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between Council members, the City Council voted unanimously on Feb. 17 to approve a revised resolution which rescinded their previous Nov. 18 denial of the Seeno project application and set many stiff requirements that must be adhered to in order for a new project plan to be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.
Showing posts with label City Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Council. Show all posts
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Community workshop to be held before reconsideration of Seeno 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, 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, 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/
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Council votes final DENIAL of Seeno Project, Nov.18,2008
On Nov. 18, 2008, the Benicia City Council voted to accept a Resolution of Denial of Discovery Builder's proposed project for their Benicia Business Park. This was a confirmation of their previous negative vote on Oct. 7 regarding a Resolution of Approval of the project's EIR Addendum.
For more details of the torturous application process that finally led to denial, see this Seeno Project Timeline .
The following newspaper article provide details about the Nov. 18 vote:
Benicia Rejects Seeno Project
Benician's can now look forward to working with Discovery Builders in a clean new application process as the company collaborates with all community and city stakeholders from the start on a visionary 21st Century project that will meet the needs of ALL.
For more details of the torturous application process that finally led to denial, see this Seeno Project Timeline .
The following newspaper article provide details about the Nov. 18 vote:
Benicia Rejects Seeno Project
Benician's can now look forward to working with Discovery Builders in a clean new application process as the company collaborates with all community and city stakeholders from the start on a visionary 21st Century project that will meet the needs of ALL.
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:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
June 3rd Council vote anticlimactic
Shortly after 2 a.m. on June 4, the City Council voted to approve a time extension for consideration of the Seeno project to Oct. 7 in order to allow a traffic study to be conducted to determine the traffic impacts on lower intersections of E. 2nd Street. This option to vote for a time extension (rather than a vote for approval or denial of the project) was made possible because, at 1:10 a.m., Sal Evola (manager of the project and cousin to the owner Albert Seeno, III), sensing that he did not have the three votes necessary for approval of the project, suddenly jumped up and made the offer of a time extension to accommodate Council's concerns expressed about the lack of sufficient data on traffic impacts relating to the current version of the project. The traffic study will be delayed until August 25, allowing school to resume before it is conducted.
It is extremely disappointing that the Council did not consider a vote to deny the project outright, thus allowing all parties to immediately move forward in the development of a new project -- with all the "conditions of approval" from the old project built right into the new project's concept and description.
Nevertheless, this time extension does at least give the community time to become more informed about what kind of a truly visionary and appropriate Business Park could be possible in Benicia, one that actually fits our General Plan vision and our Economic Development Strategy, and conforms to the energy-constrained future we face in the 21st Century.
In order to facilitate that information process, BeniciaFirst will hold an important public forum at the high school on June 24, at 7:30, with a panel of experts addressing the twin issues of how communities can achieve environmental and economic sustainability.
The first part will explore what kind of development is appropriate for communities in order to reduce their carbon footprint and why this is so urgently important. The second part will provide authoritative information about the burgeoning CleanTech R&D industry and the promise it offers in fiscal and economic benefits, and in high quality jobs for our local employment pool, if we capitalize on this opportunity by designing a Business Park with CleanTech R&D as its conceptual centerpiece . Mayor Patterson and Council member Ioakimedes will also participate in the panel, discussing the implications of the topics for Benicia.
Go to http://www.beniciafirst.com/ to read more details about the forum and related issues, and CLICK HERE to download the FLIER. Please mark you calendar, plant to attend this important forum, and tell your friends and neighbors!
It is extremely disappointing that the Council did not consider a vote to deny the project outright, thus allowing all parties to immediately move forward in the development of a new project -- with all the "conditions of approval" from the old project built right into the new project's concept and description.
Nevertheless, this time extension does at least give the community time to become more informed about what kind of a truly visionary and appropriate Business Park could be possible in Benicia, one that actually fits our General Plan vision and our Economic Development Strategy, and conforms to the energy-constrained future we face in the 21st Century.
In order to facilitate that information process, BeniciaFirst will hold an important public forum at the high school on June 24, at 7:30, with a panel of experts addressing the twin issues of how communities can achieve environmental and economic sustainability.
