by Kathy Kerridge
The Benicia Herald recently published a letter questioning the wisdom of spending $845,000 a year on renewable energy for a saving of $50,000 a year. He said it didn’t make sense. If those were the facts it wouldn’t. However, he left out the most important part of the equation.
The city through these projects will save 70% of its utility bill. That is not a trivial amount since the city spends $1.5 million a year on energy. What the city is doing is spending money to save $1,050,000 (70% of $1,500,000) per year in utility costs.
One way or the other we would be spending this money, either on utilities or on the bond. The difference between the cost of the bonds and the utility bill is where the $50,000 per year in savings is realized. This is a conservative figure.
This project also freezes 70% of Benicia’s energy bill. In these days of rapidly escalating costs I think that is the only sensible course of action. I don’t think anyone believes the cost of energy will be going down in the next 20 years in light of the increased demand from developing countries, the increasing costs of extracting fossil fuels, and our reliance for oil on unstable and often dictatorial governments.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2011
Monday, November 2, 2009
Seeno Project: How they voted and why it matters
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.
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.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Dan is the man
by Jane Vanderwerf, Oct. 30, 2009
I've attended city council meetings periodically over the past couple of years and have seen council candidates Mr. Hughes and Mr. Schwartzman in action. My impression was that, when presented with a vote that forced them to choose between what a business wanted and what might be viewed by cautious people as protecting Benicia citizens' health, well-being and quality of life, their votes tended to be on the side of business. If you agree with this, by all means vote for one or both of these men. As for me (being one of those cautious people), I am voting for Dan Smith.
Mr. Smith is pro-business while at the same time being careful to ensure that both Benicia citizens and its businesses come out ahead in the process. He has served on the council before, in addition to having participated in other civic committees and volunteer organizations in town over the past 20-plus years. Dan Smith knows Benicia well and has a good feel for what its citizens want in terms of programs and services. If you are interested in maintaining Benicia's high quality of life and increasing the city's business tax revenues by electing a person dedicated to boosting First Street, the industrial park and our other commercial areas, vote for Dan Smith and only Dan Smith.
Please take the time to vote on Tuesday and remember, "Dan's the One."
I've attended city council meetings periodically over the past couple of years and have seen council candidates Mr. Hughes and Mr. Schwartzman in action. My impression was that, when presented with a vote that forced them to choose between what a business wanted and what might be viewed by cautious people as protecting Benicia citizens' health, well-being and quality of life, their votes tended to be on the side of business. If you agree with this, by all means vote for one or both of these men. As for me (being one of those cautious people), I am voting for Dan Smith.
Mr. Smith is pro-business while at the same time being careful to ensure that both Benicia citizens and its businesses come out ahead in the process. He has served on the council before, in addition to having participated in other civic committees and volunteer organizations in town over the past 20-plus years. Dan Smith knows Benicia well and has a good feel for what its citizens want in terms of programs and services. If you are interested in maintaining Benicia's high quality of life and increasing the city's business tax revenues by electing a person dedicated to boosting First Street, the industrial park and our other commercial areas, vote for Dan Smith and only Dan Smith.
Please take the time to vote on Tuesday and remember, "Dan's the One."
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.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Report on air ties refinery to ozone woes
By Tony Burchyns/Times-Herald staff writer
Posted: 05/08/2009 , Vallejo Times Herald
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_12325742
BENICIA - An air-quality study tied to the Valero refinery has revealed that Benicia was fourth worst in the Bay Area for ozone levels in 2008, according to results made public this week.
But even though the refinery daily emits ozone precursor gases, which combine with heat and sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere, its exact contribution to ozone creation is unknown, officials said.
"It is nearly impossible to determine on any given day what amount of ozone was formed due to emissions from a particular industry," said Eric Stevenson, an air-monitoring manager for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Stevenson said some ozone precursor gases are produced locally, mainly by auto traffic, Valero and the Benicia port. But some drift in from other areas and get trapped in Benicia's micro climate, he said.
According to the report from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Benicia - at a high of 75 parts per billion - was the fourth worst ozone offender in the Bay Area, right behind Bethel Island, Livermore and Concord.
The ranking was based on yearly averages from 23 Bay Area monitoring stations. The health effects of ozone exposure include respiratory damage and heightened sensitivity to allergens.
Benicia's ozone levels still met national standards for both 2007 and 2008, Stevenson said. The results were shared Wednesday night at the Valero Benicia Refinery Community Advisory Panel meeting at the Benicia Public Library.
