Now, these same folks, in today’s Vallejo Times Herald (See: "Staff asks council to delay Seeno vote." 10/19/08.) want another round of talks with our elected officials. After the final 3-2 vote! This is unprecedented in Benicia politics.
According to the Green Gateway Group web site- members received an earlier copy of the staff report. Activist Mr.Roger Straw had these cogent remarks:
" Let me say that [City] staff’s Report and Recommendation is an apparent effort to try and save the Seeno Project in its current form after the council's NO vote of Oct.7. [City] staff seems to be heavily invested in getting Council to approve this project. They believe it is a good project."
Mr. Straw continues.. " this can only be interpreted as an attempt to entice Council to reverse its vote of Oct. 7. [City ] staff has received Seeno’s o.k. on the plan to once again extend conversation- "
" ... many (citizens) are wondering if it is appropriate for [City] staff to recommend continuance, and to encourage project approval, given the council’s meeting of 10/7. It borders on [City] staff advocacy, or perhaps crosses the line.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Council votes to deny Seeno project; City Manager tries to keep it alive...
At the October 7 City Council meeting, the Council voted to deny the Seeno project (527-acre Business Park in north Benicia). After hearing the results of a traffic study, and much deliberation, three of the five Council members remained unsatisfied with the sufficiency of the proposed mitigation measures which attempted to address the project's harmful impact on air quality and public health caused by excessive traffic.
Around 1 AM, Council took a vote on a Resolution to Approve the EIR Addendum (which was necessary in order to approve the project). It failed, 3 No votes (Patterson, Campbell, Ioakimedes), 2 yes votes (Hughes, Schwartzman). Therefore, the project could not be approved. City Attorney was instructed to bring forth a Resolution to Deny the project at the next Council meeting.
At the Oct. 21 Council meeting, City Manager Erickson submitted a report recommending that the Council “continue” the Seeno Item until the Nov. 18 City Council meeting because one of the five Council members (Campbell) was absent. He also produced several resolutions for their consideration. In addition to producing a resolution to deny the project and the EIR Addendum (as staff had been instructed to do), he also presented a resolution to approve the project (!) and he made a recommendation that the Council enter into “facilitated” discussions with the Developer to consider additional project requirements that might enable project approval.
Lacking a fifth vote, the Council did not act on the various resolution, and instead voted to "Continue the Item" to the Nov. 18 Council meeting.
With that as background, Roger Straw submitted the following column to the Benicia Herald:
Around 1 AM, Council took a vote on a Resolution to Approve the EIR Addendum (which was necessary in order to approve the project). It failed, 3 No votes (Patterson, Campbell, Ioakimedes), 2 yes votes (Hughes, Schwartzman). Therefore, the project could not be approved. City Attorney was instructed to bring forth a Resolution to Deny the project at the next Council meeting.
At the Oct. 21 Council meeting, City Manager Erickson submitted a report recommending that the Council “continue” the Seeno Item until the Nov. 18 City Council meeting because one of the five Council members (Campbell) was absent. He also produced several resolutions for their consideration. In addition to producing a resolution to deny the project and the EIR Addendum (as staff had been instructed to do), he also presented a resolution to approve the project (!) and he made a recommendation that the Council enter into “facilitated” discussions with the Developer to consider additional project requirements that might enable project approval.
Lacking a fifth vote, the Council did not act on the various resolution, and instead voted to "Continue the Item" to the Nov. 18 Council meeting.
With that as background, Roger Straw submitted the following column to the Benicia Herald:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rebuilding Eroded Trust
By Roger Straw
Benicia Herald, Guest column, October 29, 2008
In recent statements before and during the October 21 City Council meeting, I believe that our City’s professional staff exercised their authority in a questionable manner.
Prior to the meeting, City Manager Jim Erickson, Community Development Director Charlie Knox and City Attorney Heather McLaughlin submitted a Staff Report that many feel ignored the will of the Council. Many feel that in bypassing the will of our elected representatives, staff has thwarted the will of the citizens of Benicia, who elected the Council.