The first part will explore what kind of development is appropriate for communities in order to reduce their carbon footprint and why this is so urgently important. The second part will provide authoritative information about the burgeoning CleanTech R&D industry and the promise it offers in fiscal and economic benefits, and in high quality jobs for our local employment pool, if we capitalize on this opportunity by designing a Business Park with CleanTech R&D as its conceptual centerpiece . Mayor Patterson and Council member Ioakimedes will also participate in the panel, discussing the implications of the topics for Benicia.
Go to http://www.beniciafirst.com/ to read more details about the forum and related issues, and CLICK HERE to download the FLIER. Please mark you calendar, plant to attend this important forum, and tell your friends and neighbors!
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Q & A on the Seeno project
A Statement from BeniciaFirst!
Question: Does this debate 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: What can I do?
A first and extremely important step would be to attend the Council meeting June 3rd, (which starts early, at 6 p.m.) This is a crucial point of decision on this project to approve or deny.
Question: Does this debate 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: What can I do?
A first and extremely important step would be to attend the Council meeting June 3rd, (which starts early, at 6 p.m.) This is a crucial point of decision on this project to approve or deny.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
CRUCIAL COUNCIL DECISION ON SEENO NEXT TUESDAY, JUNE 3! PLAN TO ATTEND!!!
Next Tuesday, June 3rd, the approval or denial of the Benicia Business Park proposal (Seeno Project) will be on the Agenda of the Benicia City Council.
Benicia deserves:
Benicia deserves:
- A visionary, future oriented plan for the 527 acre Seeno Project.
- The recognition of Benicia’s unique situation on the I 80 corridor between Sacramento and San Francisco and its’ proximity to both Davis and Berkeley with their leadership in green industrial development, research and development, and the need for clean building technology.
- A Project that reflects this city’s unique character and priorities.
BeniciaFirst! Protests:
- The traffic impacts of this project on Semple School.
- The air quality impact on Semple School.
- The possible Urban Decay of downtown Benicia.
- That the Seeno Project is based on an old warehousing and shipping model over an anticipated build-out of 20-25 years.
- The 35 acre commercial development will require a fully staffed police facility.
The Benicia Planning Commission has already voted 6-1 to deny the Seeno Project. It is crucially important that everyone possible attend this meeting and voice their disapproval of this flawed proposal or provide support to those who do.
Meeting begins at 6:00. If this is early for you, don’t sweat it, just come when you can. Bring a friend! (The actual Seeno Hearing is last on the Agenda, and probably won't begin until 7:00 or later.)
Sunday, May 18, 2008
City Council to consider approval of Seeno Project, May 20
The City Council will continue its Hearing of Seeno's revised Benicia Business Park proposal on May 20, with the final approval or denial of the project due at their June 3 meeting. (7 p.m., City Hall, 250 E. L St.)
Benicia First will give a short slideshow presentation on May 20 documenting the many reasons why the City Council should deny the current project due to General Plan inconsistencies, environmental threats, and inadequate documentation provided by the applicant. (Denial of the project would create the opening for a completely new project to be formulated that fits the needs and vision of Benicia in the context of major new 21st Century constraints and opportunities.)
Seeno will undoubtedly make sure there are many pro-Seeno advocates in attendance at the meeting, expressing their opinions why the current project should be approved, regardless of its many shortcomings. If you are supportive of our alternative vision for the project, we urge you to make your voice heard now at this crucial juncture. Try to call or write the City Council before the meeting. (Call 746-4210 to leave a message for City Council; or write an email message to them and address it to acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us )
If you cannot attend the meeting, watch it on Cable Channel 27. If you can come to the meeting, you don't have to speak if you'd rather not. Just your presence there is very important (and you can hand in a short note if you like).
It may be helpful to review this video of the City Council's statements at the Feb.19 EIR Hearing, in which they stipulated the conditions and documentation that they required Seeno to provide in the revised project before they would approve it (many of those conditions and documentation have not been provided).
Benicia First will give a short slideshow presentation on May 20 documenting the many reasons why the City Council should deny the current project due to General Plan inconsistencies, environmental threats, and inadequate documentation provided by the applicant. (Denial of the project would create the opening for a completely new project to be formulated that fits the needs and vision of Benicia in the context of major new 21st Century constraints and opportunities.)
