Courtesy Rick Allen
❒ Workshop on Blake Court project set for Thursday; opponents mobilize
By Donna Beth Weilenman
Staff Reporter
Benicia residents and a pair of city commissions will review plans Thursday for a proposed two-story church at 882 Blake Court, at the intersection with Rose Drive.
The workshop slated for the discussion will take place prior to the Planning Commission meeting that night. That panel and the Historic Preservation and Review Commission will review and comment on alternative site design concepts for the building the church wants to erect at the site as a result of an agreement that stems from a 1999 environmental impact report on the former Solano County Sanitary Landfill.
Senior Planner Lisa Porras said residents living within 1,000 feet of the parcel have been notified of the workshop.
Some residents, who organized as “The Friends of Rose Drive,” would prefer the land remain open space. One letter from the organization said the proposed church building would overwhelm the neighborhood, saying its size “goes beyond the intended scope and purpose of the original agreement.”
From the 1950s to 1978, Urban J. Braito operated a landfill at the site, Porras wrote in a Dec. 3, 2011, report to both advisory panels. “In 1980, the landfill material was removed so that residential areas now present could be built,” she wrote.
But in 1991, waste material — described in earlier reports as an oozing black substance — was found under five of the houses, and four of them had to be vacated so the black material could be removed, Porras wrote. In 1997, the City Council decided the site should be cleaned up so it could be returned to a natural state.
Two years later, Porras wrote, the Council released a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, for the site cleanup. The report’s objectives were to remediate the site, provide for reconstruction on affected lots and provide a site for a building for religious activity.
In 2001, the Council certified the EIR. By doing so, it also made an agreement with the land’s owner, Granite Management Corporation, that said a portion of the cleanup area would be transferred in fee to the Benicia Council of Churches, which would choose the religious organization that would receive the site. That group picked New Harbor Community Church, which currently meets at 4858 East Second St.
The project is subject to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, enacted in 2000 to prevent governments from imposing land-use regulations on religious institutions that differ from those applied to other projects in the same zone. Nor can the city exclude religious buildings from its jurisdiction.
The project must adhere to development standards of the RS (single family) zone designation, Porras wrote, and the project does so with the exception of landscaping, for which the applicant has asked for a variance.
While the EIR that was certified in 2001 addressed the “eventual development of a religious assembly,” Porras wrote, it did not specify any design, use or activity for the site. Before construction can start, she wrote, “an addendum to the EIR is required.”
That addendum won’t be circulated for public review because of guidelines that are part of the California Environmental Quality Act, she wrote, but she assured it will be available for residents to see and will be among the documents the Planning Commission must consider before deciding how the project should be handled.
This is the second time the two panels have had a joint session on the proposed church plans. They also convened a special meeting Sept. 10, 2009.
New Harbor Community Church has proposed a 20,244-square-foot building to be built in the center of the site. It would be surrounded on all sides by driving aisles and 103 parking spaces — two more than required. Its primary entrance faces west, toward Blake Court.
Porras said the proposed two-story building would be 30 feet tall; including the top of a cross, it would peak at 45 feet, 9 inches. The first floor would house a 5,040-square-foot multipurpose area that could be used either for worship or as a basketball court. The first floor also would contain 11 rooms and restrooms. A 646-square-foot day care area with an outdoor playground would be in the site’s northwest corner.
The second story, about 7,350 square feet, would overlook the worship area and house 14 rooms and more restrooms.
The church is proposing to meet for Sunday worship at 9 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., with other activities slated from the afternoon to early evening on a monthly and yearly basis, Porras wrote. Its lightest schedule would be Saturdays, though at times the church would have events at 8:30 a.m., 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. running until 3 p.m., she wrote. Each year the church would have a Christmas evening program on a Saturday.
During the week, she wrote, the church would be open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., except Tuesdays, when it would have meetings until 8:30 p.m. Some other meetings, scheduled monthly or annually, also could run as late as 8:30 p.m.
In summer, the church would have limited openings for weddings from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.