The record will show that on October 7, Council voted 3-2 in a very clear and difficult decision, to not go forward in considering the Benicia Business Park as proposed by Seeno and Discovery Builders.
After the motion and before the vote on October 7, Councilmember Ioakimedes said, “I have a question for the City Attorney: the motion that's on the floor right now is the resolution that is on [page] B45. There will be another motion for B47?”
McLaughlin replied, “No. There'll be another motion if you approve B45, to approve the resolution that's on page 183.” She went on, “The part that's on 47, and the part that's exhibit B, which is on page 110, will be included as part of the resolutions, so you don't need a separate action on those.”
Ioakimedes then said, “But if there's a vote to deny, then there isn't any subsequent vote, is there?”
McLaughlin: “Right.” Ioakimedes: “Ok. That's ... Thank you.”
Mayor Elizabeth Patterson then called upon Councilmember Alan Schwartzman.
Schwartzman, addressing McLaughlin, said, “…Ok, so if the one we've got on the table now passes, we can go back to the table, and think about other conditions. If the one that we have on the table now fails, we don't go any further, we're done. Is that the way I understand it?”
McLaughlin: “Well, then I would suggest that we do a Resolution of Denial. You all could direct me to go back, using the model from June 3rd, with the findings or whatever you came up with.”
I find this record explicit, and without loopholes. The vote to approve CEQA documentation failed, 3-2, under deadline to pass, and the city attorney was directed by the mayor at the end of the meeting -- and agreed -- to return to the next meeting with a formal “Resolution to Deny” to conclude the rejection of the Seeno project.
Contrary to staff’s suggestion on October 21 that a “no” vote on a motion to approve leaves wiggle room for more consideration, the reason for a formal Resolution to Deny is not to state positively an affirmation which was not yet voted. The resolution is a formal statement with legal findings to solidify -- for the record and for legal reasons -- that a no vote has been taken.
Benicia needs to sit up and take notice of all this. Not only because of the stakes in approving or denying the current Seeno project, but for reasons of good and trustworthy government.
It is my understanding that staff brought forward its controversial recommendation on October 21 based not only on its rather manufactured reading of Council’s action on October 7, but that certain comments were conveyed in writing by Ioakimedes after the vote that could have been interpreted – or misinterpreted – as a wish to keep the current proposal open for discussion.
At issue here is not whether City staff should be fired, but how to regain trust after a major blunder. The human heart does not regain trust easily, and the public, having come to a high degree of respect for all five Council members despite their differences, now faces a huge hurdle in understanding the motives and honor of those who serve the Council, and by extension, the public.
Over the course of the next month, we are told that all stakeholders will be invited to sit down in professionally facilitated meetings to discuss the project, in hopes of agreement and approval at Council’s November 18 meeting. One of the outcomes of those meetings is likely to be a regained sense of trust among us all, or a further erosion of trust.
Roger Straw is a member of Benicia’s Green Gateway Group. For more information on the group, visit www.greengatewaygroup.org.
Rebuilding Eroded Trust
By Roger Straw
Benicia Herald, Guest column, October 29, 2008
In recent statements before and during the October 21 City Council meeting, I believe that our City’s professional staff exercised their authority in a questionable manner.
Prior to the meeting, City Manager Jim Erickson, Community Development Director Charlie Knox and City Attorney Heather McLaughlin submitted a Staff Report that many feel ignored the will of the Council. Many feel that in bypassing the will of our elected representatives, staff has thwarted the will of the citizens of Benicia, who elected the Council.
The record will show that on October 7, Council voted 3-2 in a very clear and difficult decision, to not go forward in considering the Benicia Business Park as proposed by Seeno and Discovery Builders.
After the motion and before the vote on October 7, Councilmember Ioakimedes said, “I have a question for the City Attorney: the motion that's on the floor right now is the resolution that is on [page] B45. There will be another motion for B47?”
McLaughlin replied, “No. There'll be another motion if you approve B45, to approve the resolution that's on page 183.” She went on, “The part that's on 47, and the part that's exhibit B, which is on page 110, will be included as part of the resolutions, so you don't need a separate action on those.”