Seeno will undoubtedly make sure there are many pro-Seeno advocates in attendance at the meeting, expressing their opinions why the current project should be approved, regardless of its many shortcomings. If you are supportive of our alternative vision for the project, we urge you to make your voice heard now at this crucial juncture. Try to call or write the City Council before the meeting. (Call 746-4210 to leave a message for City Council; or write an email message to them and address it to acardwell@ci.benicia.ca.us )
If you cannot attend the meeting, watch it on Cable Channel 27. If you can come to the meeting, you don't have to speak if you'd rather not. Just your presence there is very important (and you can hand in a short note if you like).
It may be helpful to review this video of the City Council's statements at the Feb.19 EIR Hearing, in which they stipulated the conditions and documentation that they required Seeno to provide in the revised project before they would approve it (many of those conditions and documentation have not been provided).
Saturday, May 10, 2008
A win-win situation for Seeno?
To the editor: (Benicia Herald, May 9, 2008)
We want our City Council to keep downtown alive, to reap the most revenue possible, and leave an inheritance for Benicia for the 21st century; a legacy of intelligent land use planning, development, and a reputation for smart growth.
Benicia can be the leader in Solano County, situated perfectly between Davis and UC Berkeley for a high tech, green, campus style development in the Benicia Business Park. But Seeno wants us to wait for him to build his passé commercial development as a first phase, and wait for the second phase, proposed for 5-8 years from now…..that will be too late.
A huge opportunity for Benicia has arrived. There are investors RIGHT NOW ready to invest in and facilitate green technology and there are companies RIGHT NOW looking for places to build imaginative, clean-tech developments. There are also countless numbers of bright, educated people right here in this town, that are willing to help forge a vision for the Benicia Business Park, aka the Seeno Project.
The trick is what to do with the old project we have now. There is precious little to be recommended in terms of the needs of Benicia and the 21st century. The conditions recently styled by the City Staff are easily dodged or ignored. And we are not equipped to establish a development agreement (although that would be preferable to nothing at all). Seeno has said that they will not accept a development agreement anyway.
Maybe there is way to find a win-win solution here.
First, the Council must insist that Seeno give it time to learn about alternative, profitable possibilities.
Second, the Council needs to work with Benicia First in helping to create a forum with speakers from the field of clean-tech, with examples of cities working with these concepts of green industry and research and development campuses. Let’s listen to the experts.….let’s learn together.
Third, given that the future of Benicia’s well-being lies in Council’s hands, they must negotiate with Seeno from a position of strength and accommodate both the town and Seeno….. by opening their minds to the possibilities and find an alternative where Benicia AND Seeno can win.
This is not an easy task, but I sincerely believe that the Council has the ability to accomplish this for Benicia. The challenge is this: Why settle for second best? A brand new, clean tech project is the right choice for Benicia.
Susan Street
Benicia, CA
We want our City Council to keep downtown alive, to reap the most revenue possible, and leave an inheritance for Benicia for the 21st century; a legacy of intelligent land use planning, development, and a reputation for smart growth.
Benicia can be the leader in Solano County, situated perfectly between Davis and UC Berkeley for a high tech, green, campus style development in the Benicia Business Park. But Seeno wants us to wait for him to build his passé commercial development as a first phase, and wait for the second phase, proposed for 5-8 years from now…..that will be too late.
A huge opportunity for Benicia has arrived. There are investors RIGHT NOW ready to invest in and facilitate green technology and there are companies RIGHT NOW looking for places to build imaginative, clean-tech developments. There are also countless numbers of bright, educated people right here in this town, that are willing to help forge a vision for the Benicia Business Park, aka the Seeno Project.
The trick is what to do with the old project we have now. There is precious little to be recommended in terms of the needs of Benicia and the 21st century. The conditions recently styled by the City Staff are easily dodged or ignored. And we are not equipped to establish a development agreement (although that would be preferable to nothing at all). Seeno has said that they will not accept a development agreement anyway.
Maybe there is way to find a win-win solution here.
First, the Council must insist that Seeno give it time to learn about alternative, profitable possibilities.
Second, the Council needs to work with Benicia First in helping to create a forum with speakers from the field of clean-tech, with examples of cities working with these concepts of green industry and research and development campuses. Let’s listen to the experts.….let’s learn together.