New Harbor traces its history to the Benicia Bible Church, formed in 1984, which originally met in school buildings; and a later congregation called New Harbor Church that originally met in members’ homes after it was organized in 1992. The two congregations merged as New Harbor Community Church in 2002.
About a year ago, one of its elders, Hilton Ham, promised the new church would “be great neighbors. There are a lot of positives to having us.” He added, “We respect our neighbors’ concerns about parking and noise.”
Because of the 2001 agreement between the city and the previous property owner, Porras wrote, “the church has the right to build a facility on the site.”
A DIGITAL RENDERING of the proposed church on Blake Court.
City of Benicia
However, because the site is zoned for residential use, the building and operation of the church must obtain approval of a use permit, variance and design review.
“The Planning Commission will address the use permit and variance, while the Historic Preservation Review Commission will address design review,” she explained. In fact, the HPRC’s decision must be made prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
HPRC will examine the site layout, architectural quality of the building, its materials, colors and landscaping.
The public would have 10 days to appeal that ruling to the Planning Commission, and its decision could be appealed to the City Council.
The Planning Commission will rule on the use permit for the site’s uses, operations and hours. Should the church pursue its current plans, this panel also must decide whether to grant a variance for 25 percent landscaping, rather than the zoning requirement of 35 percent. As in the case of the HPRC decision, the Planning Commission’s ruling can be appealed to the City Council.
No decision needs to be made Thursday, Porras wrote.
Proponents of the design said during the last joint meeting in 2009 that the new church would be able to assist more Benicia residents, including those looking for grief support, senior, youth and teen programs, and other outreach efforts. It also could be a shelter during emergencies, some parishioners said at the time.
That proposal has been opposed by a group of neighbors that formed Friends of Rose Drive, who have expressed past worries that the dark contaminant was not removed completely and that the construction would disturb wildlife that occupies the open site.
They also expected the church would add even more traffic to already busy streets, and suggested Blake Court’s configuration makes it a “blind hill” that could lead to crashes. Some anticipated additional noise, from vehicles to slamming doors to loud conversations.
Others told the two advisory panels that the site was subject to periodic fires.
HPRC members also expressed concerns about traffic, as well as the size and appearance of the building, the project’s scale, and the proposal to put a preschool playground near Rose Drive homes.
Planning commissioners had similar concerns and voiced additional worries about how well the former landfill had been cleaned and whether water quality was affected. They urged the use of sustainable and renewable building materials when the church is built.
Nearly three years later, many residents have the same concerns they described in 2009, said David DeGavre, a member of Friends of Rose Drive. He said the group has surveyed about 500 Rose Drive area households, some as far away as a half-mile from the project, and “about 95 percent are against it.”
Residents with whom he’s spoken either want the site to become a park or possibly built as home sites rather than a church because of the amount of activity associated with houses of worship.
“We don’t have any objections to a church,” he said. “We prefer to have nothing there. Rose Drive is the most heavily traveled road in Southampton, and maybe in Benicia.” He said he worries that the church would add to that street’s congestion.
Porras said in 2010 that the decision to set aside the land for a church was made prior to her joining the city in 2007. “Other than the paper trail, I don’t know why they gave the land to the church,” she said.
DeGavre suggested the decision was based on liability. “You have a developer with toxic land. He wants to get rid of it. The builder offered to give it to the city free of charge. The city said no, they don’t want the liability,” he postulated. “Who do we give it to? Let’s give it to a church, and they accept the liability. Who’s going to sue a church?”
DeGavre said he expects many members of Friends of Rose Drive will attend Thursday’s meeting to voice objections to the project, and the group will follow the progress of the development and its adherence to Benicia’s zoning laws and regulations.
“We’ll question every part of this,” he said.
Porras wrote in her report that the current version of the project meets most of the development standards for the land’s zoning, but it doesn’t meet the Municipal Code requirements for approval of design review and use permits.
Though it provides enough parking for the building’s size and use, Porras wrote, the plan wouldn’t protect residents from “noise, glare, vehicle exhaust, quiet, privacy and overall compatibility.”
She wrote that staff has suggested the building would be better positioned if it were placed on the north or south side of Blake Court to be “visually harmonious with its site and not block scenic views or dominate the surroundings.”