Among those in attendance was refinery vice president and general manager Doug Comeau. Although Comeau did not speak about the ozone data, he did apologize publicly for last month's release of hydrogen sulfide at the refinery. The release produced a pungent "rotten egg" smell that could be detected as far away as Marin County.
Valero could be forced to pay a public nuisance fine in excess of $10,000, depending on the conclusion of an ongoing investigation into the cause of the incident, air district officials said this week.
Officials at the meeting also discussed creating a community air-monitoring system similar to one established in Rodeo in the 1990s.
The system would differ from the air district's measurements by detecting and reporting short-term air-pollution events on a local level, in real time on the Internet, said Don Gamiles, a principal at Argos Scientific, who spoke at the meeting.
"The air district does measurements based on state and fed standards," Gamiles said. "By definition, a community monitoring system is a different beast."
The 18-month air district study, partly funded by Valero under an agreement with the community, concluded in December.
Currently there is no ongoing, independent air-monitoring in Benicia. But Valero is working toward installing air-monitoring equipment purchased from Argos in 2005 on Tennys Drive near East Second Street. The station is expected to be running inside of two months.
Gamiles also discussed the possibility of installing what he called a "fence line system," which would analyze air quality at the edge of the refinery using light beams. The system, which his company sells, would cost about $35,000 to install, he said after the meeting.
Rodeo, which borders the ConocoPhillips refinery, has used a fence-line air-monitoring system for more than a decade.
see the report from Bay Area Air Quality Management at this link: http://bit.ly/7A16l9
Posted: 05/08/2009 , Vallejo Times Herald
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_12325742
BENICIA - An air-quality study tied to the Valero refinery has revealed that Benicia was fourth worst in the Bay Area for ozone levels in 2008, according to results made public this week.
But even though the refinery daily emits ozone precursor gases, which combine with heat and sunlight to form ozone in the atmosphere, its exact contribution to ozone creation is unknown, officials said.
"It is nearly impossible to determine on any given day what amount of ozone was formed due to emissions from a particular industry," said Eric Stevenson, an air-monitoring manager for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Stevenson said some ozone precursor gases are produced locally, mainly by auto traffic, Valero and the Benicia port. But some drift in from other areas and get trapped in Benicia's micro climate, he said.
According to the report from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Benicia - at a high of 75 parts per billion - was the fourth worst ozone offender in the Bay Area, right behind Bethel Island, Livermore and Concord.
The ranking was based on yearly averages from 23 Bay Area monitoring stations. The health effects of ozone exposure include respiratory damage and heightened sensitivity to allergens.
Benicia's ozone levels still met national standards for both 2007 and 2008, Stevenson said. The results were shared Wednesday night at the Valero Benicia Refinery Community Advisory Panel meeting at the Benicia Public Library.
Among those in attendance was refinery vice president and general manager Doug Comeau. Although Comeau did not speak about the ozone data, he did apologize publicly for last month's release of hydrogen sulfide at the refinery. The release produced a pungent "rotten egg" smell that could be detected as far away as Marin County.
Valero could be forced to pay a public nuisance fine in excess of $10,000, depending on the conclusion of an ongoing investigation into the cause of the incident, air district officials said this week.
Officials at the meeting also discussed creating a community air-monitoring system similar to one established in Rodeo in the 1990s.
The system would differ from the air district's measurements by detecting and reporting short-term air-pollution events on a local level, in real time on the Internet, said Don Gamiles, a principal at Argos Scientific, who spoke at the meeting.
"The air district does measurements based on state and fed standards," Gamiles said. "By definition, a community monitoring system is a different beast."
The 18-month air district study, partly funded by Valero under an agreement with the community, concluded in December.
Currently there is no ongoing, independent air-monitoring in Benicia. But Valero is working toward installing air-monitoring equipment purchased from Argos in 2005 on Tennys Drive near East Second Street. The station is expected to be running inside of two months.
Gamiles also discussed the possibility of installing what he called a "fence line system," which would analyze air quality at the edge of the refinery using light beams. The system, which his company sells, would cost about $35,000 to install, he said after the meeting.
Rodeo, which borders the ConocoPhillips refinery, has used a fence-line air-monitoring system for more than a decade.
see the report from Bay Area Air Quality Management at this link: http://bit.ly/7A16l9
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
A Real Choke Point
by Bob Craft, Benicia, CA
originally posted to Benicia Herald, July, 2008
Full disclosure up front. I am not a scientist or air quality expert – only an interested lay observer.
The recent spate of wild fires that so affected Benicia’s air quality in mid to late June was very instructive. Raw data, if I am interpreting it correctly, from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District – the folks that issue the bad air alerts – shows that for much of the time from 14-29 June, Benicia had the worst air in the entire bay area as far as fine particulate matter is concerned (the stuff coming at us from the fires). This is a real health issue matter and should be of concern to everyone.