Third, given that the future of Benicia’s well-being lies in Council’s hands, they must negotiate with Seeno from a position of strength and accommodate both the town and Seeno….. by opening their minds to the possibilities and find an alternative where Benicia AND Seeno can win.
This is not an easy task, but I sincerely believe that the Council has the ability to accomplish this for Benicia. The challenge is this: Why settle for second best? A brand new, clean tech project is the right choice for Benicia.
Susan Street
Benicia, CA
Reports and Articles on Bay Area Cleantech industry
The reports and articles listed below reveal the strength and extremely promising economic potential of the emerging cleantech phenomenon, globally and particularly in the Bay Area, even during the current economic downturn affecting all other business sectors.
These reports clearly indicate that it would be far better for the healthy economic future of Benicia if the Seeno Business Park proposal would begin Phase I of the project in the industrial zone (with a specific focus on cleantech R&D and industrial production) instead of the currently proposed Phase I focused on a freeway-oriented commercial development.
The reports describe a dramatic explosion of University R&D, spin off businesses, government initiatives and grants, venture capital, etc., all focused on cleantech innovations spread across a wide spectrum of industries. So far, most of the action has been focused in the South Bay (Silicon Valley area) and San Francisco, but they are experiencing increasing pressure to locate elsewhere due to space constraints, housing costs, and traffic congestion.
Benicia is perfectly situated to capitalize on this economic opportunity, as we are situated 40 minutes from both UC Davis and UC Berkeley -- two of the key cleantech research centers -- with acres of vacant land already zoned industrial. We also have a perfectly matched employment pool (well educated, much of it white-collar professional, management, office, and skilled technical), most of whom currently have to commute elsewhere for jobs. And we have relatively low cost housing (in comparison to Silicon Valley and SF) and good schools. Since cleantech R&D would probably also pull some researchers from the university centers of Berkeley and San Francisco, it might give us a better shot at getting a ferry stop here. This could be Benicia's golden egg. But only if we act now, gaining first move advantage while the opportunity is still fresh.
Here is a link to Benicia's 10-year Economic Development Strategy which was adopted by the City Council Sept. 2007. On page 9 it sets out our city's strategy to increase "campus-style office" and "clean energy, high-tech R&D uses in our industrial districts" over the next 10 years. And on page 11 it states that such uses are more likely to provide jobs for Benicians because of our community demographics (which are described on page 2 & 3). It states on page 12, "The City Council's adoption of this Strategy will provide policy direction to City employees and a clear message to prospective businesses about our community priorities and economic development interests."
Please click on the links below to read these important reports and articles that document the cleantech economic opportunity:
REPORTS
1. Clean Technology And the Green Economy, March 2008
2. Clean Energy Trends 2008 , March 2008
3. Innovative Energy Solutions from the SF Bay Area: Fueling a Clean Energy Future, June 2007
4. The Economic Development Potential of the Green Sector, June 2006
ARTICLES
1. Bay Area in league of its own
"New game: Cleantech didn't even have a name five years ago."
San Francisco Business Times, Jan. 4, 2008
2. Hopeful cleantech hubs proliferate around the bay
"Cleantech is the Bay Area's future."
San Francisco Busines Times, Dec. 14, 2007
3. East Bay mayors, UC unite for 'Green Wave'
East Bay leaders, hoping to capitalize on energy research emerging from UC and LBL, intend to create a regional environmental hub.
Chronicle, SFGate, Dec. 4, 2007
These reports clearly indicate that it would be far better for the healthy economic future of Benicia if the Seeno Business Park proposal would begin Phase I of the project in the industrial zone (with a specific focus on cleantech R&D and industrial production) instead of the currently proposed Phase I focused on a freeway-oriented commercial development.
The reports describe a dramatic explosion of University R&D, spin off businesses, government initiatives and grants, venture capital, etc., all focused on cleantech innovations spread across a wide spectrum of industries. So far, most of the action has been focused in the South Bay (Silicon Valley area) and San Francisco, but they are experiencing increasing pressure to locate elsewhere due to space constraints, housing costs, and traffic congestion.
