Time for Action on the Solano General Plan

By Nicole Byrd, Solano - Napa Field Representative, Greenbelt Alliance

The Board of Supervisors will hold their first public hearing on the General Plan next week. Our community needs to show up in full force to let the Supervisors know that we want a plan that makes our quality of life better, not worse. Unfortunately, the proposed plan will drastically change Solano County for the worse! The plan could result in paving over as much as 30,000 acres of farmland – that’s more than the size of Fairfield. Implementing this plan will further deteriorate our air quality, and we already have the worst asthma in the state. Traffic will get much worse than it is and we could face water shortages. Please come to the public hearing and tell the Board that we want a plan that makes our community stronger, healthier and safer.

The first hearings are set for Tuesday, July 1, 2008 from 3:00 pm - 5:00 pm and 6:30 pm - 9:00 pm. Come to either time that works for you.

Additionally, the board will be holding a public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 – 2:00 p.m. Please also put this date on your calendar.

[See list below of additional hearings, agendas, and supporting documents.]

There are many aspects of this General Plan to be concerned about. I’ve included some points of concern below. Please feel free to address these in your comments, or bring up other issues.

POINTS OF CONCERN:

Health
--Developing more of our county land will increase traffic and make our air quality even worse.

Water
--The Draft Plan does very little to acknowledge Solano County’s water supply problems. More work needs to be done to ensure that development in the unincorporated areas will have a sufficient water supply.

Growth Concerns
--The land use diagram shows a significant increase in development in the unincorporated County over existing conditions. Why is the county growing right up against the cities’ limits?
--The extension of the Orderly Growth Initiative should be a part of any ballot measure put forth to the voters.
--Package sewage treatment plants are a bad idea (perhaps they may be ok for certain agricultural operations but not for residential subdivisions). These sewage plants will have growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands.
--The Cities of Vacaville and Dixon have expressed concern about the plan. How can this be a good plan for the County if the Cities don’t like it? I hope that the County will work with the Cities to resolve their issues.

Community Separators
--The 2008 Draft Solano County General Plan discusses five existing Community Separators but only maps the Tri-City and County Area. More work needs to be done in regard to protecting and expanding the community separators, including mapping all of them on the land use plan. For example, the Vallejo-Benicia Separator is discussed but there are no policies to strengthen this separator nor is it mapped on the Land Use diagram.

Special Study Areas
--The GP sets up four Special Study Areas - Collinsvillle, Middle Green Valley, Old Town Cordelia, and Suisun Valley. It looks like these areas will be studied further later, but the issues should be resolved now.
--The Middle Green Valley Special Study Area sets up this area for growth.
The plan does not deal with the water issues related to growth in this area.
The plan promotes 400 new houses in Middle Green Valley which is inconsistent with the city-centered growth model that the plan says it should follow.
The plan does not deal with the traffic issues that will be created by growth in this area.

Climate change/ greenhouse gas emissions
--The plan addresses this as a mere afterthought. They did such a poor job on this that the Attorney General has asked the County to put some real protections in place.
--We know that transportation is a major source of greenhouse gases. The car – dependent rural residential growth recommended by the General Plan update will make the problem worse!

Biological Resources
--The General Plan should be consistent with the proposed Habitat Conservation Plan.

Misc
--Why is this process being rushed to get the land use changes on the November ballot? We should be focusing on creating a plan that represents our community.

If you have additional questions, please contact:
Nicole Byrd, Solano - Napa Field Representative, Greenbelt Alliance, 1652 West Texas St. Suite 163, Fairfield, CA 94533, phone: (707) 427-2308
-------------------------------------------------------------

Public Hearings on the 2008 Draft General Plan

http://www.solanocountygeneralplan.net/
Click on the links below for agendas and supporting documents

July 1, 2008
9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Staff Presentation
2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Comments
3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Public Hearing
6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Public Hearing

Board of Supervisors Chambers
675 Texas Street, 1st Floor
Fairfield CA, 94533

For more information, see here.

Additional Public Hearings:
July 8, 2008
July 18, 2008
July 21, 2008
July 22, 2008
July 29, 2008

Find a new plan

by Bob Berman
Benicia

In July, the Solano County Board of Supervisors will consider the adoption of Solano County's new General Plan.