Ioakimedes then said, “But if there's a vote to deny, then there isn't any subsequent vote, is there?”
McLaughlin: “Right.” Ioakimedes: “Ok. That's ... Thank you.”
Mayor Elizabeth Patterson then called upon Councilmember Alan Schwartzman.
Schwartzman, addressing McLaughlin, said, “…Ok, so if the one we've got on the table now passes, we can go back to the table, and think about other conditions. If the one that we have on the table now fails, we don't go any further, we're done. Is that the way I understand it?”
McLaughlin: “Well, then I would suggest that we do a Resolution of Denial. You all could direct me to go back, using the model from June 3rd, with the findings or whatever you came up with.”
I find this record explicit, and without loopholes. The vote to approve CEQA documentation failed, 3-2, under deadline to pass, and the city attorney was directed by the mayor at the end of the meeting -- and agreed -- to return to the next meeting with a formal “Resolution to Deny” to conclude the rejection of the Seeno project.
Contrary to staff’s suggestion on October 21 that a “no” vote on a motion to approve leaves wiggle room for more consideration, the reason for a formal Resolution to Deny is not to state positively an affirmation which was not yet voted. The resolution is a formal statement with legal findings to solidify -- for the record and for legal reasons -- that a no vote has been taken.
Benicia needs to sit up and take notice of all this. Not only because of the stakes in approving or denying the current Seeno project, but for reasons of good and trustworthy government.
It is my understanding that staff brought forward its controversial recommendation on October 21 based not only on its rather manufactured reading of Council’s action on October 7, but that certain comments were conveyed in writing by Ioakimedes after the vote that could have been interpreted – or misinterpreted – as a wish to keep the current proposal open for discussion.
At issue here is not whether City staff should be fired, but how to regain trust after a major blunder. The human heart does not regain trust easily, and the public, having come to a high degree of respect for all five Council members despite their differences, now faces a huge hurdle in understanding the motives and honor of those who serve the Council, and by extension, the public.
Over the course of the next month, we are told that all stakeholders will be invited to sit down in professionally facilitated meetings to discuss the project, in hopes of agreement and approval at Council’s November 18 meeting. One of the outcomes of those meetings is likely to be a regained sense of trust among us all, or a further erosion of trust.
Roger Straw is a member of Benicia’s Green Gateway Group. For more information on the group, visit www.greengatewaygroup.org.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Questions and Answers on Seeno Project
A Statement from BeniciaFirst!
Question: Does this debate over the Seeno project represent a clash between pro-development and anti-development forces?
Nothing could be further from the reality of the case we have presented. The central issue is the quality and practicality of the currently proposed plan. What Seeno is proposing is a dated plan for a commuter-driven park--one that is geared to attract conventional warehousing and shipping, with a commercial area located at the freeway. Such an outmoded model ignores the new realities upon which Benicia First has focused. We face an energy-constrained future economic environment as highlighted by the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32, which mandates drastically reduced "vehicle miles traveled" generated by any new project. At the same time, there is a revolution in thinking about green industrial development together with an unprecedented demand for the kind of research and development campus for which Benicia is uniquely suited.
Question: If your concerns and hopes for achieving what you call a 21st Century project are spelled out in "Conditions of Approval" set by the City, would this not be a solution?
Essentially,this approach heightens one of the major drawbacks of the Seeno proposal. With a project that incorporates neither coherence nor a visionary comprehensive plan for a campus-style R&D park, attempting to reshape that project through hundreds of conditions simply underlines and emphasizes its flaws and its fragmented character. It would require permitting and overseeing virtually all detail of the development and attempting somehow to create coherence through endless, difficult management of detail. It would require enormous oversight responsibilities for the city extending through 25 years into the future. We do not think this feasible or realistic. Practical enforceability is questionable. Nor do we believe it possible to create an integrated, coherent, energy sensitive and future oriented project in this fashion.
Question: Didn't the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with the recently produced Addendum give this project a clean bill of health?