During this heavily polluted period, this particulate matter (fine grain soot if you will) was measured in Benica, Napa and Vallejo along with five other places in the bay area. Based on the maximum concentrations reported, one can conclude that much of the bad stuff, perhaps mostly from the Napa – Solano fire – north of Green Valley, was funneled directly to Benicia by the wind currents and straight into our lungs if we needed to be outside. As noted, the maximum readings here were elevated well above normal during most of the last half of June, but from 23-25 June were incredibly high. On two of those dates, Benicia measured almost double that of Vallejo and a third more on the other date. As compared to Napa, local readings were even more dramatic.
Apart from the immediate health implications, we should be concerned. As near as I can tell, we had this kind of specific data on a timely basis only because the Air Quality District has a temporary monitoring facility in Benicia. Were it not for this facility, I guess we would have known how bad the situation actually was only from our eyes and lungs and general area alerts. Certainly data from the permanent facilities at Vallejo, Napa and elsewhere would not have come close to measuring the real severity of the situation in Benicia. Measurements from the other locations did show a general problem, but not that Benicia was apparently in its worst pollution storm in months and perhaps ever. We should be concerned that the detailed and location specific data we need for health warning and exposure prevention purposes was likely only available to us because a temporary facility is in our area –one that is in place for an entirely different reason.
Another reason to be concerned is that all of the environmental studies for Benicia with which I am familiar have used data collected by the permanent monitoring station in Vallejo to establish our air quality baseline. To this layman, the recent situation clearly shows that this is not an accurate way to establish such a baseline. In routine periods, i.e. where there are no immediate health risks and air quality is normal, Vallejo measurements may be more or less representative. But it is in non-routine periods such as the recent June activity – especially that of 23-25 June – that we need Benicia specific data to allow us to characterize our immediate environment. This is, after all, the one that affects us most directly, not Vallejo’s.
If I am interpreting the data correctly, the message here is that while we would have known we had a problem in June without the temporary monitoring station, its real severity would not have been documented. Without such a resident capability, we will not know in the future. In June, we could see the problem. The next time we may not be able to do so. Not all airborne pollutants are so obvious.
Our city leaders should treat this with urgency and do everything in their power to assure the Air District’s temporary facility remains in place until it is replaced by a permanent one. Our location as an apparent wind current funnel as exhibited by the June activity and situation with respect to the freeways seem proof enough we need a permanent real time monitoring station in Benicia that measures all harmful pollutants. For health and safety reasons, our citizens deserve no less.
originally posted to Benicia Herald, July, 2008
Full disclosure up front. I am not a scientist or air quality expert – only an interested lay observer.
The recent spate of wild fires that so affected Benicia’s air quality in mid to late June was very instructive. Raw data, if I am interpreting it correctly, from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District – the folks that issue the bad air alerts – shows that for much of the time from 14-29 June, Benicia had the worst air in the entire bay area as far as fine particulate matter is concerned (the stuff coming at us from the fires). This is a real health issue matter and should be of concern to everyone.
During this heavily polluted period, this particulate matter (fine grain soot if you will) was measured in Benica, Napa and Vallejo along with five other places in the bay area. Based on the maximum concentrations reported, one can conclude that much of the bad stuff, perhaps mostly from the Napa – Solano fire – north of Green Valley, was funneled directly to Benicia by the wind currents and straight into our lungs if we needed to be outside. As noted, the maximum readings here were elevated well above normal during most of the last half of June, but from 23-25 June were incredibly high. On two of those dates, Benicia measured almost double that of Vallejo and a third more on the other date. As compared to Napa, local readings were even more dramatic.
Apart from the immediate health implications, we should be concerned. As near as I can tell, we had this kind of specific data on a timely basis only because the Air Quality District has a temporary monitoring facility in Benicia. Were it not for this facility, I guess we would have known how bad the situation actually was only from our eyes and lungs and general area alerts. Certainly data from the permanent facilities at Vallejo, Napa and elsewhere would not have come close to measuring the real severity of the situation in Benicia. Measurements from the other locations did show a general problem, but not that Benicia was apparently in its worst pollution storm in months and perhaps ever. We should be concerned that the detailed and location specific data we need for health warning and exposure prevention purposes was likely only available to us because a temporary facility is in our area –one that is in place for an entirely different reason.
