After community comments from many citizens and long discussions and negotiations between Council members, the City Council voted unanimously on Feb. 17 to approve a revised resolution which rescinded their previous Nov. 18 denial of the Seeno project application and set many stiff requirements that must be adhered to in order for a new project plan to be developed and eventually approved. The resolution requirements, which will put the city and community in charge of the project visioning and planning process, include provisions such as a Project Manager, a Citizen's Oversight Committee, a community-based Specific Plan process, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, and a legally binding Development Agreement between the developer and the City. The costs associated with all of these provisions will be funded by the developer.
It also calls for a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the developer and the School District to ensure that the District's health and safety concerns relating to Semple School will be adequately addressed and protected, and to compensate the District for attorney fees that they incurred as they sought expert advice on how to protect their interests. This issue of the MOU with the School District was not resolved at the Feb. 17 Council meeting and negotiations are continuing, due to the fact that Mr. Seeno balked at paying more than twenty percent of the District's attorney fees.
Assuming that the School District and Mr. Seeno are able to arrive at a mutual agreement on an MOU, the next step will be for the City to initiate a public process for the selection of a Project Manager, and for the City Council to appoint a Citizen's Oversight Panel. The Oversight Panel and the Project Manager would then work together to interview and select a professional consulting firm which would conduct the community-based Specific Plan visioning process and the Subsequent EIR.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
After community workshop on Seeno project, Council votes to rescind denial vote
On January 7, 2009, the City held a community workshop at Mary Farmer Elementary School to discuss the elements in Albert Seeno's Nov. 24 proposed Agreement Letter and to give community members a chance to express their concerns and their wishes for the Benicia Business Park development. All the community comments were recorded on a Wall Board and later summarized in a brief report.
To view an image of the Wall Board comments, click here.
To view the Summary Report, click here.
On January 23, Mr. Seeno submitted a revised Agreement Letter addressing some of the concerns heard at the community workshop.
CLICK HERE TO READ MAYOR PATTERSON'S EDITED VERSION OF SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.
CLICK HERE TO READ STAFF MEMO & TIMELINE REGARDING SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.
[Here is Mayor Patterson's Feb. 2 Commentary on the proposed Seeno Agreement]
Dear Reader,
Your attendance and attention is very much needed for Tuesday's council meeting at which the council will consider rescinding its "no" vote on the Seeno Project.
The Seeno Corporation has taken important steps to keep its current application active. A vote of this council to rescind its November 18, 2008 “no” vote on the current project would keep the application active.
We have some common ground in the community about the development of the Seeno site. It is fair to say that there is agreement on a project that provides jobs for a progressive green economy with clean tech and green tech research and development, a training center and possibly manufacturing.
We agree that the quality of life for our residents should be protected and enhanced. We do not want to degrade neighborhoods and Semple school environment, especially air quality, for economic gain.
There are two paths we can take: one path is the one begun after the “no” vote in November. At the November 18th meeting, staff was directed to propose options to the council for moving forward with a specific plan process. That path is still available and is preferred by me for several reasons.
The other path is the Agreement letter – the item on the agenda for Tuesday, February 3rd. Let me be clear that there is nothing in this Agreement that the city could not do without the agreement. This agreement has been advocated by some because a) the developer would stay at the table, b) the development may qualify for the federal "stimulus package". On both counts there is little substance. First, the developer is at the table. They own the land. Second the stimulus package is actually small for the whole country and we are not nearly as ready or needy to qualify in a very competitive era.
I do note the progress that has been made since 2002 whereby Seeno at long last agrees to a Specific Plan, and subsequent EIR to evaluate a future project in context of AB 32, and SB 375 as well as air quality, traffic impacts – including East 2nd below the freeway and potential urban blight for our downtown and impacts to Semple school and neighborhoods.
But more work needs to be done to make this agreement the kind of document our citizens can feel confidence and trust in - in us - your elected representatives - the city and ultimately the developer.
FROM MAYOR ELIZABETH PATTERSON, Feb. 2, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOLLOW UP NOTE ON FEB. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
At the February 3 City Council meeting, the Council voted their intent to rescind their previous denial vote on the Seeno project (the vote was 4-1 with Mayor Patterson voting no). But their vote did not mean they were agreeing to the terms of Mr. Seeno's January 23 Agreement letter. Instead, they instructed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for the Feb. 17 Council meeting which would include all the language changes and additional elements that were raised at the Feb. 3 Council meeting by members of the public, and by Mayor Patterson's revisions to Mr. Seeno's Jan. 23 letter. It remains to be seen whether the Council will be able to agree on the terms of the Resolution that is brought forward on Feb. 17, and whether Mr. Seeno will agree to it.