Benicia is perfectly situated to capitalize on this economic opportunity, as we are situated 40 minutes from both UC Davis and UC Berkeley -- two of the key cleantech research centers -- with acres of vacant land already zoned industrial. We also have a perfectly matched employment pool (well educated, much of it white-collar professional, management, office, and skilled technical), most of whom currently have to commute elsewhere for jobs. And we have relatively low cost housing (in comparison to Silicon Valley and SF) and good schools. Since cleantech R&D would probably also pull some researchers from the university centers of Berkeley and San Francisco, it might give us a better shot at getting a ferry stop here. This could be Benicia's golden egg. But only if we act now, gaining first move advantage while the opportunity is still fresh.
Here is a link to Benicia's 10-year Economic Development Strategy which was adopted by the City Council Sept. 2007. On page 9 it sets out our city's strategy to increase "campus-style office" and "clean energy, high-tech R&D uses in our industrial districts" over the next 10 years. And on page 11 it states that such uses are more likely to provide jobs for Benicians because of our community demographics (which are described on page 2 & 3). It states on page 12, "The City Council's adoption of this Strategy will provide policy direction to City employees and a clear message to prospective businesses about our community priorities and economic development interests."
Please click on the links below to read these important reports and articles that document the cleantech economic opportunity:
REPORTS
1. Clean Technology And the Green Economy, March 2008
2. Clean Energy Trends 2008 , March 2008
3. Innovative Energy Solutions from the SF Bay Area: Fueling a Clean Energy Future, June 2007
4. The Economic Development Potential of the Green Sector, June 2006
ARTICLES
1. Bay Area in league of its own
"New game: Cleantech didn't even have a name five years ago."
San Francisco Business Times, Jan. 4, 2008
2. Hopeful cleantech hubs proliferate around the bay
"Cleantech is the Bay Area's future."
San Francisco Busines Times, Dec. 14, 2007
3. East Bay mayors, UC unite for 'Green Wave'
East Bay leaders, hoping to capitalize on energy research emerging from UC and LBL, intend to create a regional environmental hub.
Chronicle, SFGate, Dec. 4, 2007
Benicia First statement on Business Park, 5/6/08
We have reached a crisis point in consideration of the Benicia Business Park. The decision of the City Council in this matter will have a profound impact upon the future of Benicia.
The Council is faced with the following choices: (1) To attempt to reshape the current version submitted by Seeno by the use of either a huge number of conditions of approval or by a development agreement or (2) To deny the project and ask Seeno to return with a new proposal reflective of the cities needs and desires and the new economic realities of the time.
The character and economics of industrial development have radically changed in just the past few years, a change not reflected in either the initial or the revised plan presented by the Seeno Company. Even if limited solely to an economic evaluation and assessing only the future economic prospects for Benicia, the Seeno plans have not made sense. The first plan was an incredibly bad proposal, a dated warehousing and shipping model, involving no concern for scenic values, environmental impacts, economic sustainability, energy efficiency, market realities or the Benicia General Plan.
While the alternative plan now presented has attached some of the buzzwords of the new industrial era, and has reduced impacts, it is clear that at the conceptual level it remains mired in the past. There is neither a deep understanding of nor a deep commitment to anything resembling a coherent, integrated research and development campus, anchored by some major technological core. This is reflected in its phasing plan; it is reflected in its fragmented approach and it is reflected in the complete lack of any overarching vision of the whole project. Its scope is reduced but it is still far from the kind of project envisioned in Benicia’s Economic Development Strategy. It still does not conform to the General Plan, still provides no evidence of serious economic analysis and is still starkly deficient in any awareness of current trends or the rich potential of the Benicia site.
Whether north Benicia development will ever achieve what the city has set forth in its development strategy, is heavily dependent upon (1) the developer sharing with the city the same goals and vision for the overall project; (2) finding the right kind of high tech, research and development venture to anchor the development and to stimulate related technological enterprise, and (3) creating the kind of campus setting that fits this type of industry. It is precisely this kind of venture and this kind of planning that is now attracting major economic focus and venture capital and has the Bay area leading the state, at a time when general business credit is very tight. There is little indication to date that the Seeno Company understands these realities. One crucial planning reality is that any initial development begun without such understanding can immediately close off all the rich potential and possibilities of Benicia’s situation.
What we do not want, what we absolutely must avoid. is to begin with a large commercial development, potentially conducive to urban decay and then “phase” into a string of warehouses and random unrelated activities created over the next twenty-five years.