Another reason to be concerned is that all of the environmental studies for Benicia with which I am familiar have used data collected by the permanent monitoring station in Vallejo to establish our air quality baseline. To this layman, the recent situation clearly shows that this is not an accurate way to establish such a baseline. In routine periods, i.e. where there are no immediate health risks and air quality is normal, Vallejo measurements may be more or less representative. But it is in non-routine periods such as the recent June activity – especially that of 23-25 June – that we need Benicia specific data to allow us to characterize our immediate environment. This is, after all, the one that affects us most directly, not Vallejo’s.
If I am interpreting the data correctly, the message here is that while we would have known we had a problem in June without the temporary monitoring station, its real severity would not have been documented. Without such a resident capability, we will not know in the future. In June, we could see the problem. The next time we may not be able to do so. Not all airborne pollutants are so obvious.
Our city leaders should treat this with urgency and do everything in their power to assure the Air District’s temporary facility remains in place until it is replaced by a permanent one. Our location as an apparent wind current funnel as exhibited by the June activity and situation with respect to the freeways seem proof enough we need a permanent real time monitoring station in Benicia that measures all harmful pollutants. For health and safety reasons, our citizens deserve no less.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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:
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
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
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
Wednesday, June 25, 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
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
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 )
Friday, May 30, 2008
A Long Look at Silva's History
by Marilyn Bardet
My long experience of Mr. Silva's judgment as a politician forms a cautionary tale and reminder of what your June 3rd vote is worth, and why I believe it's time for change up county, where Mr. Silva now assumes leadership of what can only be called a "good ol boy" majority on the Board of Supes supported by big development interests.
At the League of Women Voters forum here, Mr. Silva appeared gruff and annoyed that, after 12 years, he was having to run "opposed". He never looked at Linda Seifert, as though she didn't exist at the table beside him. This is beyond an observation of absent civil decorum for a career politician. Mr. Silva doesn't tolerate well being opposed. He stiffens when challenged, and his best retort on a topic that gives him discomfort is silence, or a distortion of fact. This is a major pitfall for any politician, unless he or she has amassed so much power there appears to be no need to acknowledge differences of opinion, let alone facts that come to light that cast shadows on the illusion of a sterling record.
Mr. Silva's outright advocacy, in 1995, of Koch Industries' bid to build six giant petroleum coke storage domes at the port--adjacent to our Arsenal Historic District and artists' quarters--thankfully failed, but only by enormous effort of an alarmed, and finally united, community. Despite research to the contrary, much of which I and others worked hard to assemble, Mr. Silva vociferously pleaded how beneficial it would be to bring coke storage capacity and a 24/7 transport shipping terminal to our city that would serve six Bay Area refineries including Exxon at the time. He suggested the domes could fit directly below the Clocktower--a spot identified as a remaining army landfill--the only problem he saw being that stretch of Adams Rd., which he'd thought could be closed off.
He touted that the project would bring "good jobs for Benicians" (27 - 64 jobs all told), such benefit, in his opinion, apparently outweighing any public health, or environmental or cultural costs. He never once worried about the health risk: coke dust particulate has nickel in it and so is a carcinogen when inhaled, penetrating lung tissue, reaching the blood stream, this according to EPA, which also says soot aggravates asthma. He never seemed concerned about the devastation the project would instantly bring to the historic district and neighborhoods. He believed what Koch Industries told him: that he'd get a "state of the art", dust-free operation, with tons of revenue for the city. He lobbied hard for a mighty illusion, until citizens across all constituencies forced the project out--by petition and constant work to counter the falsities promoted by Koch Industries, and Mr. Silva, and others tied to him.
I also was exposed to Mr. Silva's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that, as a former city manager, he had any responsibility for the lack of oversight over the removal of the Braito dump and the subsequent construction of houses on lower Rose Drive atop wastes that had not been removed to the remaining East Canyon landfill, as had been ordered by the county. In 1991, a viscous stew of toxic "black material" was found below ground in several backyards, about which the negligence of Mr. Silva's alleged vigilance began to add up: an expensive, EPA-led 7 year investigation and final cleanup commenced. The anguish of many families on Rose Drive and those living on other streets where landfill wastes had been "moved to" and re-buried was barely acknowledged by Mr. Silva, if not outright dismissed.
The story that finally emerged to explain the mysteriously empty, methane-laced Blake Court, which nevertheless had been paved and readied for housing with street lamps and sidewalks, must have been known to Mr. Silva, much earlier than 1991: the city attorney had written a letter to the developer, refusing their offer of Blake Court for a city park, because of the "uncertainty of the land's condition". (I've saved a copy of that letter, this is a paraphrase.)