I recently reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the county's new General Plan and was astonished to find that it will result in 27 individual significant unavoidable adverse impacts. This means that of the impacts discussed in the EIR 27 will result in significant unavoidable damage to Solano County's environment. These impacts cover a wide variety of areas including land use, air quality, noise, transportation, hydrology, agricultural land, public services, cultural resources, aesthetics, and climate change. Pretty much everything that makes up the precious Solano County environment that we all would like to protect.

For example, according to the EIR new development as proposed in the General Plan will:

• Result in the generation of air pollutant emissions beyond established standards.

• Result in a significant increase in noise along county roadways.

• Result in a significant increase in traffic congestion - 27 different locations where traffic will be unacceptable are identified, including, of course, on Interstate 80, I-680, Lake Herman Road, and Curtola Parkway.

• Result in the conversion of nearly 22,000 acres of farmland to urban uses.

• Result in damage to scenic vistas and resources.

And there is more - there will not be adequate water to serve all of the projected development. New methods to obtain water and additional sources of water will be required.

This is not the future that I envision for Solano County.

I urge all Solano County residents to contact individual members of the board of supervisors and tell them it is time to stop the new General Plan and go back to develop a plan that protects, not destroys, Solano County's environment.

Note: To contact the Board, Click HERE, or email:
Michael Reagan mjreagan@solanocounty.com
Jim Spering jpspering@solanocounty.com
John Vasquez jmvasquez@solanocounty.com
Barbara Kondylis bkondylis@solanocounty.com
John Silva jfsilva@solanocounty.com

Supervisor's Coup

by Will Gregory, Benicia

In endorsing Linda Seifert for Solano County Supervisor, the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee stated: " Our County’s General Plan, which protects open space and manages sensible growth, is being updated by the Board of Supervisors, ...In order to ensure that we have a new General Plan which both conserves Solano County’s miles of rural land and focuses balanced, sustainable growth within our seven cities, we need a supervisor who will stand up for our environment, not rampant rural development by special interests."

Special to the( Benicia) Herald- 4/3/2008.
In contrast, over the past couple months, I’ve been able to show the community that Supervisor John Silva is well tied to developers and real estate entities by reading, researching and writing about his campaign disclosure statements: Public Documents- Form#460. Secured at the Voters of Registrar office at the County Government building in Fairfield. These files are extremely important because they give the citizen/voter a rare glimpse into the mind-set of our elected officials. Another way to find out how a public official is doing- is to check his voting record.

One issue in particular that caught my attention was the Solano County’s General Plan/ selection process for the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.

This 16 member group was selected by the BOS to update and enhance a document that hadn’t been revised in over 20 years.

Two original members of this group were (then) Benicia Planning Commissioner Bonnie Silveria and (then) councilwoman Elizabeth Patterson.

A letter written by Nicole Byrd of the Greenbelt Alliance and (7) members of the original and second CAC team to the Vallejo Times Herald- 3/15/08- is instructive:

"...the original Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC), a well balanced committee consisting of four people appointed by each supervisor was disbanded in Jan.2007. The Supervisors claimed the committee wasn’t getting enough done. However, the original committee- like the second committee–followed agendas designed by consultants, with some input from an agenda sub-committee. Additionally, the original CAC was developing a vision plan and attending a number of field trips to various county locations in order to be better informed when making decisions. The criticism that the original CAC was not doing enough was a smokescreen by those who wanted an excuse to remake the committee."

When you check the Supervisors agenda schedule-what happened next is very revealing.

Here the Supervisors ( Chairman Michael Reagan, John Silva ) moved to send the CAC issue to the Ad Hoc- Land Use and Transportation Committee- See: BOS minutes of 1/09/08.
The senior member of this committee is Mr. Silva: who recommended that the original CAC committee be dissolved and a new CAC selection process be established.
Note: What is interesting is that, because it was "Ad Hoc" they didn’t have to have public meetings. See: BOS meeting 1/23/08. Agenda Item #21 of the Committee Report.

"The supervisors met in closed session, without public input or public viewing and hand picked the ...the new members for the second CAC." From: the above Greenbelt Alliance letter.

Where is the respect for the public process or open and transparent government, here?

Even more disturbing the # 3 item of the new Citizens Membership Report specifically states: The CAC shall not consist of individuals who in their present capacity make decisions dealing with land use such as elected officials and appointed officials. e.g. City Council-persons or Planning Commissioners will not be allowed to serve on the new CAC.
Note: the only two members of the original committee who were either elected or appointed were Ms. Patterson and Ms. Silveria.