In our view, the establishment of hundreds of conditions of approval is a woefully inadequate method to deal with the shortcomings of the Seeno plan. It is a fragmented approach; it will neither create nor insure a coherent project and is a virtual guarantor of continuous oversight problems. There is no way that the present proposal can be nudged, negotiated or forced into anything resembling what this city wants, or to fit the demands for sustainable, future oriented, technologically oriented, green industrial development. Nor do we believe that moving to a development agreement, while a step better than detailing conditions of approval, can solve that fundamental problem.
For these reasons, we believe it to be imperative for the city to deny this project and ask Seeno to come back with a new sustainable, campus oriented, cleantech project reflecting current and future economic and environmental realities, demands and opportunities OR, to bring in a partner, capable of such planning. We further believe that the city should assure the Seeno Company that it is prepared to engage actively in expediting such a proposal and cooperating fully in its realization.
The Council is faced with the following choices: (1) To attempt to reshape the current version submitted by Seeno by the use of either a huge number of conditions of approval or by a development agreement or (2) To deny the project and ask Seeno to return with a new proposal reflective of the cities needs and desires and the new economic realities of the time.
The character and economics of industrial development have radically changed in just the past few years, a change not reflected in either the initial or the revised plan presented by the Seeno Company. Even if limited solely to an economic evaluation and assessing only the future economic prospects for Benicia, the Seeno plans have not made sense. The first plan was an incredibly bad proposal, a dated warehousing and shipping model, involving no concern for scenic values, environmental impacts, economic sustainability, energy efficiency, market realities or the Benicia General Plan.
While the alternative plan now presented has attached some of the buzzwords of the new industrial era, and has reduced impacts, it is clear that at the conceptual level it remains mired in the past. There is neither a deep understanding of nor a deep commitment to anything resembling a coherent, integrated research and development campus, anchored by some major technological core. This is reflected in its phasing plan; it is reflected in its fragmented approach and it is reflected in the complete lack of any overarching vision of the whole project. Its scope is reduced but it is still far from the kind of project envisioned in Benicia’s Economic Development Strategy. It still does not conform to the General Plan, still provides no evidence of serious economic analysis and is still starkly deficient in any awareness of current trends or the rich potential of the Benicia site.
Whether north Benicia development will ever achieve what the city has set forth in its development strategy, is heavily dependent upon (1) the developer sharing with the city the same goals and vision for the overall project; (2) finding the right kind of high tech, research and development venture to anchor the development and to stimulate related technological enterprise, and (3) creating the kind of campus setting that fits this type of industry. It is precisely this kind of venture and this kind of planning that is now attracting major economic focus and venture capital and has the Bay area leading the state, at a time when general business credit is very tight. There is little indication to date that the Seeno Company understands these realities. One crucial planning reality is that any initial development begun without such understanding can immediately close off all the rich potential and possibilities of Benicia’s situation.
What we do not want, what we absolutely must avoid. is to begin with a large commercial development, potentially conducive to urban decay and then “phase” into a string of warehouses and random unrelated activities created over the next twenty-five years.
In our view, the establishment of hundreds of conditions of approval is a woefully inadequate method to deal with the shortcomings of the Seeno plan. It is a fragmented approach; it will neither create nor insure a coherent project and is a virtual guarantor of continuous oversight problems. There is no way that the present proposal can be nudged, negotiated or forced into anything resembling what this city wants, or to fit the demands for sustainable, future oriented, technologically oriented, green industrial development. Nor do we believe that moving to a development agreement, while a step better than detailing conditions of approval, can solve that fundamental problem.
For these reasons, we believe it to be imperative for the city to deny this project and ask Seeno to come back with a new sustainable, campus oriented, cleantech project reflecting current and future economic and environmental realities, demands and opportunities OR, to bring in a partner, capable of such planning. We further believe that the city should assure the Seeno Company that it is prepared to engage actively in expediting such a proposal and cooperating fully in its realization.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
View video of Council's Feb.2008 stipulations regarding approval of Seeno Project
After the Planning Commission's recommendation for disapproval of the proposed Seeno Project on April 10, the Project now comes before the City Council for consideration and approval on May 6 and May 20 (and probably also on June 3).