This may seem "old history"; but as we know, if we don't learn history, we're doomed to repeat it. I'd really like to believe Mr. Silva has changed his stripes with regard to development issues. But he didn't support Measure J that would have re-affirmed the county's "Orderly Growth Initiative" to protect county ag land from housing development and subdivisions. He's not helped Benicia be fairly represented in drafting the new county general plan. Why?
I'm voting for Linda Seifert.
My long experience of Mr. Silva's judgment as a politician forms a cautionary tale and reminder of what your June 3rd vote is worth, and why I believe it's time for change up county, where Mr. Silva now assumes leadership of what can only be called a "good ol boy" majority on the Board of Supes supported by big development interests.
At the League of Women Voters forum here, Mr. Silva appeared gruff and annoyed that, after 12 years, he was having to run "opposed". He never looked at Linda Seifert, as though she didn't exist at the table beside him. This is beyond an observation of absent civil decorum for a career politician. Mr. Silva doesn't tolerate well being opposed. He stiffens when challenged, and his best retort on a topic that gives him discomfort is silence, or a distortion of fact. This is a major pitfall for any politician, unless he or she has amassed so much power there appears to be no need to acknowledge differences of opinion, let alone facts that come to light that cast shadows on the illusion of a sterling record.
Mr. Silva's outright advocacy, in 1995, of Koch Industries' bid to build six giant petroleum coke storage domes at the port--adjacent to our Arsenal Historic District and artists' quarters--thankfully failed, but only by enormous effort of an alarmed, and finally united, community. Despite research to the contrary, much of which I and others worked hard to assemble, Mr. Silva vociferously pleaded how beneficial it would be to bring coke storage capacity and a 24/7 transport shipping terminal to our city that would serve six Bay Area refineries including Exxon at the time. He suggested the domes could fit directly below the Clocktower--a spot identified as a remaining army landfill--the only problem he saw being that stretch of Adams Rd., which he'd thought could be closed off.
He touted that the project would bring "good jobs for Benicians" (27 - 64 jobs all told), such benefit, in his opinion, apparently outweighing any public health, or environmental or cultural costs. He never once worried about the health risk: coke dust particulate has nickel in it and so is a carcinogen when inhaled, penetrating lung tissue, reaching the blood stream, this according to EPA, which also says soot aggravates asthma. He never seemed concerned about the devastation the project would instantly bring to the historic district and neighborhoods. He believed what Koch Industries told him: that he'd get a "state of the art", dust-free operation, with tons of revenue for the city. He lobbied hard for a mighty illusion, until citizens across all constituencies forced the project out--by petition and constant work to counter the falsities promoted by Koch Industries, and Mr. Silva, and others tied to him.
I also was exposed to Mr. Silva's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that, as a former city manager, he had any responsibility for the lack of oversight over the removal of the Braito dump and the subsequent construction of houses on lower Rose Drive atop wastes that had not been removed to the remaining East Canyon landfill, as had been ordered by the county. In 1991, a viscous stew of toxic "black material" was found below ground in several backyards, about which the negligence of Mr. Silva's alleged vigilance began to add up: an expensive, EPA-led 7 year investigation and final cleanup commenced. The anguish of many families on Rose Drive and those living on other streets where landfill wastes had been "moved to" and re-buried was barely acknowledged by Mr. Silva, if not outright dismissed.
The story that finally emerged to explain the mysteriously empty, methane-laced Blake Court, which nevertheless had been paved and readied for housing with street lamps and sidewalks, must have been known to Mr. Silva, much earlier than 1991: the city attorney had written a letter to the developer, refusing their offer of Blake Court for a city park, because of the "uncertainty of the land's condition". (I've saved a copy of that letter, this is a paraphrase.)
This may seem "old history"; but as we know, if we don't learn history, we're doomed to repeat it. I'd really like to believe Mr. Silva has changed his stripes with regard to development issues. But he didn't support Measure J that would have re-affirmed the county's "Orderly Growth Initiative" to protect county ag land from housing development and subdivisions. He's not helped Benicia be fairly represented in drafting the new county general plan. Why?
I'm voting for Linda Seifert.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Environmental Leaders Call Supervisor John Silva A Liar
Fairfield—Local environmental leaders expressed outrage today at a campaign mail piece sent to voters by Solano County Supervisor John Silva, who is currently seeking re-election. The mailer was sent to households throughout the 2nd Supervisorial District of Solano County, which includes Benicia, parts of Vallejo, Green Valley and Cordelia. The mailer asserts that "John Silva has a strong record on the environment." It also attempts to discredit his opponent Linda Seifert, and falsely portrays her as being overly pro-development.
Former Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm takes Silva to task for the falsehoods peddled in his mailer.