No. The voluminous comments submitted by Steve Goetz and Don Dean, both professional planners, detail the numerous flaws and inadequacies of the FEIR and the present revised proposal. We cite here just one dramatic example: its treatment of traffic increases and resulting air pollution impacting Semple School. If you think the health and safety of Semple school children are important, consider this. The FEIR contained a gross error in its estimates of future traffic on I-780 and East 2nd St., adjacent to Semple School. Real world traffic projections put that figure far over the prescribed limit for locating new schools. NOTE THIS CAREFULLY. The City Council must legally agree that these unavoidable negative impacts on air quality affecting the Semple School, are justified by "overriding considerations"; in short that the benefits of the Seeno project override those impacts. Would you want that Resolution of CEQA Findings signed?
Question: If this project is denied, won't that delay development for many years?
In reality the highly questionable phasing plan of the present proposal already delays the industrial development for five to ten years. Currently there is a great need and business climate for the kind of development that Benicia should be getting. Venture capital is flowing to precisely those research and development, future-oriented clean tech projects that are most desirable for Benicia. There will never be a more obvious window of opportunity for Benicia to get the green industrial development that enhances and serves the city while exploiting its unique demographics and location.
Question: With denial, what would happen next?
It would be essential for the city to send the strongest possiblesignal to Seeno that it wants to cooperate, proactively andimmediately, in helping the company to both advance a new plan and to recruit the kind of research and development ventures, (biotech and alternate energy enterprises and other supporting businesses) that are now demonstrating such promise for the future in the Bay Area.
Question: Does this debate over the Seeno project represent a clash between pro-development and anti-development forces?
Nothing could be further from the reality of the case we have presented. The central issue is the quality and practicality of the currently proposed plan. What Seeno is proposing is a dated plan for a commuter-driven park--one that is geared to attract conventional warehousing and shipping, with a commercial area located at the freeway. Such an outmoded model ignores the new realities upon which Benicia First has focused. We face an energy-constrained future economic environment as highlighted by the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB32, which mandates drastically reduced "vehicle miles traveled" generated by any new project. At the same time, there is a revolution in thinking about green industrial development together with an unprecedented demand for the kind of research and development campus for which Benicia is uniquely suited.
Question: If your concerns and hopes for achieving what you call a 21st Century project are spelled out in "Conditions of Approval" set by the City, would this not be a solution?
Essentially,this approach heightens one of the major drawbacks of the Seeno proposal. With a project that incorporates neither coherence nor a visionary comprehensive plan for a campus-style R&D park, attempting to reshape that project through hundreds of conditions simply underlines and emphasizes its flaws and its fragmented character. It would require permitting and overseeing virtually all detail of the development and attempting somehow to create coherence through endless, difficult management of detail. It would require enormous oversight responsibilities for the city extending through 25 years into the future. We do not think this feasible or realistic. Practical enforceability is questionable. Nor do we believe it possible to create an integrated, coherent, energy sensitive and future oriented project in this fashion.
Question: Didn't the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with the recently produced Addendum give this project a clean bill of health?
No. The voluminous comments submitted by Steve Goetz and Don Dean, both professional planners, detail the numerous flaws and inadequacies of the FEIR and the present revised proposal. We cite here just one dramatic example: its treatment of traffic increases and resulting air pollution impacting Semple School. If you think the health and safety of Semple school children are important, consider this. The FEIR contained a gross error in its estimates of future traffic on I-780 and East 2nd St., adjacent to Semple School. Real world traffic projections put that figure far over the prescribed limit for locating new schools. NOTE THIS CAREFULLY. The City Council must legally agree that these unavoidable negative impacts on air quality affecting the Semple School, are justified by "overriding considerations"; in short that the benefits of the Seeno project override those impacts. Would you want that Resolution of CEQA Findings signed?
Question: If this project is denied, won't that delay development for many years?
In reality the highly questionable phasing plan of the present proposal already delays the industrial development for five to ten years. Currently there is a great need and business climate for the kind of development that Benicia should be getting. Venture capital is flowing to precisely those research and development, future-oriented clean tech projects that are most desirable for Benicia. There will never be a more obvious window of opportunity for Benicia to get the green industrial development that enhances and serves the city while exploiting its unique demographics and location.
Question: With denial, what would happen next?