To view an image of the Wall Board comments, click here.
To view the Summary Report, click here.
On January 23, Mr. Seeno submitted a revised Agreement Letter addressing some of the concerns heard at the community workshop.
CLICK HERE TO READ MAYOR PATTERSON'S EDITED VERSION OF SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.
CLICK HERE TO READ STAFF MEMO & TIMELINE REGARDING SEENO'S JAN. 23 REVISED AGREEMENT LETTER.
[Here is Mayor Patterson's Feb. 2 Commentary on the proposed Seeno Agreement]
Dear Reader,
Your attendance and attention is very much needed for Tuesday's council meeting at which the council will consider rescinding its "no" vote on the Seeno Project.
The Seeno Corporation has taken important steps to keep its current application active. A vote of this council to rescind its November 18, 2008 “no” vote on the current project would keep the application active.
We have some common ground in the community about the development of the Seeno site. It is fair to say that there is agreement on a project that provides jobs for a progressive green economy with clean tech and green tech research and development, a training center and possibly manufacturing.
We agree that the quality of life for our residents should be protected and enhanced. We do not want to degrade neighborhoods and Semple school environment, especially air quality, for economic gain.
There are two paths we can take: one path is the one begun after the “no” vote in November. At the November 18th meeting, staff was directed to propose options to the council for moving forward with a specific plan process. That path is still available and is preferred by me for several reasons.
The other path is the Agreement letter – the item on the agenda for Tuesday, February 3rd. Let me be clear that there is nothing in this Agreement that the city could not do without the agreement. This agreement has been advocated by some because a) the developer would stay at the table, b) the development may qualify for the federal "stimulus package". On both counts there is little substance. First, the developer is at the table. They own the land. Second the stimulus package is actually small for the whole country and we are not nearly as ready or needy to qualify in a very competitive era.
I do note the progress that has been made since 2002 whereby Seeno at long last agrees to a Specific Plan, and subsequent EIR to evaluate a future project in context of AB 32, and SB 375 as well as air quality, traffic impacts – including East 2nd below the freeway and potential urban blight for our downtown and impacts to Semple school and neighborhoods.
But more work needs to be done to make this agreement the kind of document our citizens can feel confidence and trust in - in us - your elected representatives - the city and ultimately the developer.
FROM MAYOR ELIZABETH PATTERSON, Feb. 2, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FOLLOW UP NOTE ON FEB. 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
At the February 3 City Council meeting, the Council voted their intent to rescind their previous denial vote on the Seeno project (the vote was 4-1 with Mayor Patterson voting no). But their vote did not mean they were agreeing to the terms of Mr. Seeno's January 23 Agreement letter. Instead, they instructed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for the Feb. 17 Council meeting which would include all the language changes and additional elements that were raised at the Feb. 3 Council meeting by members of the public, and by Mayor Patterson's revisions to Mr. Seeno's Jan. 23 letter. It remains to be seen whether the Council will be able to agree on the terms of the Resolution that is brought forward on Feb. 17, and whether Mr. Seeno will agree to it.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Community workshop to be held before reconsideration of denial vote
On Dec. 2, the City Council briefly discussed the circumstances and terms of the Nov. 24 Seeno agreement letter (terms of the agreement arranged by Councilmember Mike Ioakimedes). They voted to hold a facilitated community workshop in January to allow the community to add their input to the process of refining and augmenting the terms of the agreement, and to dialog and negotiate with Seeno on those revised terms. The Council also voted to agendize, for the Feb. 3 City Council meeting, a reconsideration of their Nov. 18 project denial vote, and take a vote on whether to rescind that denial vote . Their reconsideration decision will be based on the terms of the revised agreement that will evolve out of the community workshop. In the meantime, their Nov. 18 project denial vote remains in full force.
The current version of the Seeno agreement has many pros, but also many cons. Some of the language is vague, or contains loopholes; some important provisions are not mandated, only suggested "if Council so desires;" and many important provisions are not mentioned. Please read the letter carefully and submit your comments and proposed additions to the City Council members. (If you email your comments to acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us they will be forwarded to all Council members.) And please plan to attend the public workshop in January when the date is announced, as well as the Feb. 3 City Council meeting.
The current version of the Seeno agreement has many pros, but also many cons. Some of the language is vague, or contains loopholes; some important provisions are not mandated, only suggested "if Council so desires;" and many important provisions are not mentioned. Please read the letter carefully and submit your comments and proposed additions to the City Council members. (If you email your comments to acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us they will be forwarded to all Council members.) And please plan to attend the public workshop in January when the date is announced, as well as the Feb. 3 City Council meeting.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Council to discuss reconsideration of Seeno denial vote on December 2
There will be a crucial discussion and vote at the City Council meeting Tuesday, Dec. 2, concerning the future of the Seeno Project in Benicia.
