I WROTE THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BENICIA HERALD early in 2012 opposing the establishment of a Priority Development Area in any part of Benicia, especially the 925 acres in the Industrial Park, but to no avail. My concerns were marginalized by the city manager, who took personal offense (something he unfortunately does often) to a challenge of his efforts to develop plans that he insists will raise revenue and improve Benicia. I support those goals, but not the methodology proposed by city staff.

My concerns are based on the almost total loss of private property rights for all Benicians and the fact that the city is subordinating its sovereignty to central planners of the Bay Area.

I also raised the issue that the initial application for the PDA included a requirement to construct 140 residential living units in the Industrial Park. When I talked with the city manager about this portion of the request, I was told that staff was required to include that in the application to qualify for the PDA and subsequent grants, but that staff did not intend to require them to be built in the future. My question is, which statement is true? Will staff falsify applications to be eligible for grants, or will staff not adhere to grant requirements? It is my belief that, unfortunately, both statements are false, and staff will force property owners to construct residential units above commercial buildings in the Industrial Park (against our current codes) as well as require compliance with all requirements of any grant.

I think the latest fiasco involving the proposed bus hub on private property owned by the Barragan family is illustrative of city staff’s agenda. After the city manager, at a City Council meeting last month, again took personal offense to the notion that staff had not properly contacted the owners of the property at the southeast corner of Park Road and Industrial Way, it was revealed that staff had, in fact, totally failed to fulfill that obligation — but the city manager’s apology was woefully inadequate compared to his prior outburst of righteous indignation. In my opinion, a competent staff would have presented a comprehensive proposal for Council’s consideration, including a viable Plan B (for example, the vacant property on the southwest corner of the same intersection), so City Council could immediately direct staff to pursue the alternate plan should negotiations fail with the Barragan family. Instead, it appears the focus of staff since 2012 has been to secure the Barragan property, either through negotiations or by eminent domain.

I find it most frustrating that staff waited until the last minute to present these highly complex issues to the Council, just as they did with the original presentation to approve the PDA, allowing little or no time to consider other options that could lead to a meaningful and satisfactory conclusion.

At that December Council meeting, Councilmember Mark Hughes asked Public Works Director Melissa Morton if there were any “strings” attached to the grant request, to which she responded “no.” This answer, in my opinion, is totally untrue. The PDA process, including all grants, has significant strings thanks to the One Bay Area plan (also known as Plan Bay Area). Some of them are:

• One Bay Area violates voter-approved urban growth boundary ordinances. Even though voters all over the Bay Area have voted to determine where their urban growth boundaries will be, One Bay Area actually nullifies these boundaries by restricting development to very small locations in just some cities, including Benicia. It requires 80 percent of all residential development and 66 percent of all commercial development to squeeze into these small, fully urbanized areas. If you own property — any property, whether it’s a house or an office building — outside of One Bay Area’s 4-percent Priority Development Area, you may not be able to add a granny unit, add on to your building, develop your lot, anything at all. 

• One Bay Area is in effect for 25 years! Radical building restrictions lasting for a generation will cripple land value and the ability to start and maintain businesses or residential plans. One Bay Area restricts development rights of property within the PDAs. Construction will be limited to mixed-use, high-density, “smart growth” development such as stack-and-pack residential housing above commercial buildings. Existing buildings are likely to be out of compliance with Benicia’s General Plan (legal non-conforming), and permits to make additions or changes likely will not be granted.

• One Bay Area says cities don’t have to comply, but that is a lie. If Benicia wants state or federal transportation dollars over the next 25 years, it will have to comply with One Bay Area. Benicia has already created two PDAs (downtown and the Industrial Park) in compliance with this plan. Unfortunately, some of our Council members have publicly commented that they will not leave any grant money on the table — to which I add parenthetically, at any cost, even private property rights.

• One Bay Area affects the entire nine-county, 101-city Bay Area, including every property owner in all of Benicia. Only the tiny percentage of big developers with connections to elected and appointed officials will be in a position to take advantage of tax credits and subsidies.

• One Bay Area violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by taking property rights without just compensation. By the creation of PDAs, this plan restricts 80 percent of residential development and 66 percent of commercial development to just two areas in Benicia until the year 2040. If your property is among the 96 percent in the city that is outside of the PDA, you will likely not be able to build or expand your building — and you won’t be paid for this loss.

• One Bay Area also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, as owners of properties in the PDAs will receive development permits approximately 80 times more often than owners of property outside the PDAs.

• It has recently come to light that One Bay Area will be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements because underlying area plans have already been completed in the affected areas known as PDAs. Completion of these underlying area plans and their accompanying environmental impact reports was a requirement for areas to qualify as PDAs and to be eligible for the One Bay Area Grant program, OBAG. 

• It has also recently been reported that One Bay Area drafters suppressed critical facts while claiming they had to push for this plan’s approval to be in compliance with Senate Bill 375, the state law that sets regional targets for greenhouse gas reduction. But they failed to disclose that whether the One Bay Area plan was implemented or not, air quality in the Bay Area was already on track to reach SB 375 goals. In essence, they lied by omission, and that lie allowed them to gain approval of the One Bay Area plan.

• A legal challenge to One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area has been launched by the Post-Sustainability Institute, Democrats against UN Agenda 21 and Freedom Advocates. Should they prevail, it is highly likely that all funding of these types of grants will cease.

I encourage all property owners to come to the City Council meeting on Tuesday to express your support or opposition. I believe Benicians should not accept this usurpation of their private property rights.

Dennis Lowry, a retired telecommunications executive, is former chairman of the Benicia Finance, Budget and Audit Committee. He has been a Benicia resident since 1986.