It would be essential for the city to send the strongest possiblesignal to Seeno that it wants to cooperate, proactively andimmediately, in helping the company to both advance a new plan and to recruit the kind of research and development ventures, (biotech and alternate energy enterprises and other supporting businesses) that are now demonstrating such promise for the future in the Bay Area.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Update on Seeno Project
The final fate of the Seeno Project was supposed to have been decided on June 3, 2008. But, that decision has now been postponed until October 2008…..
To back up a bit, in case you are not familiar with the Seeno project, it is a huge 527 acre commercial/industrial development proposed for the rolling hills in the north-east section of Benicia. It is officially named the Benicia Business Park but is commonly referred to as the Seeno Project because it is owned by Discovery Builders, an Albert Seeno company.
It is a controversial project because many citizens contend (with ample evidence) that the project, as currently conceived and designed, would radically damage the character and livability of Benicia forever. It fails to conform to many important goals in the General Plan relating to environmental and economic quality and sustainability, and the type of commercial businesses proposed for the development would likely weaken the Downtown as the City's central commercial zone, contributing to urban decay.
Following is a very rough outline of the review process so far on this project :
2007: The year of 2007 saw countless months of City Council meetings, votes, public hearings, public forums and presentations, and voluminous written and oral public comments on the Seeno Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It was well documented by citizen comments that the EIR was inadequate in many ways and did not conform to the requirements of the Calif. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Feb. 19, 2008: In spite of its flaws, the Council approved the final EIR, but this vote did not approve the project itself. The Council told the applicant (Seeno) that the project itself could not be approved unless they came back with a revised project containing significant environmental improvements and substantial documentation to support it such as a supplemental EIR and a new urban decay analysis.
April & May 2008: In April the applicant brought forth a significantly changed project containing several environmental improvements but still lacking the degree of improvements that were needed and called for by the Council, and lacking the supporting documentation that was expected.
There were several hasty hearings in April and May, with insufficient time for review and documentation, because of a statutory requirement that mandated a final vote on the project by June 3, unless the applicant approved a time extension.
June 3, 2008: (actually 1:00 a.m., June 4) Sensing that they did not have the necessary three votes for approval of the project, the applicant agreed to a time extension so that an additional traffic study could be conducted (after school resumes in late August) to determine the extent of traffic congestion on E. 2nd Street.
Oct. 7, 2008: The results of the traffic study will be presented to the Council, and the applicant will pressure the Council to approve the project.
A citizens’ committee, Benicia First, is calling for denial of the current project, so that a new project can be designed that is a better fit for Benicia and for the environmental and economic constraints and opportunities that we now face in the 21st Century. To read more about their ideas for an alternative vision for the Seeno project, see the Benicia First Website at http://beniciafirst.googlepages.com
(To read more details about the review process chain of events, see the Benicia First Blog at www.beniciafirst.blogspot.com )
To back up a bit, in case you are not familiar with the Seeno project, it is a huge 527 acre commercial/industrial development proposed for the rolling hills in the north-east section of Benicia. It is officially named the Benicia Business Park but is commonly referred to as the Seeno Project because it is owned by Discovery Builders, an Albert Seeno company.
It is a controversial project because many citizens contend (with ample evidence) that the project, as currently conceived and designed, would radically damage the character and livability of Benicia forever. It fails to conform to many important goals in the General Plan relating to environmental and economic quality and sustainability, and the type of commercial businesses proposed for the development would likely weaken the Downtown as the City's central commercial zone, contributing to urban decay.
Following is a very rough outline of the review process so far on this project :
2007: The year of 2007 saw countless months of City Council meetings, votes, public hearings, public forums and presentations, and voluminous written and oral public comments on the Seeno Project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It was well documented by citizen comments that the EIR was inadequate in many ways and did not conform to the requirements of the Calif. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Feb. 19, 2008: In spite of its flaws, the Council approved the final EIR, but this vote did not approve the project itself. The Council told the applicant (Seeno) that the project itself could not be approved unless they came back with a revised project containing significant environmental improvements and substantial documentation to support it such as a supplemental EIR and a new urban decay analysis.