After the Council voted to deny the project on Nov. 18 (following up on a previous denial vote on Oct. 7), the property owner, Albert Seeno III, wrote a letter agreeing to major concessions and modifications to the current version of the project if the Council would reconsider and rescind their Nov. 18 denial vote. There are many pros and cons to this choice. Please read the Seeno letter and decide for yourself. (The letter is also posted on the city website as a link to item XI. on the City Council Agenda.
The discussion of the Seeno letter and a vote on whether to reconsider their Nov. 18 denial vote is scheduled (item XI.) on the City Council agenda to begin approximately 9:20 p.m. on Dec. 2. Please try to attend this meeting if you are able; inform yourself about this important decision that will greatly affect the future of Benicia and let the Council hear your wishes.
If you cannot attend the Council meeting, please email your comments to the City Council members. If you email your letter acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us , it will be forwarded to all Council members before the meeting.
This Nov.29 Vallejo Times Herald article provides some additional details about this recent new turn of events. You can also read background information about the Seeno project and the process that has brought us to this point at http://www.beniciafirst.com/
After the Council voted to deny the project on Nov. 18 (following up on a previous denial vote on Oct. 7), the property owner, Albert Seeno III, wrote a letter agreeing to major concessions and modifications to the current version of the project if the Council would reconsider and rescind their Nov. 18 denial vote. There are many pros and cons to this choice. Please read the Seeno letter and decide for yourself. (The letter is also posted on the city website as a link to item XI. on the City Council Agenda.
The discussion of the Seeno letter and a vote on whether to reconsider their Nov. 18 denial vote is scheduled (item XI.) on the City Council agenda to begin approximately 9:20 p.m. on Dec. 2. Please try to attend this meeting if you are able; inform yourself about this important decision that will greatly affect the future of Benicia and let the Council hear your wishes.
If you cannot attend the Council meeting, please email your comments to the City Council members. If you email your letter acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us , it will be forwarded to all Council members before the meeting.
This Nov.29 Vallejo Times Herald article provides some additional details about this recent new turn of events. You can also read background information about the Seeno project and the process that has brought us to this point at http://www.beniciafirst.com/
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
On companies doing business with the City of Benicia...
by George delaCruz
An editorial on the relationship of City Staff and companies in Benicia...
[in response to a newspaper article revealing that Nationwide Auto Auction is delinquent in $300,000 in back fees owed to Benicia.]
Regarding the issue of Nationwide Auto Auction, is it incompetence? Is it collusion? Just what is it that allows our City Staff to go merrily on its way? It seems to have its head in the sand. All the while companies doing business in Benicia fall behind on fees or don’t follow through on promises made to the City so they would be granted the right to conduct certain business operations in our fair city. Nationwide Auto Auctions is just one example of our City staff’s complete lack of oversight. Is it incompetence or is it corruption? Amports is another example. It has broken more agreements then you can count. It pays nothing to operate the Port of Benicia which is owned by the City. No business tax. No port tax, nothing. And then, of course, there is Valero, and Seeno and who else, may I ask? Do some in City Government have their hands out? Or does it just seem that way? Or do they just look the other way?
Nationwide should be held accountable for all agreements made with the City. As for Amports and Valero, I must again raise the issue of a port tax. Every other port operation in the United States collects a fair tax, based either on a tonnage or per unit basis for all cargo handled through that port. I would estimate that Amports alone avoids between $5 and $10 million in taxes per year which would go directly to the City of Benicia. Valero pays no port tax on the 40 to 50 thousand barrels of oil it processes daily at our port. At other ports in the U.S., these quantities are taxed, be it petroleum products, automobiles or any other item that crosses the docks, either in import or export. I suggest the City could use a formula similar to the ones in use in Oakland, San Francisco or Los Angeles to apportion these taxes because they have already been litigated. This tax money would go a long way to help this cash strapped City, especially with the present state of our economy. These companies are not paying their fair share, nor, in fact, in many cases, they are not paying any share at all. But for some reason, our City government is unwilling to make these firms pay their fair share.
But then, the question arises: Are our City employees, our City government, unduly influenced or are they in some way compensated by these companies? If there is any suspicion of fraud, then the Solano County Grand Jury must become involved. If it is just some mis-begotten, ill conceived, unfair influence from these companies, who then should or could, investigate and deal with the problem? Perhaps we could hire a team of forensic Bureaucrats to dig into our City government?