We hope you will plan to attend those meetings, or watch on cable channel 27, and write letters to the Council voicing your concerns about the type of project you would like to see. The ultimate outcome of the Seeno Project will forever shape the character and direction of our town.
To prepare for the May 6 City Council meeting, it may be helpful to view this video of the Council's discussion at the Feb.19 EIR Hearing, in which they stipulated the conditions that must be present in the Project before they would grant approval, and the review process that would be required.
We hope you will plan to attend those meetings, or watch on cable channel 27, and write letters to the Council voicing your concerns about the type of project you would like to see. The ultimate outcome of the Seeno Project will forever shape the character and direction of our town.
To prepare for the May 6 City Council meeting, it may be helpful to view this video of the Council's discussion at the Feb.19 EIR Hearing, in which they stipulated the conditions that must be present in the Project before they would grant approval, and the review process that would be required.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Planning Commission recommends denial of Seeno Project!
At the April 10 Planning Commission hearing, the PC voted to deny approval of the new revised version of the Seeno Project because the applicant had given them too little time to review it, and had provided too little documentation to verify their claims, and because it still appears to be seriously out of conformance to many requirements set forth in various General Plan elements, such as geologic and ecological considerations, fiscal and economic impacts, urban decay, traffic, health and safety, to name a few.
Their vote to deny approval did not stop the project in its tracks, however, because it is merely their recommendation that they are now sending on to the City Council. All eyes now turn to the Council and their May 6 City Council meeting (and possibly also May 20 and June 3). If the Council votes to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation and simply denies the current project outright, it would give Seeno and the City plenty of time to work together on developing a new project concept and design that is truly visionary and appropriate for the 21st Century and consistent with the comprehensive sustainability vision and goals of our General Plan.
NOW is the time to write to the City Council and let your concerns be heard!
Mayor Patterson, epatterson@ci.benicia.ca.us
Tom Campbell, tcampbell@ci.benicia.ca.us
Mark Hughes, mhughes@ci.benicia.ca.us
Mike Ioakimedes, mioakimedes@ci.benicia.ca.us
Alan Schwartzman, aschwartzman@ci.benicia.ca.us
Their vote to deny approval did not stop the project in its tracks, however, because it is merely their recommendation that they are now sending on to the City Council. All eyes now turn to the Council and their May 6 City Council meeting (and possibly also May 20 and June 3). If the Council votes to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation and simply denies the current project outright, it would give Seeno and the City plenty of time to work together on developing a new project concept and design that is truly visionary and appropriate for the 21st Century and consistent with the comprehensive sustainability vision and goals of our General Plan.
NOW is the time to write to the City Council and let your concerns be heard!
Mayor Patterson, epatterson@ci.benicia.ca.us
Tom Campbell, tcampbell@ci.benicia.ca.us
Mark Hughes, mhughes@ci.benicia.ca.us
Mike Ioakimedes, mioakimedes@ci.benicia.ca.us
Alan Schwartzman, aschwartzman@ci.benicia.ca.us
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Planning Commission to decide on Seeno Project (or pass the buck) April 10
The most immediate and urgent concern regarding the Seeno Project is THIS THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008, at the Planning Commission Hearing, City Hall, 7 p.m.
The Planning Commission will be faced with a decision to stop this project in its tracks by nonapproval of the project's "Master Plan overlay", thus sending the project back to Seeno with instructions for them to come back with a truly visionary project, or they may just make a neutral report (or a positive recommendation) and pass the buck on to the City Council. It is crucial for everyone who is able to come to that Planning Commission meeting! (and/or write or call the Planning Commission by this Thursday to voice their concerns.) It will be televised on Cable Channel 27.
People can read the Staff Report and links to other documents that the Planning Commission will be considering if they go to the Agendas section of the City website at this link and this link . They can also read about problems with the current project, and ideas for a more visionary and sustainable project, at http://www.beniciafirst.com .
After the Planning Commission makes their recommendation this Thursday, the City Council is required to either approve or disapprove the proposed project within 30 days! This means they must take it up and make a decision at their May 6, May 20, and or June 3 City Council meeting, and make a decision no later than June 3. This means there is a window of time between now and June 3 (and the sooner, the better!) for citizens to make their wishes heard loud and clear to the City Council about the type of development they feel is appropriate for the Seeno project.