In a 4-1 vote the second CAC was formed. Note: Supervisor Kondylis expressed her opposition to the restructuring of the CAC Membership for the Solano County General Plan Update and did not feel that there was equal geographic, gender, or ethnic representation in the new restructuring.

When you check Ms. Patterson’s resume at her web site ( See: elizabethpatterson.com) it is full of the kind of top notch experience that should’ve been a worthy asset to this citizens group. Ms. Silveria has held numerous positions in our city government-again experience is an invaluable tool on a citizens committee.
So why would Mr. Silva, the most senior politician from Benicia, deny his own home town (native son) representation on the CAC ?

It is important to remember: Benicia was the only city in Solano Co., that voted overwhelmingly in favor of Measure J in 2006. The initiative would have extended Solano Co. Orderly Growth law for another 30 years. ( the OG law requires a " vote of the people " on any major development of agricultural land. Since Measure J failed, the OG law will expire in 2010.)

The revised General Plan draft, that has been developed by the CAC ( from which Mr. Silva removed all Benicia representation), " proposes giving the county authority " to develop agricultural land, rather than keeping development within city boundaries.
Benicia and Dixon were the only cities in Solano County that don’t have representation on the CAC.

It is also important to note that Benicia was not included in cities selected to have an Open House to preview the General Plan update. Other Solano cities had open houses, which included a walk through of the document and a question and answer session with CAC members. Benicians were directed to the JFK Library in Vallejo April 28th to be part of this important process.

So Benicia went from having two highly qualified CAC members to zero representation.

Mr. Silva, had many chances to pick another person from our city–he chose – Mr. Anthony Russo from Fairfield, to represent District 2. Mr. Russo, I have learned, is the son-in-law of Mr. Billy Yarbrough who is a major land owner in Solano County. Mr. Yarbrough owns B&L Properties, a real estate development company.
Please note: According to Mr. Silva’s 2007 campaign disclosure statement- Debbe Russo gave $1,000 to his campaign. Louise Yarbrough donated $2500 to Mr. Silva. There was also a $667 non-monetary contribution from B&L Properties.

In closing, Supervisor Silva (the third most senior politician in the county) uses his considerable muscle in closed session –Ad Hoc Committee- to deny his " home town" of any kind of respectable representation on the most important advisory committee affecting our city/ county in the last twenty years!

So we have a public official who has ties to developers-like- Seeno Co. and other special interest groups- on the one hand- and then using his years of experience as a politician and legislative maneuvering to make sure that two of our city’s most known and experienced public officials are fired . See: Mayor Elizabeth Patterson’s e-alerts. Subject: Solano Farm lands at risk-Supervisors and the Solano County General Plan. 3-15-2008 – for her reaction.

With the June 3rd District 2 election just weeks away, it is important to remember- Mr. Silva hasn’t been challenged in over 12 years- I think it is fair to ask, do we really want another four years of this kind of representation?

County's draft general plan deserves scrutiny

To: The Reporter Editor:
03/04/08 www.thereporter.com
submitted by Nicole Byrd, Fairfield.

After reading recent letters regarding the Solano County general plan update process, we felt that a few other points should be made about what occurred with the process during 2007.

First, let's not forget that the original Citizen's Advisory Committee, a well-balanced committee consisting of four people appointed by each supervisor, was disbanded shortly after Supervisor Jim Spering took office in 2007.

The supervisors claimed that the committee wasn't getting enough done; however, the original committee - as did the second committee - followed agendas designed by consultants, with some input from an agenda subcommittee.

Additionally, the original committee was developing a vision plan and attending a number of field trips to various county locations to be better informed when making decisions.

The criticism that the original committee was not doing enough was a "smoke screen" by those who wanted an excuse to remake the committee.

The board, chaired by Supervisor Mike Reagan, directed Supervisors Spering and John Silva as an "ad hoc subcommittee" to review the structure of the Citizens Advisory Committee.

Supervisors Spering and Silva met in closed session, without public input or public viewing, and hand-picked the vast majority of the new members for the second committee. Each supervisor was allowed only one appointment in addition to those selected by the subcommittee. This was a move to change the original, well-balanced committee and replace it with a more development-oriented group.
The timeline is another point of contention.