“I served with John on the board of Supervisors for eight years. It is sad to watch a career politician lose focus and try to portray himself as something that he isn’t. I respect someone who has different goals and vision, and stands on them. When John now tries to become the environmentalist it is just pathetic. He isn’t an environmentalist and never has been. He simply lost sight of what is important to his District and is now trying to convince people that the developer’s friend has put on a green coat” explained Duane Kromm, former Solano County Supervisors from district 3.
"The only green John knows," continues Kromm, "is from the dollars developers and speculators are investing in his campaign," a reference to the over 25,000 dollars in campaign contributions Silva has taken from land developers like Albert Seeno.
Local Sierra Club president Jim DeKloe also takes offense at John Silva's portrayal of himself as an environmentalist. "It is a sad day when the anti-environment candidate puts out a mailer that inaccurately paints him as pro-environment," DeKloe says. "John Silva has opposed our efforts to create a Regional Park system with protected areas and hiking trails. John Silva stated during a Board of Supervisors meeting that he does not think global warming is a serious problem. John Silva supported the expansion of the garbage dump into environmentally sensitive marsh areas. John Silva is trying to open up 30,000 acres of county land (an area larger than the City of Fairfield) for development. If John Silva is an environmentalist, Donald Trump is modest."
The Solano County Orderly Growth Committee's Jack Batson is equally critical of Silva's claims.
"John would have you believe black is white and white is black," says Batson. "It is reasonable to disagree on issues and have policy debates, but this is outrageous. Obviously, he is ashamed of his real record, and therefore has no choice but to invent lies and distortions."
John Silva will face challenger Linda Seifert in the June 3rd election.
Former Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm takes Silva to task for the falsehoods peddled in his mailer.
“I served with John on the board of Supervisors for eight years. It is sad to watch a career politician lose focus and try to portray himself as something that he isn’t. I respect someone who has different goals and vision, and stands on them. When John now tries to become the environmentalist it is just pathetic. He isn’t an environmentalist and never has been. He simply lost sight of what is important to his District and is now trying to convince people that the developer’s friend has put on a green coat” explained Duane Kromm, former Solano County Supervisors from district 3.
"The only green John knows," continues Kromm, "is from the dollars developers and speculators are investing in his campaign," a reference to the over 25,000 dollars in campaign contributions Silva has taken from land developers like Albert Seeno.
Local Sierra Club president Jim DeKloe also takes offense at John Silva's portrayal of himself as an environmentalist. "It is a sad day when the anti-environment candidate puts out a mailer that inaccurately paints him as pro-environment," DeKloe says. "John Silva has opposed our efforts to create a Regional Park system with protected areas and hiking trails. John Silva stated during a Board of Supervisors meeting that he does not think global warming is a serious problem. John Silva supported the expansion of the garbage dump into environmentally sensitive marsh areas. John Silva is trying to open up 30,000 acres of county land (an area larger than the City of Fairfield) for development. If John Silva is an environmentalist, Donald Trump is modest."
The Solano County Orderly Growth Committee's Jack Batson is equally critical of Silva's claims.
"John would have you believe black is white and white is black," says Batson. "It is reasonable to disagree on issues and have policy debates, but this is outrageous. Obviously, he is ashamed of his real record, and therefore has no choice but to invent lies and distortions."
John Silva will face challenger Linda Seifert in the June 3rd election.
Too Many Skid Marks
By Peter Bray, Benicia
While John Silva may have been working "behind the scenes" at the county level for the past 12 years, his earlier track record in Benicia left some serious skid marks:
• When I arrived in Benicia in 1983, we had a bad joke for a post office on the west side, and a less-than-laughable library on the east side. Who then later as city councilman voted against the new library?
• Where was Benicia's City Manager while the "hides and tires" were being "reburied" in the Rose Drive area? While Blake Court was being capped? While the "methane wells" were active and general toxic chaos ran down from the East Canyon and into the Strait?
• Who was our city manager while IT's toxic ponds were leaking in the hills above Benicia, and why did it require then Mayor Marilyn O'Rourke to take action that eventually resulted in their final closure?
• As city councilman, who supported the Coke Domes Project that would have turned the Benicia waterfront into the petroleum coke waste armpit for all of Contra Costa County's refineries? Fortunately someone did the numbers and showed that there was no employment or revenue gain for Benicia or our residents, only a degrading of our local infrastructure, and a genuine risk to the global environment. Duh?
• A new County General Plan is in the offing which would allow for developer's growth outside the existing city limits in the county. No thanks, John. And there's no Benicia representation on the committee that overviews this plan?
Just who is representing Benicia at the county level?