Staff also has suggested removing the official-sized basketball court to reduce the parking requirement and allow more space for landscaping, the playground and a buffer between the church and its neighbors, she wrote. “These modifications used together creatively would provide an improved site plan for the church and immediate neighborhood,” Porras wrote.
The joint workshop of the HPRC and the Planning Commission will start at 6 p.m. Thursday in Council Chambers of City Hall, 250 East L St., and the Planning Commission’s regular meeting will start at 7:45 p.m. Thursday in the same place.
Sharing is caring!
Quoting from the story:
Residents with whom he’s (Degavre) spoken either want the site to become a park or possibly built as home sites rather than a church…
“We don’t have any objections to a church,” he said. DeGavre suggested the decision was based on liability. “You have a developer with toxic land.
So it seems Mr. DeGavre would prefer to see the “toxic” land turned into a park so the neighborhood children can play in it?
Why the HPRC is involved in this?
DDL it is all about power. I wonder if the HPRC will request the Police Chief or one of his officers to attend. We all know how violent these meetings get.
Love it.
Previously the “digital rendering” of the church did not display, but that issue is now corrected. My family attended New Harbor for many years and we were involved in this process at the early stages.
The digital rendering shown is not accurate to the plans that I saw then, (granted they may have changed). The primary difference, as I saw it then, was the parking lot, located in front of the church, is not shown as it should be.
This then makes the church appear to be directly behind the houses and separated by a relatively short distance. The actual location of the church would be much further back; 100-150 ft. would be my estimate. Add in landscaping for trees and the visual impact is decidedly different than that which is shown.
…and a large parking lot with noisy cars and traffic.
What an absolutely ridiculous place to put a 2 story church!
You should take a drive to Blake court and look at the site if you have not done so. The plan calls for the Church to be located backing up to the hillside, not as shown above.
The digital image above was included by the city in the report cited in this story. If it is inaccurate, the city should be notified. Ed.
Marc,
It appears the plans have changed since I was first involved.
The plans I saw had the church set back further with the parking lot completly in front of the building. The plan now calls for the church to be in the middle with the lot surrounding the church, thus bringing the church forward (closer to the houses).
Even given that though, the church as portrayed above seems a lot bigger than I would have expected. Note how the building dwarfs the car and the truck.
Dennis, note the dimensions as listed in the story. 20,000 square feet is pretty big. Ed.
When I lived on Rose, us neighbors jokingly refer to the street as the “Rose Freeway”. People constantly speed, and run stop signs like they aren’t even there. What happened to the traffic calming study, with proposed medians and bike lanes? (similar to Hastings Dr). This church would be not only an eyesore in a residential neighborhood, but the traffic would become 1,000 times worse. Imagine if all 103 spaces were taken up. That’s 103 MORE cars than we already have now. Even if you only have 50, when church lets out, residents will be stuck in traffic….Its already REALLY bad at 7:30 in the morning when we all have to get our kids to school on time. You can sit at Rose and Cambridge for a good 10 minutes waiting for the light. (I still carpool, and sit every day) Are they going to do a real traffic study and environmental impact report similar to the Seeno deal???? I have no problem with building another Church in town, I’m just stating my opinion that this is not the ideal spot. I’m so glad I already moved, because if not, this would have been a good reason to. And – ya, why is the HPRC involved?
I’m a resident on Rose Dr. and agree 100%. The traffic issue is terrible and noisy during the commute hours before and after school/work. People have not regard for resident’s safety on Rose. It’s become a freeway!
Now there are more bicyclists using Rose Dr., who also run stop signs at full speed!
Move to a court then if it’s so bad. I don’t care if you moved there 3 or 30 years ago, it’s ALWAYS been the main thoroughfare. It’s like the people who move in next to an airport THEN complain about the noise.
When I moved to Benicia in ’92 and was seeking a place to live, Rose Drive was one of the first locations that was nixed. This was not just because of Seenogate issues, but it was obvious it was a busy, narrow thoroughfare.
When you came to the conclusion that it was a busy street?