The failure by Nationwide to pay over $300,000 in fees brings up another question Did Nationwide pay the City for the equipment or automobiles it sold on consignment on our behalf? If not, why not?
But then, I remembered that Benicia, rather than taxing companies doing business in the City, would rather collect revenue from the tickets motorcycle officers are writing. Something seems out of whack here. Our self-serving City Staff, which won’t go after a source of revenue most Cities would cherish, instead go after our citizens who are already overburdened with taxes.
When City Staff takes responsibility and changes a vote of our City Council, I suggest something is drastically wrong at City Hall. If our City Staff cannot enforce rules or if it is inappropriately connected to businesses in Benicia, some should certainly be fired. It costs our community too much in salary and benefits to have incompetent or corrupt City employees. Perhaps a good old fashioned house cleaning is needed...
An editorial on the relationship of City Staff and companies in Benicia...
[in response to a newspaper article revealing that Nationwide Auto Auction is delinquent in $300,000 in back fees owed to Benicia.]
Regarding the issue of Nationwide Auto Auction, is it incompetence? Is it collusion? Just what is it that allows our City Staff to go merrily on its way? It seems to have its head in the sand. All the while companies doing business in Benicia fall behind on fees or don’t follow through on promises made to the City so they would be granted the right to conduct certain business operations in our fair city. Nationwide Auto Auctions is just one example of our City staff’s complete lack of oversight. Is it incompetence or is it corruption? Amports is another example. It has broken more agreements then you can count. It pays nothing to operate the Port of Benicia which is owned by the City. No business tax. No port tax, nothing. And then, of course, there is Valero, and Seeno and who else, may I ask? Do some in City Government have their hands out? Or does it just seem that way? Or do they just look the other way?
Nationwide should be held accountable for all agreements made with the City. As for Amports and Valero, I must again raise the issue of a port tax. Every other port operation in the United States collects a fair tax, based either on a tonnage or per unit basis for all cargo handled through that port. I would estimate that Amports alone avoids between $5 and $10 million in taxes per year which would go directly to the City of Benicia. Valero pays no port tax on the 40 to 50 thousand barrels of oil it processes daily at our port. At other ports in the U.S., these quantities are taxed, be it petroleum products, automobiles or any other item that crosses the docks, either in import or export. I suggest the City could use a formula similar to the ones in use in Oakland, San Francisco or Los Angeles to apportion these taxes because they have already been litigated. This tax money would go a long way to help this cash strapped City, especially with the present state of our economy. These companies are not paying their fair share, nor, in fact, in many cases, they are not paying any share at all. But for some reason, our City government is unwilling to make these firms pay their fair share.
But then, the question arises: Are our City employees, our City government, unduly influenced or are they in some way compensated by these companies? If there is any suspicion of fraud, then the Solano County Grand Jury must become involved. If it is just some mis-begotten, ill conceived, unfair influence from these companies, who then should or could, investigate and deal with the problem? Perhaps we could hire a team of forensic Bureaucrats to dig into our City government?
The failure by Nationwide to pay over $300,000 in fees brings up another question Did Nationwide pay the City for the equipment or automobiles it sold on consignment on our behalf? If not, why not?
But then, I remembered that Benicia, rather than taxing companies doing business in the City, would rather collect revenue from the tickets motorcycle officers are writing. Something seems out of whack here. Our self-serving City Staff, which won’t go after a source of revenue most Cities would cherish, instead go after our citizens who are already overburdened with taxes.
When City Staff takes responsibility and changes a vote of our City Council, I suggest something is drastically wrong at City Hall. If our City Staff cannot enforce rules or if it is inappropriately connected to businesses in Benicia, some should certainly be fired. It costs our community too much in salary and benefits to have incompetent or corrupt City employees. Perhaps a good old fashioned house cleaning is needed...
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Corporate development vs Community rights; who wins?
by Will Gregory, Oct. 2008
" Voting no on Seeno is the right first step."
Nicole Byrd–Greenbelt Alliance, Fairfield. (Bencia Herald. 9/24/08)
I noticed in the Vallejo Times Herald that Mayor Elizabeth Patterson stated to reporter Jessica York that she did not consider the " no " vote on Oct. 7 a victory.
" This was, take a deep breath and get back to the drawing table." Patterson said.
(See: Seeno plan flawed for Benicia: Council votes 3-2 to bar development. VTH. 10/9/2008)
I was confounded by this comment. With all due respect to the Mayor, in my estimation this was a victory.
A project as the Mayor has said, has been flawed, from day one.
The community has been waiting for this moment, this vote, for years.
Individual activists as well as collectivist clubs - Benicia First ; Green Gateway Group have worked tirelessly to secure this decision- one that favors the community over a recidivist corporation.