Write, call, or go see them in person. This project will forever determine the economic and environmental destiny of our town. Now is the time to act.
City Hall, 250 E. L Street (MAP) ; 746-4200.
City website: http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us ; (City Council page)
Mayor Patterson, epatterson@ci.benicia.ca.us
Tom Campbell, tcampbell@ci.benicia.ca.us
Mark Hughes, mhughes@ci.benicia.ca.us
Mike Ioakimedes, mioakimedes@ci.benicia.ca.us
Alan Schwartzman, aschwartzman@ci.benicia.ca.us
The Planning Commission will be faced with a decision to stop this project in its tracks by nonapproval of the project's "Master Plan overlay", thus sending the project back to Seeno with instructions for them to come back with a truly visionary project, or they may just make a neutral report (or a positive recommendation) and pass the buck on to the City Council. It is crucial for everyone who is able to come to that Planning Commission meeting! (and/or write or call the Planning Commission by this Thursday to voice their concerns.) It will be televised on Cable Channel 27.
People can read the Staff Report and links to other documents that the Planning Commission will be considering if they go to the Agendas section of the City website at this link and this link . They can also read about problems with the current project, and ideas for a more visionary and sustainable project, at http://www.beniciafirst.com .
After the Planning Commission makes their recommendation this Thursday, the City Council is required to either approve or disapprove the proposed project within 30 days! This means they must take it up and make a decision at their May 6, May 20, and or June 3 City Council meeting, and make a decision no later than June 3. This means there is a window of time between now and June 3 (and the sooner, the better!) for citizens to make their wishes heard loud and clear to the City Council about the type of development they feel is appropriate for the Seeno project.
Write, call, or go see them in person. This project will forever determine the economic and environmental destiny of our town. Now is the time to act.
City Hall, 250 E. L Street (MAP) ; 746-4200.
City website: http://www.ci.benicia.ca.us ; (City Council page)
Mayor Patterson, epatterson@ci.benicia.ca.us
Tom Campbell, tcampbell@ci.benicia.ca.us
Mark Hughes, mhughes@ci.benicia.ca.us
Mike Ioakimedes, mioakimedes@ci.benicia.ca.us
Alan Schwartzman, aschwartzman@ci.benicia.ca.us
The Seeno Project - EIR vote
After 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), the Final EIR came up for a vote at the City Council on Feb. 19, 2008.
BAD NEWS: The EIR for the proposed Benicia Business Park contains multiple instances of inadequate imact assessments, based on inaccurate data and assumptions. It also proposes alarming "mitigation" measures that would not bring the project into compliance with our city's General Plan and would have serious negative effects on our air quality, traffic, safety, noise, and ecology. Unfortunately, in spite of these facts, the City Council, on Feb. 19, 2008, went ahead and certified the EIR as "adequate" ! (BUT with important caveats, requiring "the applicant" to come back with a revised project containing suggested environmental improvements.)
View Environmental Impact Report, Comments, Presentation
GOOD NEWS: This step does not mean the Proposed Project itself has been approved, but only the EIR. There will be many more stages in this process and more opportunities to affect the final design and function of this project, but it will take constant citizen vigilance and engagement.
To stay informed as new developments evolve on this issue, please sign up for our mailing list by writing to: beniciafirst@earthlink.net
BAD NEWS: The EIR for the proposed Benicia Business Park contains multiple instances of inadequate imact assessments, based on inaccurate data and assumptions. It also proposes alarming "mitigation" measures that would not bring the project into compliance with our city's General Plan and would have serious negative effects on our air quality, traffic, safety, noise, and ecology. Unfortunately, in spite of these facts, the City Council, on Feb. 19, 2008, went ahead and certified the EIR as "adequate" ! (BUT with important caveats, requiring "the applicant" to come back with a revised project containing suggested environmental improvements.)
View Environmental Impact Report, Comments, Presentation
GOOD NEWS: This step does not mean the Proposed Project itself has been approved, but only the EIR. There will be many more stages in this process and more opportunities to affect the final design and function of this project, but it will take constant citizen vigilance and engagement.
To stay informed as new developments evolve on this issue, please sign up for our mailing list by writing to: beniciafirst@earthlink.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)