• How long does it take to balance a county budget? Four weeks? Five weeks? It's gotta be read and added up and subtracted from, That is not rocket science.
That leaves 47-48 weeks per year for other work. And for 12 years? Gimme a break!
• Contrary to some of John Silva's campaign literature, he did not single-handedly build the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge. That was a Caltrans project.
I'm voting for Linda Seifert. Period.
While John Silva may have been working "behind the scenes" at the county level for the past 12 years, his earlier track record in Benicia left some serious skid marks:
• When I arrived in Benicia in 1983, we had a bad joke for a post office on the west side, and a less-than-laughable library on the east side. Who then later as city councilman voted against the new library?
• Where was Benicia's City Manager while the "hides and tires" were being "reburied" in the Rose Drive area? While Blake Court was being capped? While the "methane wells" were active and general toxic chaos ran down from the East Canyon and into the Strait?
• Who was our city manager while IT's toxic ponds were leaking in the hills above Benicia, and why did it require then Mayor Marilyn O'Rourke to take action that eventually resulted in their final closure?
• As city councilman, who supported the Coke Domes Project that would have turned the Benicia waterfront into the petroleum coke waste armpit for all of Contra Costa County's refineries? Fortunately someone did the numbers and showed that there was no employment or revenue gain for Benicia or our residents, only a degrading of our local infrastructure, and a genuine risk to the global environment. Duh?
• A new County General Plan is in the offing which would allow for developer's growth outside the existing city limits in the county. No thanks, John. And there's no Benicia representation on the committee that overviews this plan?
Just who is representing Benicia at the county level?
• How long does it take to balance a county budget? Four weeks? Five weeks? It's gotta be read and added up and subtracted from, That is not rocket science.
That leaves 47-48 weeks per year for other work. And for 12 years? Gimme a break!
• Contrary to some of John Silva's campaign literature, he did not single-handedly build the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge. That was a Caltrans project.
I'm voting for Linda Seifert. Period.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Suburban sprawl: a costly, inefficient way to build a community
by Will Gregory
Jan. 23, 2008
"Sprawling suburbs are arguably the most economically, environmentally, and socially costly pattern of residential development humans have ever devised."
From Urban Sprawl to Sustainable Human Communities
Mark Roseland and William Rees
" Walking in Benicia’s downtown helps me keep a promise. I want to see the world in green, or walk more gently in the world and prevent further irreversible damage to the planet.’
Benicia Mayor- Elizabeth Patterson
" They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
Singer,song-writer, Joni Mitchell
Recently, out of curiosity I was going over the final thoughts and comments on the elizabethformayor.com web site. I read an interesting note from Councilman Tom Butt from Richmond. He mentioned smart growth and something called the Ahwanhee Principles. Being the curious type, I looked it up. I thought it might be interesting to share this data with the community.
But first I wanted to comment on this idea that mayor Patterson brought up on Dec.4th in the council chambers." Patterson addressed‘ fears’ that she was ‘a zealot tree hugging conservationist,’ by saying that she is zealous about the environment and has a vision of Benicia becoming the green gate to Solano County." (Benicia Herald- "New city council takes over" 12/6/07)
One of the biggest myths is that environmental protection hurts the economy. It doesn’t take much research to prove this wrong.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Stephen Meyer posed the question : Does environmental protection and regulation hinder economic growth, job creation, and overall production, as some business groups maintain?
He evaluated and ranked the 50 states based on two sets of criteria: Economic prosperity (gross domestic product, total employment, and productivity); and breadth and depth of environmental programs. Meyers found that:
* States with stronger environmental policies consistently out-perform the weaker environmental states on all economic measures.
* the pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder economic growth and development.
* there appears to be moderate, yet consistent, positive association between environmentalism and economic growth; and
* there is no evidence that relaxing environmental standards will produce economic growth.
Mayor Patterson idea of a green gate to Solano County is buttressed by another study- by the Institute of Southern Studies- Briefly stated: " The states that do the most to protect their natural resources also wind up with the strongest economies and the best jobs for their citizens."
(Source: Better not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. Eben Fodor. 2001.)
It would seem that Mayor Patterson has her hand firmly on the- environmental stewardship- rudder and is steering the community in the right direction.
With Solano County in the process of updating its General Plan and with counties like Marin and Ventura adopting the Ahwanhee Principles- I thought it might be of interest to community members to know about these innovative ideas. ( Note: there are no members of the Solano County GP Committee from Benicia ?)
The Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-efficient Communities were presented in 1991 at the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite National Park and written by members of the Local Government Commission. ( Excellent site: http://www.lgc.org/ )
These principles provide a blueprint for elected officials to create compact, mixed use, walkable transit oriented development in local communities; cities and counties across the nation have adopted them to break the cycle of sprawl.
Community Principles:
1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of residents.
2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.
3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit shops.
4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the communities residents.
6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens, and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
9. Public spaces should be be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.
10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.
11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees, and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.
12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.
13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to energy efficiency of the community.
Finally, the late Jane Jacobs in her book -"The Death and Life of Great American Cities"(1961) sums it up best if we don’t control sprawl and excessive growth.
" Traffic arteries, along with parking lots and filling stations, are powerful and insistent instruments of city destruction. To accommodate them, city streets are broken down into loose sprawls, incoherent and vacuous for anyone afoot. Downtowns and other neighborhoods that were marvels of close grained intricacy and compact mutual support are casually disemboweled. Landmarks are crumbled or are so sundered from their contexts in city life as to become irrelevant trivialities. City character is blurred until every place becomes like every other place, all adding up to Noplace."
Jan. 23, 2008
"Sprawling suburbs are arguably the most economically, environmentally, and socially costly pattern of residential development humans have ever devised."
From Urban Sprawl to Sustainable Human Communities
Mark Roseland and William Rees
" Walking in Benicia’s downtown helps me keep a promise. I want to see the world in green, or walk more gently in the world and prevent further irreversible damage to the planet.’
Benicia Mayor- Elizabeth Patterson
" They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
Singer,song-writer, Joni Mitchell
Recently, out of curiosity I was going over the final thoughts and comments on the elizabethformayor.com web site. I read an interesting note from Councilman Tom Butt from Richmond. He mentioned smart growth and something called the Ahwanhee Principles. Being the curious type, I looked it up. I thought it might be interesting to share this data with the community.
But first I wanted to comment on this idea that mayor Patterson brought up on Dec.4th in the council chambers." Patterson addressed‘ fears’ that she was ‘a zealot tree hugging conservationist,’ by saying that she is zealous about the environment and has a vision of Benicia becoming the green gate to Solano County." (Benicia Herald- "New city council takes over" 12/6/07)
One of the biggest myths is that environmental protection hurts the economy. It doesn’t take much research to prove this wrong.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Stephen Meyer posed the question : Does environmental protection and regulation hinder economic growth, job creation, and overall production, as some business groups maintain?
He evaluated and ranked the 50 states based on two sets of criteria: Economic prosperity (gross domestic product, total employment, and productivity); and breadth and depth of environmental programs. Meyers found that:
* States with stronger environmental policies consistently out-perform the weaker environmental states on all economic measures.
* the pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder economic growth and development.
* there appears to be moderate, yet consistent, positive association between environmentalism and economic growth; and
* there is no evidence that relaxing environmental standards will produce economic growth.
Mayor Patterson idea of a green gate to Solano County is buttressed by another study- by the Institute of Southern Studies- Briefly stated: " The states that do the most to protect their natural resources also wind up with the strongest economies and the best jobs for their citizens."
(Source: Better not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. Eben Fodor. 2001.)
It would seem that Mayor Patterson has her hand firmly on the- environmental stewardship- rudder and is steering the community in the right direction.
With Solano County in the process of updating its General Plan and with counties like Marin and Ventura adopting the Ahwanhee Principles- I thought it might be of interest to community members to know about these innovative ideas. ( Note: there are no members of the Solano County GP Committee from Benicia ?)
The Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-efficient Communities were presented in 1991 at the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite National Park and written by members of the Local Government Commission. ( Excellent site: http://www.lgc.org/ )
These principles provide a blueprint for elected officials to create compact, mixed use, walkable transit oriented development in local communities; cities and counties across the nation have adopted them to break the cycle of sprawl.
Community Principles:
1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of residents.
2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.
3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit shops.
4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the communities residents.
6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens, and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
9. Public spaces should be be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.
10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.
11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees, and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.
12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.
13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to energy efficiency of the community.
Finally, the late Jane Jacobs in her book -"The Death and Life of Great American Cities"(1961) sums it up best if we don’t control sprawl and excessive growth.
" Traffic arteries, along with parking lots and filling stations, are powerful and insistent instruments of city destruction. To accommodate them, city streets are broken down into loose sprawls, incoherent and vacuous for anyone afoot. Downtowns and other neighborhoods that were marvels of close grained intricacy and compact mutual support are casually disemboweled. Landmarks are crumbled or are so sundered from their contexts in city life as to become irrelevant trivialities. City character is blurred until every place becomes like every other place, all adding up to Noplace."
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)