Using every means available the community was made aware of this corporate entity's criminal justice record, disregard for the environment and influencing peddling at the local government level: Newspaper/editorial accounts; documented records from the past; and eye-witness stories. This was a victory for community activism.
When you consider that this project would take over 20 years to complete, and as Vice Mayor Tom Campbell has stated, would cause "... traffic, grading, view, watershed and air pollution problems make the present Seeno Project unacceptable to Benicians."
(See: Inside Benicia.. City Coucil Update. April/2008.) ...this was a victory for our environment.
This was a crucial victory for the" rule of law. " In our esteemed and well thought out 1999 General Plan-the principal policy document for guiding future conservation and development in Benicia-one of the primary goals of the GP as stated on page #33-listed as Goal 2. PRESERVE BENICIA AS A SMALL SIZED CITY.
Policy 2.1.1: states- Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development and doesn’t detract from Benicia’s small town qualities and historic heritage.
This was a victory for a community vision by diversifying the city’s portfolio-(see: http://www.greengatewaygroup.org/) that will enable the city of Benicia to become the leader in Solano County for green growth, green jobs and a green future. This is the A+ project Mayor Patterson has been fighting for our " little town."
Still there are cheerleaders for Seeno..
The recent Vallejo Times editorial.(10/10/2008) asks "What message was city trying to send Seeno?" Is the VTimes seeking increased circulation and advertisers by this message? The local newspaper's editorial uses the tired rhetoric of fear-in this case, revenue stream for the city vs the values and character of our community.
Growth friendly, council members Alan Schwartzman and Mark Hughes voted in favor of the project. That is their right. Even though they both promised in their campaigns for council in 2005 that they wanted to protect our small town atmosphere. When it comes my turn to vote next November, I’ll be voting for candidates that keep their words about our special small town. I won’t vote for folks that have ties to the chamber of commerce or unscrupulous corporations. That is my right.
Other cheerleaders for Seeno included- (our) non-elected city staff : or more appropriately a pro growth shadow government. City Manger Jim Erickson; City Attorney Heather Mclaughlin; and Community Development Director Charlie Knox have been leading the charge for this project. The only prop missing- is the pom poms!
What is galling, here, is that these public representatives through their advocacy and strong influence have been avid supporters of a private corporation over and beyond their concerns for the public they are suppose to serve. I think it is fair to ask: What does the city staff not understand about the 3-2 vote? Has our city staff been coopted by the forces of growth promotion? Never a word about Seeno’s development history in Contra Costa County in general or more specifically its record in Pittsburgh influencing elections and politicians. Or how Seeno was involved in our own elections, here in Benicia.
See: "Connecting the Dots". Inside Benicia. City Council Update. Elizabeth Patterson.. April/2007.
It is important to note: that our well-paid public employees Ms. Mclaughlin ($189 thousand) lives in San Ramon and Mr. Knox ($158 thousand) lives in El Cerrito. Mr. Erickson ($197 thousand) lives in Benicia . (Source: Human Resources Dept., City of Benicia) Interesting, how some of these folks won’t have to deal with the ramifications of a decades long project that they are demanding- but won’t have to live with.
Now, these same folks, in today’s Vallejo Times Herald (See: "Staff asks council to delay Seeno vote." 10/19/08.) want another round of talks with our elected officials. After the final 3-2 vote! This is unprecedented in Benicia politics.
According to the Green Gateway Group web site- members received an earlier copy of the staff report. Activist Mr.Roger Straw had these cogent remarks:
" Let me say that [City] staff’s Report and Recommendation is an apparent effort to try and save the Seeno Project in its current form after the council's NO vote of Oct.7. [City] staff seems to be heavily invested in getting Council to approve this project. They believe it is a good project."
Mr. Straw continues.. " this can only be interpreted as an attempt to entice Council to reverse its vote of Oct. 7. [City ] staff has received Seeno’s o.k. on the plan to once again extend conversation- "
" ... many (citizens) are wondering if it is appropriate for [City] staff to recommend continuance, and to encourage project approval, given the council’s meeting of 10/7. It borders on [City] staff advocacy, or perhaps crosses the line.
" Voting no on Seeno is the right first step."
Nicole Byrd–Greenbelt Alliance, Fairfield. (Bencia Herald. 9/24/08)
I noticed in the Vallejo Times Herald that Mayor Elizabeth Patterson stated to reporter Jessica York that she did not consider the " no " vote on Oct. 7 a victory.
" This was, take a deep breath and get back to the drawing table." Patterson said.
(See: Seeno plan flawed for Benicia: Council votes 3-2 to bar development. VTH. 10/9/2008)
I was confounded by this comment. With all due respect to the Mayor, in my estimation this was a victory.