April & May 2008: In April the applicant brought forth a significantly changed project containing several environmental improvements but still lacking the degree of improvements that were needed and called for by the Council, and lacking the supporting documentation that was expected.
There were several hasty hearings in April and May, with insufficient time for review and documentation, because of a statutory requirement that mandated a final vote on the project by June 3, unless the applicant approved a time extension.
June 3, 2008: (actually 1:00 a.m., June 4) Sensing that they did not have the necessary three votes for approval of the project, the applicant agreed to a time extension so that an additional traffic study could be conducted (after school resumes in late August) to determine the extent of traffic congestion on E. 2nd Street.
Oct. 7, 2008: The results of the traffic study will be presented to the Council, and the applicant will pressure the Council to approve the project.
A citizens’ committee, Benicia First, is calling for denial of the current project, so that a new project can be designed that is a better fit for Benicia and for the environmental and economic constraints and opportunities that we now face in the 21st Century. To read more about their ideas for an alternative vision for the Seeno project, see the Benicia First Website at http://beniciafirst.googlepages.com
(To read more details about the review process chain of events, see the Benicia First Blog at www.beniciafirst.blogspot.com )
Saturday, May 10, 2008
A win-win situation for Seeno?
To the editor: (Benicia Herald, May 9, 2008)
We want our City Council to keep downtown alive, to reap the most revenue possible, and leave an inheritance for Benicia for the 21st century; a legacy of intelligent land use planning, development, and a reputation for smart growth.
Benicia can be the leader in Solano County, situated perfectly between Davis and UC Berkeley for a high tech, green, campus style development in the Benicia Business Park. But Seeno wants us to wait for him to build his passé commercial development as a first phase, and wait for the second phase, proposed for 5-8 years from now…..that will be too late.
A huge opportunity for Benicia has arrived. There are investors RIGHT NOW ready to invest in and facilitate green technology and there are companies RIGHT NOW looking for places to build imaginative, clean-tech developments. There are also countless numbers of bright, educated people right here in this town, that are willing to help forge a vision for the Benicia Business Park, aka the Seeno Project.
The trick is what to do with the old project we have now. There is precious little to be recommended in terms of the needs of Benicia and the 21st century. The conditions recently styled by the City Staff are easily dodged or ignored. And we are not equipped to establish a development agreement (although that would be preferable to nothing at all). Seeno has said that they will not accept a development agreement anyway.
Maybe there is way to find a win-win solution here.
First, the Council must insist that Seeno give it time to learn about alternative, profitable possibilities.
Second, the Council needs to work with Benicia First in helping to create a forum with speakers from the field of clean-tech, with examples of cities working with these concepts of green industry and research and development campuses. Let’s listen to the experts.….let’s learn together.
Third, given that the future of Benicia’s well-being lies in Council’s hands, they must negotiate with Seeno from a position of strength and accommodate both the town and Seeno….. by opening their minds to the possibilities and find an alternative where Benicia AND Seeno can win.
This is not an easy task, but I sincerely believe that the Council has the ability to accomplish this for Benicia. The challenge is this: Why settle for second best? A brand new, clean tech project is the right choice for Benicia.
Susan Street
Benicia, CA
[Note: to learn about the Seeno Project and what it means for Benicia, go to www.beniciafirst.com , and to keep up to date on rapidly evolving developments in the approval process, go to www.beniciafirst.blogspot.com ]
We want our City Council to keep downtown alive, to reap the most revenue possible, and leave an inheritance for Benicia for the 21st century; a legacy of intelligent land use planning, development, and a reputation for smart growth.
Benicia can be the leader in Solano County, situated perfectly between Davis and UC Berkeley for a high tech, green, campus style development in the Benicia Business Park. But Seeno wants us to wait for him to build his passé commercial development as a first phase, and wait for the second phase, proposed for 5-8 years from now…..that will be too late.
A huge opportunity for Benicia has arrived. There are investors RIGHT NOW ready to invest in and facilitate green technology and there are companies RIGHT NOW looking for places to build imaginative, clean-tech developments. There are also countless numbers of bright, educated people right here in this town, that are willing to help forge a vision for the Benicia Business Park, aka the Seeno Project.