The committee was forced to make important decisions, often with insufficient data, just to meet the timeline. In fact, the timeline was clearly more important than careful study of the issues. Only Supervisor Barbara Kondylis has shown the wisdom to question this overly hasty process.

As members of both the original and second citizens advisory committees, we wanted the public to hear more of the story.

A new Solano County general plan is a critically important blueprint for how and where Solano will develop during the next 20 to 30 years. The new plan is quite different than the original plan and it deserves a thorough public airing and discussion.

We urge the county, in addition to the circulation of the general plan's Draft Environmental Impact Report for review and comments, to thoroughly and publicly present the draft general plan to solicit input from throughout the county and consider the concerns and comments expressed.

Nicole Byrd, Fairfield.
This letter also was signed by Patrica Gatz of Vallejo, Eva Laevastu of Green Valley and Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, all of whom, like Ms. Byrd, served on both the original 20-member and the second 16-member Citizens Advisory Committee; as well as original committee members Marti Brown of Vallejo, Jeanne McCormack of Rio Vista and Ian Anderson of Birds Landing.

What’s Wrong with the New General Plan?

By Gary Boudreaux
Green Valley Landowners Assn.

The Solano County Board of Supervisors is preparing a new general plan, setting forth principles to guide the evolution of the county in the coming 20 years. Unfortunately, there has been almost no direct citizen involvement in the creation of this plan, raising profound reasons for concern on the part of the average citizen.

So what's wrong with the county's new general plan?

• The proposed plan sets the stage for county-based development, even though our cities have provided effective jurisdiction over residential and commercial development since the county was established. (There is no obvious justification for this change, as the county shares in the fee revenues collected by the cities, and the county would not receive additional tax revenues after the costs of new services were paid.)

• The draft general plan is overly vague in its definitions or intent in utilizing lands within its newly created "municipal service areas," but it is clear that the county intends to encourage development in areas adjacent to existing cities, whether the cities want it or not. This will create poorly mitigated traffic, noise, diminished air quality, uncompensated use of city services, school crowding, and competition for utilities - all with no input from the affected cities.

• The proposed plan puts the county in competition with its cities for development, and interferes with cities' rights of self-determination and their established urban limit lines.

• The proposed general plan runs contrary to all well-known principles of smart or sustainable growth, in which development is planned in areas where there are existing services, not in scattered rural areas with no services or adjacent to municipalities where services must be duplicated.

• The notice of preparation for the plan's environmental impact report was issued before the draft plan was made available. It is obvious that the board is eager to get the plan completed and in front of the voters by Nov. 4 at any cost. The public comment period on the notice was to have expired Feb. 4.

• The proposed general plan clearly favors development interests and large landowners over long-term public interests. It fails to explain the justification for additional development in county areas. It especially fails to explain the general conversion of prime agricultural lands to residential development.

• The environmental impact report assessing the county's draft general plan is being prepared by the same company that was hired to write the general plan itself. How is it possible to objectively critique a work one has just written? Although permissible, the process smacks of conflict of interest and displays the single-minded urgency and profound lack of objectivity of the entire plan.

• County supervisors are establishing mutual sewer and water districts in rural areas to accommodate new developments, yet claim that these measures are not growth-inducing in and of themselves. These proposals, when written into our general plan, will radically and permanently alter rural Solano County.

• The proposed plan sets the stage for future rural land use designation changes by failing to establish concrete measures ensuring the protection of agriculture, habitat or open space. It addresses these critical concerns with vague platitudes.

• The rural character of Solano County is likely to be lost forever. Without public outcry, Solano County will go the way of Sacramento, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

The coming Solano County general plan is a plain and simple land grab and opens the door to unprecedented development, inevitably turning Solano County into an overpopulated, densely developed, urban cityscape. Our Board of Supervisors has no business developing the county in ways that are unsustainable by our infrastructure and our natural resources.

What can the average person do?

They can voice their opinions in writing to the Board of Supervisors.

They can vote against the acceptance of the general plan. Vote for those who care about our county heritage and the future of our county as we enjoy it today.

They can attend the Board of Supervisor meetings and speak out against the wholesale unbalanced sellout of Solano County to development interests.

Our children, and their children, deserve no less.

________________________________________________

Information about the general plan and the process for adopting it can be found online at http://solanocountygeneralplan.net/
_______________________________________________