The subject of personal service uses in Benicia’s Industrial Park (BIP) made up the sole agenda item at last Thursday’s planning commission meeting – and it will likely remain a major theme for the 2017 commission term.
The item was a continuation from the previous planning commission meeting of Oct. 13. The commission had requested that staff bring additional information for consideration in addressing the issue.
Economic Development Manager Mario Giuliani presented an overview of the existing range of businesses in the park and a review of the city’s stated objectives and proposed improvement and development options, to provide a basis for considering any usage plans. This information was contained in a power point presentation titled “Benicia Industrial Park Vision 2020 Strategic Action Plan,” prepared by marketing consultant Chabin Concepts and available for viewing on the city of Benicia website at ci.benicia.ca.us under the heading Agendas and Minutes-Planning Commission Nov. 10-Vision 2020 Strategy. Links to additional reports referenced in the presentation were provided and are also available in the written report, namely “Benicia Development Action Plan” and “Benicia Industrial Park Market and Competitive Position.”

BIP planning strategy
The BIP represents approximately 70 percent of all sales, property and utility tax revenue generated in Benicia and is therefore a key potential revenue source for the city, Giuliani pointed out. A 2014 market analysis looked at how the park could best sustain itself in the future. Study findings included:
* The BIP has limited space available for growth of existing companies, and available spaces are outdated and poorly configured for current market needs;
* The surrounding region has more than three million sq. ft. of new space coming on-line (referenced “region” defined as a circle encompassing the Highway 4 Corridor, Napa Valley, Contra Costa and Alameda counties, east to Brentwood, north to Vacaville and Dixon and south the Alameda, as explained by Giuliani), which may compete with Benicia for industrial business;
* The BIP contains limited readily-developable land, approx. 23 acres consisting of small parcels;
* Infrastructure in the BIP is aging; and
* There is a widespread conception that Benicia’s industrial park is “built-out.”
Currently, tax revenues from the BIP are at 10-year lows. The first goal for economic sustainability for Benicia is to reverse that trend. Income from BIP tax revenues have decreased by an average of over 20 percent per quarter since 2008, dropping from $1.03 million in the year 009 to $789,000 in 2015, according to the report.
Marketing and business attraction have historically been Benicia’s most expensive yet least successful endeavors, Giuliani explained. Suggestions for the future include working with our neighbors in Solano County to promote the name “Solano,” which is currently viewed as something you pass through on your way to somewhere else. Some marketing themes currently being explored are “Moving Solano Forward;” “Room with a View,” regarding available space in a physically attractive location; “Cross Over to Excellence,” presenting the Benicia Bridge as an asset rather than as a deterrent; and “Success,” which would highlight successful businesses currently thriving in the industrial park. The city is also currently working to improve communication with the real estate community so that information is more easily shared regarding any new industrial park vacancies.
The economic development department also recommends the planning commission examine the zoning code to find ways to keep it current. One example cited was the DMV services company that wanted to provide registration services to the industrial park community on Bayshore Road. The application was denied because the current zoning language did not allow that type of business.
The three main objectives of the presentation were summarized as: 1) to reverse the trend of declining tax revenues in the BIP by working with and attracting businesses that will generate sales and use tax; 2) to work with existing property owners and businesses to revitalize or re-purpose unused or under-utilized properties; and 3) to work with existing businesses and other workforce entities to attract a qualified work force to new and existing businesses.

Q and A
At the conclusion of the report, the commission was invited to pose any questions or make comments or suggestions. Commissioner Daina Dravieks Apple pointed out that in area newspapers such as the East Bay Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, the real estate listings rarely include Solano County. She suggested that our Benicia real estate agents might consider extending their advertising to those papers.
Giuliani responded enthusiastically: “You are spot on.” Alameda and Contra Costa counties are target markets and would be a good use of Benicia’s marketing dollars, he stated.
Commissioner Steve Young asked Giuliani which factors industrial park businesses are most attracted to in a potential property. Giuliani answered that it boils down to return on investment, but that significant factors did include things like ease of working with the city, the development and building process, and business license fees. A nice view is like icing on the cake, he said, but the first consideration is always the cost of doing business, which is primarily rent.
Commissioner Young also asked whether the Seeno property owners were known to be open to the possibility of selling their large parcel in smaller pieces. Giuliani responded that Seeno has not yet expressed an opinion and that the city has not yet made a specific proposal regarding a 40-acre piece the city is currently exploring along Industrial Way. Young also asked about broadband internet service in that area. Giuliani reported that Comcast, AT&T and other providers have begun “pulling fiber,” starting with a large loop and extending laterals off that loop. “I wouldn’t say that broadband would be a deterrent at that location,” he stated.
Commissioner Young also asked about existing Industrial Park businesses that are now considered incompatible uses, like children’s dance classes, and whether it would be advisable to kick them out, or instead to grandfather them in. Giuliani responded that incompatible businesses like Crossfit, for example, are “not driving out business,” so there would be no apparent benefit to asking them to vacate at this point. He added that churches and batting cages, for example, were also incompatible uses and were not originally intended to be such, but they were allowed to come in because current zoning language did not exclude them.
Commissioner Elizabeth Radtke asked about the infrastructure improvements mentioned in the report, and whether the three – road improvements, the bus hub and broadband internet service – were currently limiting growth. Giuliani answered that while current conditions were frustrating for existing businesses, in five to ten years, all of those improvements will begin to pay off in opportunities for expansion and new business.
Commissioner Kari Birdseye asked if the Arsenal area might be preferable for recreational uses. Giuliani explained that there is heavy industry in the lower Arsenal area along with port activity, so that it would not be suitable for recreational use without significant modification.
Planning Commission Chairman Don Dean asked if the commission was being asked to consider actual changes to the text of the current zoning code. Giuliani responded that the language needed to be clarified, but as far as what is allowed, the current code “is fine for economic development purposes.”
Community Development Director Christina Ratcliffe offered some examples of businesses that were difficult to classify with the current zoning language. She cited the DMV example in addition to hazmat materials training, and space for protective gear and classroom training for use of that gear, noting that some businesses are required to provide such training either monthly or semi-annually. Another example Ratcliffe provided was gathering samples for drug testing. That business was not a lab – the samples were sent out for analysis. Applicants like these have different aspects that are governed by different sections of the current zoning laws. Ratcliffe suggested that new language might make it easier for applicants and staff to make determinations.

Sharing is caring!