A project as the Mayor has said, has been flawed, from day one.
The community has been waiting for this moment, this vote, for years.
Individual activists as well as collectivist clubs - Benicia First ; Green Gateway Group have worked tirelessly to secure this decision- one that favors the community over a recidivist corporation.
Using every means available the community was made aware of this corporate entity's criminal justice record, disregard for the environment and influencing peddling at the local government level: Newspaper/editorial accounts; documented records from the past; and eye-witness stories. This was a victory for community activism.
When you consider that this project would take over 20 years to complete, and as Vice Mayor Tom Campbell has stated, would cause "... traffic, grading, view, watershed and air pollution problems make the present Seeno Project unacceptable to Benicians."
(See: Inside Benicia.. City Coucil Update. April/2008.) ...this was a victory for our environment.
This was a crucial victory for the" rule of law. " In our esteemed and well thought out 1999 General Plan-the principal policy document for guiding future conservation and development in Benicia-one of the primary goals of the GP as stated on page #33-listed as Goal 2. PRESERVE BENICIA AS A SMALL SIZED CITY.
Policy 2.1.1: states- Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development and doesn’t detract from Benicia’s small town qualities and historic heritage.
This was a victory for a community vision by diversifying the city’s portfolio-(see: http://www.greengatewaygroup.org/) that will enable the city of Benicia to become the leader in Solano County for green growth, green jobs and a green future. This is the A+ project Mayor Patterson has been fighting for our " little town."
Still there are cheerleaders for Seeno..
The recent Vallejo Times editorial.(10/10/2008) asks "What message was city trying to send Seeno?" Is the VTimes seeking increased circulation and advertisers by this message? The local newspaper's editorial uses the tired rhetoric of fear-in this case, revenue stream for the city vs the values and character of our community.
Growth friendly, council members Alan Schwartzman and Mark Hughes voted in favor of the project. That is their right. Even though they both promised in their campaigns for council in 2005 that they wanted to protect our small town atmosphere. When it comes my turn to vote next November, I’ll be voting for candidates that keep their words about our special small town. I won’t vote for folks that have ties to the chamber of commerce or unscrupulous corporations. That is my right.
Other cheerleaders for Seeno included- (our) non-elected city staff : or more appropriately a pro growth shadow government. City Manger Jim Erickson; City Attorney Heather Mclaughlin; and Community Development Director Charlie Knox have been leading the charge for this project. The only prop missing- is the pom poms!
What is galling, here, is that these public representatives through their advocacy and strong influence have been avid supporters of a private corporation over and beyond their concerns for the public they are suppose to serve. I think it is fair to ask: What does the city staff not understand about the 3-2 vote? Has our city staff been coopted by the forces of growth promotion? Never a word about Seeno’s development history in Contra Costa County in general or more specifically its record in Pittsburgh influencing elections and politicians. Or how Seeno was involved in our own elections, here in Benicia.
See: "Connecting the Dots". Inside Benicia. City Council Update. Elizabeth Patterson.. April/2007.
It is important to note: that our well-paid public employees Ms. Mclaughlin ($189 thousand) lives in San Ramon and Mr. Knox ($158 thousand) lives in El Cerrito. Mr. Erickson ($197 thousand) lives in Benicia . (Source: Human Resources Dept., City of Benicia) Interesting, how some of these folks won’t have to deal with the ramifications of a decades long project that they are demanding- but won’t have to live with.
Now, these same folks, in today’s Vallejo Times Herald (See: "Staff asks council to delay Seeno vote." 10/19/08.) want another round of talks with our elected officials. After the final 3-2 vote! This is unprecedented in Benicia politics.
According to the Green Gateway Group web site- members received an earlier copy of the staff report. Activist Mr.Roger Straw had these cogent remarks:
" Let me say that [City] staff’s Report and Recommendation is an apparent effort to try and save the Seeno Project in its current form after the council's NO vote of Oct.7. [City] staff seems to be heavily invested in getting Council to approve this project. They believe it is a good project."
Mr. Straw continues.. " this can only be interpreted as an attempt to entice Council to reverse its vote of Oct. 7. [City ] staff has received Seeno’s o.k. on the plan to once again extend conversation- "
" ... many (citizens) are wondering if it is appropriate for [City] staff to recommend continuance, and to encourage project approval, given the council’s meeting of 10/7. It borders on [City] staff advocacy, or perhaps crosses the line.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Council votes to deny Seeno project; City Manager tries to keep it alive...