Airplanes don’t speed or run stop signs. Its peoples disregard for others, and blatantly break the law that ruins it. Adding another 100+ cars is NOT going to help. And people bought these houses WELL before this plan was proposed. It is a busy street – I knew that when I moved in…so lets take problem, and make it bigger. Most of those houses were only built 26 years ago – Joe Henderson has only been there 25 years, Matthew Turner has only been there 17 years…along with the park. Even 3 years ago, Water’s End wasn’t totally finished. All contributed over time to the traffic. It didn’t happen overnight – but adding this would be like overnight. With 103 parking spaces, say each car holds 4 – for lets say – a wedding, that’s 412 people. And the limos. Will there be liquor allowed at the reception location? Now you have drunk rowdy people. For funerals, you will then have the procession. And what about the extra trash that will inevitably blow around…cause we ALL know (and knew) Benicia is one windy city. Again, I have nothing against building a church…just not a “mega church” in that court. If they are going to do it, why can’t they build a modest Church like the one on Military at E 5th? Its very cute, and fits in great with the neighborhood – which is commercial on one side, but residential on the other. And the one on Church Street, and the one on Military across from the HS? I mean, their artists rendition, it might as well be the Crystal Cathedral – even if it is set back farther than drawn.
Clearly Benicia has too few places of worship. People here need more pews to sit in where they can bow their heads in submission to an invisible idol made of concepts inside heads rather than a visible idol made of stone or wood set out on an altar. It is needful for citizens to have special buildings with big spaces in them where they can get off their high horses and get level with a community of people scattering in from other neighborhoods than their own. Warm feelings of togetherness more than make up for the psychic fragmentation required to participate. It’s important to give up intellectual acuity in favor of flocking together like sheep for good, mutual opinion and imagined self-regard. Sheep get sheared but people only get dunned for tithes and donation to many charitable causes they might otherwise not hear about. This, too, helps them feel good about themselves and grow optimistic about not having to atone for guilts inflicted by brain-damaging doctrines and the self-judged, emotional sins that flow from just being human.
Jesus would both laugh and cry at what Paul did to his good, trans-Legalist, Judaic legacy by foisting an already-ancient, gentile, split-metaphysics back on to it, all over again. The West has been virtually back in the Platonic (or Neanderthal) cave, ever since. (Oh, the singing and pot-luck meals there are fun.) Why do the dyed-in-the-wool religiosi distrust all but the most practical aspects of science?–Science fosters unitive conceptuality and personal integration without myth and its mystifying authority.
Thanks for the laugh Bob!!
Thanks for the insight Bob! Ignore the bloviating boobs!
Bravo! What is this fringe New Harbor Community Church anyway?
A simple reading of the local Benicia-Vallejo phone book indicates easily over 100 church affiliations of all kinds of different denominations. When is enough, enough?
Will Stated: “local Benicia-Vallejo … easily over 100 church affiliations of all kinds of different denominations. When is enough, enough?
Good Point Will!
There are obviously way too many opportunities for the people to worship God as they deem appropriate. Let them meet in warehouse space in the Industrial park or in the gym at the middle school.
I think you and the others opposed to this church should expend every effort, do all you can to continue to make things as difficult for people to worship God as they see fit.
Of course, we cannot restrict such actions only to the Christian God, after all we need to be fair, right? So we must then include the God of the Koran, as well as the Old Testament God, as worshipped in synagogues.
Certainly we do not need another LDS or Catholic Church as well, we have enough of those.
What other restrictions shall we consider so we can no longer be bothered by those irritating people who feel God/Allah is an important part of their lives?
You forgot the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
How about another location on the former landfill, across from the Cambridge apartments.? The architecture appears to be quite lovely and similar to the commercial property at the southeast corner of Rose and Cambridge, Just because Blake Court looked good a decade ago (or more) doesn’t mean it’s the best location now that the plans have jelled.
Information for the community to consider.
Source: Friends of Rose Drive web site.
Letters from Rose Drive residents>
The best way to express your concerns about this project is to write the Benicia City Council, the Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Review Commission.