The trick is what to do with the old project we have now. There is precious little to be recommended in terms of the needs of Benicia and the 21st century. The conditions recently styled by the City Staff are easily dodged or ignored. And we are not equipped to establish a development agreement (although that would be preferable to nothing at all). Seeno has said that they will not accept a development agreement anyway.
Maybe there is way to find a win-win solution here.
First, the Council must insist that Seeno give it time to learn about alternative, profitable possibilities.
Second, the Council needs to work with Benicia First in helping to create a forum with speakers from the field of clean-tech, with examples of cities working with these concepts of green industry and research and development campuses. Let’s listen to the experts.….let’s learn together.
Third, given that the future of Benicia’s well-being lies in Council’s hands, they must negotiate with Seeno from a position of strength and accommodate both the town and Seeno….. by opening their minds to the possibilities and find an alternative where Benicia AND Seeno can win.
This is not an easy task, but I sincerely believe that the Council has the ability to accomplish this for Benicia. The challenge is this: Why settle for second best? A brand new, clean tech project is the right choice for Benicia.
Susan Street
Benicia, CA
[Note: to learn about the Seeno Project and what it means for Benicia, go to www.beniciafirst.com , and to keep up to date on rapidly evolving developments in the approval process, go to www.beniciafirst.blogspot.com ]
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Alternative Vision for the Seeno Project
Our local citizens' group, Benicia First!, calls for a more visionary and sustainable development:
by Jerome Page
We have great concern about the proposed Seeno project, its size, conceptual design and obvious impacts, including many not subject to adequate mitigation. What is entailed in this project as designed will irrevocably alter the character and quality of life of Benicia without the promise of a viable, prosperous long term future.
We do not believe that Benicia should settle for a backward oriented, conventional project framed as something of an extension of our present industrial park. The long term economic viability of that static twentieth century model would be in great doubt.
We believe that the site, the landscape, the quality of Benicia and its population make it an ideal setting for the types of creative, research oriented companies and enterprises that will be shaping the future of our country. We believe that a development that uses the beauty of our landscape as an asset is preferable to one that destroys it.
The country is beginning to awaken to concepts of sustainability, of green enterprises, of a future not dependent upon a petroleum economy and it is hungry for ideas. Numerous cities and towns are beginning to respond with projects and ideas for that future. We believe that Benicia has a unique opportunity to be among them.
There has already been talk of searching for a research and development center, that itself becomes a magnet for other creative and future oriented new enterprises. We would like to work with other groups and individuals in developing plans for such a search and developing the critieria for the type of development in which all Benicians can have confidence and pride.
We believe that Benicians working together can frame such a future for Benicia and we pledge to do everything in our power to assist in achieving that end.
by Jerome Page
We have great concern about the proposed Seeno project, its size, conceptual design and obvious impacts, including many not subject to adequate mitigation. What is entailed in this project as designed will irrevocably alter the character and quality of life of Benicia without the promise of a viable, prosperous long term future.
We do not believe that Benicia should settle for a backward oriented, conventional project framed as something of an extension of our present industrial park. The long term economic viability of that static twentieth century model would be in great doubt.
We believe that the site, the landscape, the quality of Benicia and its population make it an ideal setting for the types of creative, research oriented companies and enterprises that will be shaping the future of our country. We believe that a development that uses the beauty of our landscape as an asset is preferable to one that destroys it.
The country is beginning to awaken to concepts of sustainability, of green enterprises, of a future not dependent upon a petroleum economy and it is hungry for ideas. Numerous cities and towns are beginning to respond with projects and ideas for that future. We believe that Benicia has a unique opportunity to be among them.
There has already been talk of searching for a research and development center, that itself becomes a magnet for other creative and future oriented new enterprises. We would like to work with other groups and individuals in developing plans for such a search and developing the critieria for the type of development in which all Benicians can have confidence and pride.
We believe that Benicians working together can frame such a future for Benicia and we pledge to do everything in our power to assist in achieving that end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