At the October 7 City Council meeting, the Council voted to deny the Seeno project (527-acre Business Park in north Benicia). After hearing the results of a traffic study, and much deliberation, three of the five Council members remained unsatisfied with the sufficiency of the proposed mitigation measures which attempted to address the project's harmful impact on air quality and public health caused by excessive traffic.
Around 1 AM, Council took a vote on a Resolution to Approve the EIR Addendum (which was necessary in order to approve the project). It failed, 3 No votes (Patterson, Campbell, Ioakimedes), 2 yes votes (Hughes, Schwartzman). Therefore, the project could not be approved. City Attorney was instructed to bring forth a Resolution to Deny the project at the next Council meeting.
At the Oct. 21 Council meeting, City Manager Erickson submitted a report recommending that the Council “continue” the Seeno Item until the Nov. 18 City Council meeting because one of the five Council members (Campbell) was absent. He also produced several resolutions for their consideration. In addition to producing a resolution to deny the project and the EIR Addendum (as staff had been instructed to do), he also presented a resolution to approve the project (!) and he made a recommendation that the Council enter into “facilitated” discussions with the Developer to consider additional project requirements that might enable project approval.
Lacking a fifth vote, the Council did not act on the various resolution, and instead voted to "Continue the Item" to the Nov. 18 Council meeting.
With that as background, Roger Straw submitted the following column to the Benicia Herald:
Around 1 AM, Council took a vote on a Resolution to Approve the EIR Addendum (which was necessary in order to approve the project). It failed, 3 No votes (Patterson, Campbell, Ioakimedes), 2 yes votes (Hughes, Schwartzman). Therefore, the project could not be approved. City Attorney was instructed to bring forth a Resolution to Deny the project at the next Council meeting.
At the Oct. 21 Council meeting, City Manager Erickson submitted a report recommending that the Council “continue” the Seeno Item until the Nov. 18 City Council meeting because one of the five Council members (Campbell) was absent. He also produced several resolutions for their consideration. In addition to producing a resolution to deny the project and the EIR Addendum (as staff had been instructed to do), he also presented a resolution to approve the project (!) and he made a recommendation that the Council enter into “facilitated” discussions with the Developer to consider additional project requirements that might enable project approval.
Lacking a fifth vote, the Council did not act on the various resolution, and instead voted to "Continue the Item" to the Nov. 18 Council meeting.
With that as background, Roger Straw submitted the following column to the Benicia Herald:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rebuilding Eroded Trust
By Roger Straw
Benicia Herald, Guest column, October 29, 2008
In recent statements before and during the October 21 City Council meeting, I believe that our City’s professional staff exercised their authority in a questionable manner.
Prior to the meeting, City Manager Jim Erickson, Community Development Director Charlie Knox and City Attorney Heather McLaughlin submitted a Staff Report that many feel ignored the will of the Council. Many feel that in bypassing the will of our elected representatives, staff has thwarted the will of the citizens of Benicia, who elected the Council.
The record will show that on October 7, Council voted 3-2 in a very clear and difficult decision, to not go forward in considering the Benicia Business Park as proposed by Seeno and Discovery Builders.
After the motion and before the vote on October 7, Councilmember Ioakimedes said, “I have a question for the City Attorney: the motion that's on the floor right now is the resolution that is on [page] B45. There will be another motion for B47?”
McLaughlin replied, “No. There'll be another motion if you approve B45, to approve the resolution that's on page 183.” She went on, “The part that's on 47, and the part that's exhibit B, which is on page 110, will be included as part of the resolutions, so you don't need a separate action on those.”
Ioakimedes then said, “But if there's a vote to deny, then there isn't any subsequent vote, is there?”
McLaughlin: “Right.” Ioakimedes: “Ok. That's ... Thank you.”
Mayor Elizabeth Patterson then called upon Councilmember Alan Schwartzman.
Schwartzman, addressing McLaughlin, said, “…Ok, so if the one we've got on the table now passes, we can go back to the table, and think about other conditions. If the one that we have on the table now fails, we don't go any further, we're done. Is that the way I understand it?”
McLaughlin: “Well, then I would suggest that we do a Resolution of Denial. You all could direct me to go back, using the model from June 3rd, with the findings or whatever you came up with.”
I find this record explicit, and without loopholes. The vote to approve CEQA documentation failed, 3-2, under deadline to pass, and the city attorney was directed by the mayor at the end of the meeting -- and agreed -- to return to the next meeting with a formal “Resolution to Deny” to conclude the rejection of the Seeno project.
Contrary to staff’s suggestion on October 21 that a “no” vote on a motion to approve leaves wiggle room for more consideration, the reason for a formal Resolution to Deny is not to state positively an affirmation which was not yet voted. The resolution is a formal statement with legal findings to solidify -- for the record and for legal reasons -- that a no vote has been taken.