City Council
epatterson@ci.benicia.ca.us
tcampbell@ci.benicia.ca.us
mhughes@ci.benicia.ca.us
mioakimedes@ci.benicia.ca.us
aschwartzman@ci.benicia.ca.us
Planning Commission
bradsthomas1@aol.com
jfernst@aol.com
Gina.Eleccion@ci.benicia.ca.us
richardb@coldwellbanker.com
rsherry@csa-engineers.com
dan@danhealylaw.com
donaldjdean@sbcglobal.net
lisa.porras@ci.benicia.ca.us
Send snail mail to: Benicia City Council & Planning Commission
250 East “L” Street, Benicia 94510
LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS
We currently have 5 letters from neighbors posted below.
A LETTER FROM THE FRIENDS OF ROSE DRIVE
As residents of Rose Drive, we have strong objections to the proposed development of 882 Blake Court.
· The City of Benicia’s General Plan – Policy 2.29.2: Encourages the location and design of the church to be compatible with the neighboring properties. The facility would greatly overwhelm the neighboring houses.
· According to the “Rose Drive Cleanup Agreement and Agreement for Use of Blake Court Lots for Religious Assembly Site” dated 19th June, 2001, this site may be used as a Religious Assembly Site. However, the project consists of a 5,040 sq ft indoor basketball arena, daycare center for 38 children, retail book store, coffee room, fireplace room, 9 study rooms, 5 offices, and a conference room. This project goes beyond the intended scope and purpose of the original agreement and as such we are opposed to it.
· New Harbor Church is proposing to build a ‘Community Center’ and has said as much in their presentation.
· The impact of a ‘Community Center’ on a residential neighborhood is far greater than that of a Religious Assembly Site.
· The physical lot size will not support a Community Center project as evidenced by the variance request.
· 882 Blake Court falls under Single Family residential zoning and therefore any building, including a religious assembly site, should be required to meet development standards of that zone.
· We are asking the commission to deny the landscaping variance of 35% to 25%. Section 17.104.060 of the Benicia Zoning Ordinance requires the New Harbor Church to show there are exceptional circumstances that prevent them from complying with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is no undue hardship inflicted on New Harbor Church. They are simply being asked to adhere to the same property development regulation that applies to all other properties in the vicinity, under identical zoning classification.
· New Harbor Church is proposing a new building on a blank slate as opposed to making changes to an existing building. If the plans they have proposed don’t fit on the develop able site available, they should be required to amend their plans.
· The traffic impact of a ‘Community Center’ is far more substantial than that of a simple Religious Assembly Site. Rose Drive is the most highly trafficked residential road in the Southampton development. A Community Center will only add to the congestion, noise and pollution:
1. The daily ‘in and out’ of a 38 child daycare from 7am – 6pm ,
2. Group and Club meetings 3 nights a week during peak hour ,
3. Men’s basketball league
4. Friday night activities from 6pm – 9pm,
5. Unknown community usage
6. Weddings
7. Saturday evening events
8. Sunday congregations for 400 people
These are just some of the proposed activities that don’t yet take into account any increase in activities once the church is built. Further, the increase in traffic increases the risk of a car vs. child accident.
· The project includes a 5,040 sq ft basketball arena that will only be used once a week for a 2-hour period. We question the need for a facility of this size for such a limited intended use.
· A building designed to seat 400 would realistically need more than 104 parking spaces—which would force parishioners to park on the neighborhood streets.
· The neighbors are also concerned about the placement of such a large building so close to the rear property lines of the houses on Rose drive. Some neighbors will be closer to the proposed building than they are to each other. The noise of people congregating at the community center’s front door will easily be heard in the neighborhood, as it is only 40’ from the public street.
· Of great concern is the possibility of toxic materials being unearthed during construction, and as such, the neighbors demand the right to have their own independent experts have access to, and monitor, the site during construction.
· The open space at Blake Court currently provides habitat value to resident wildlife, including deer, and pheasants, and offers physical separation between houses and visual relief from development.
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
· Benicia General Plan, Policy 2.29.1 states the city is to make every effort to provide land for needed religious assembly when planning large new projects in Community Commercial (CC) zones.