Benicia needs to sit up and take notice of all this. Not only because of the stakes in approving or denying the current Seeno project, but for reasons of good and trustworthy government.
It is my understanding that staff brought forward its controversial recommendation on October 21 based not only on its rather manufactured reading of Council’s action on October 7, but that certain comments were conveyed in writing by Ioakimedes after the vote that could have been interpreted – or misinterpreted – as a wish to keep the current proposal open for discussion.
At issue here is not whether City staff should be fired, but how to regain trust after a major blunder. The human heart does not regain trust easily, and the public, having come to a high degree of respect for all five Council members despite their differences, now faces a huge hurdle in understanding the motives and honor of those who serve the Council, and by extension, the public.
Over the course of the next month, we are told that all stakeholders will be invited to sit down in professionally facilitated meetings to discuss the project, in hopes of agreement and approval at Council’s November 18 meeting. One of the outcomes of those meetings is likely to be a regained sense of trust among us all, or a further erosion of trust.
Roger Straw is a member of Benicia’s Green Gateway Group. For more information on the group, visit www.greengatewaygroup.org.
Rebuilding Eroded Trust
By Roger Straw
Benicia Herald, Guest column, October 29, 2008
In recent statements before and during the October 21 City Council meeting, I believe that our City’s professional staff exercised their authority in a questionable manner.
Prior to the meeting, City Manager Jim Erickson, Community Development Director Charlie Knox and City Attorney Heather McLaughlin submitted a Staff Report that many feel ignored the will of the Council. Many feel that in bypassing the will of our elected representatives, staff has thwarted the will of the citizens of Benicia, who elected the Council.
The record will show that on October 7, Council voted 3-2 in a very clear and difficult decision, to not go forward in considering the Benicia Business Park as proposed by Seeno and Discovery Builders.
After the motion and before the vote on October 7, Councilmember Ioakimedes said, “I have a question for the City Attorney: the motion that's on the floor right now is the resolution that is on [page] B45. There will be another motion for B47?”
McLaughlin replied, “No. There'll be another motion if you approve B45, to approve the resolution that's on page 183.” She went on, “The part that's on 47, and the part that's exhibit B, which is on page 110, will be included as part of the resolutions, so you don't need a separate action on those.”
Ioakimedes then said, “But if there's a vote to deny, then there isn't any subsequent vote, is there?”
McLaughlin: “Right.” Ioakimedes: “Ok. That's ... Thank you.”
Mayor Elizabeth Patterson then called upon Councilmember Alan Schwartzman.
Schwartzman, addressing McLaughlin, said, “…Ok, so if the one we've got on the table now passes, we can go back to the table, and think about other conditions. If the one that we have on the table now fails, we don't go any further, we're done. Is that the way I understand it?”
McLaughlin: “Well, then I would suggest that we do a Resolution of Denial. You all could direct me to go back, using the model from June 3rd, with the findings or whatever you came up with.”
I find this record explicit, and without loopholes. The vote to approve CEQA documentation failed, 3-2, under deadline to pass, and the city attorney was directed by the mayor at the end of the meeting -- and agreed -- to return to the next meeting with a formal “Resolution to Deny” to conclude the rejection of the Seeno project.
Contrary to staff’s suggestion on October 21 that a “no” vote on a motion to approve leaves wiggle room for more consideration, the reason for a formal Resolution to Deny is not to state positively an affirmation which was not yet voted. The resolution is a formal statement with legal findings to solidify -- for the record and for legal reasons -- that a no vote has been taken.
Benicia needs to sit up and take notice of all this. Not only because of the stakes in approving or denying the current Seeno project, but for reasons of good and trustworthy government.
It is my understanding that staff brought forward its controversial recommendation on October 21 based not only on its rather manufactured reading of Council’s action on October 7, but that certain comments were conveyed in writing by Ioakimedes after the vote that could have been interpreted – or misinterpreted – as a wish to keep the current proposal open for discussion.
At issue here is not whether City staff should be fired, but how to regain trust after a major blunder. The human heart does not regain trust easily, and the public, having come to a high degree of respect for all five Council members despite their differences, now faces a huge hurdle in understanding the motives and honor of those who serve the Council, and by extension, the public.
Over the course of the next month, we are told that all stakeholders will be invited to sit down in professionally facilitated meetings to discuss the project, in hopes of agreement and approval at Council’s November 18 meeting. One of the outcomes of those meetings is likely to be a regained sense of trust among us all, or a further erosion of trust.
Roger Straw is a member of Benicia’s Green Gateway Group. For more information on the group, visit www.greengatewaygroup.org.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