· We ask the city to make a site available to New Harbor Church in the future development to the West of the Industrial park, which has an area of 600+ acres of developable land.
· The end of West 9th street also provides for CC zoning and currently houses an un-utilized lot, formerly a restaurant.
· In providing a viable alternative for development we would ask New Harbor Church to gift the Blake Court site to the community and allow the site to remain in it’s natural state.
In conclusion, we, the Friends of Rose Drive, oppose this development due to its lack of compatibility with a single family residential neighborhood; to it’s impact on traffic, noise, congestion, parking, and safety of our streets; to the two year disruption of our lives during construction; to the potential release of long buried toxic substances into our neighborhood; and the loss of tranquility that now exists on the Blake Court site.
Respectfully;
The Friends of Rose Drive
A letter from a concerned Neighbor:
TO: Charles Knox
Historic Preservation Review Commission–Benicia Planning Commission
We moved to Benicia because we found a home on Rose Drive, clearly zoned for single family residences, that filled our needs for a quiet place to think and live among friendly wholesome neighbors. The neighbors include a pilot, a baker, a tax preparer, an auto repair mechanic a science professor, a construction supervisor, a forest service senior staffer, teachers, and others—they are a good cross section of our whole community.
NEED FOR QUIET ENJOYMENT OF MY PROPERTY
I need the thinking space and quiet to write speeches and articles and books that make up my life. I have the pleasure of waking in the morning ond looking over a steep grassy hillside filled with native grasses, unusual butterflies, a family of pheasants a family of deer and numerous birds including mocking birds and a protected swift species. It now has a wondeful ambience and is a very positive feature to have such a place in Benicia. No one accepting responsibility for planning for Benicia should want to destroy such a place. This is Nature at its best, having slowly reclaimed the land that was a tannery leaking dangerous and very toxic chemcals into the Rose Drive-Blake Ct area for decades.
HEALTH HAZARDS OF CONSTRUCTION
The proposed New Harbor project poses many questions and issues. Building a parking lot and building to earthquake and land settling standards required means major very deep foundation work—will this dig up and re-release deep soil toxins being bio-processed now? Will any construction blow dust and dirt and lung-dangerous particles into the air to envelop neighboring homes, gardens, etc? How many days of construction are proposed? Who will guarantee that the project does not drag on beyond the proposed schedule and how will that be done? How will local homeowners be compensated for any damage and loss of value of their largest lifetime investment–their home? Does the proposer for the project have enough money to place the proposed project cost in an escrow that guarantees the whole project’s costs, and ensures that delivery will be on time, at cost, and cover all potential liabilities? Does the proposer of this project have sufficient skills and prior experience in successfully building such a project that we can verify?
WHO OWNS WHAT
Who owns the steep hillside Blake Ct property now? Who are the New Harbor people? Do any of them have police records? Have any of them ever made a prior commitment and left it unfinished? How well are they appreciated by their current neighbors and why don’t they expand in whatever site they are now in? What other religious organizations were able to bid on the same Blake site and what happened to their bids?
Does anyone reviewing this case on the City staff or the Planning Commission have any direct or indirect conflict of interest on this proposed construction–do any of them have a personal profit potential from this project?
How big a performance bond will be required by the City and will the project be willing to place $2 million in escrow to ensure that any and all damage to our Rose Drive area homes is paid and fixed immediately?
TRAFFIC CALCULATIONS UNREALISTIC
How quiet will it be with 150 more cars fighting to get in and out several times a day, every day, from Rose Dr– a 2 lane street? How quiet are dozens of daycare and band programs? Every weekend the expected multiple instances of a sudden aggregation of 200 people will turn quiet into chaos for those of us living nearby. If one car a minute can enter and/or leave the proposed Blake site from a stop-signed Rose Dr corner intersection, it will take 150 cars over 2.5 hrs just to park once. Do this 4 times (twice in, twice out) on a Sunday as proposed and the day is gone-all devoted to parking noise, congestion and associated risks.
TOO MUCH TRAFFIC ALREADY
Our original Rose Dr neighborhood tranquility has been under stress by construction of a shopping center and housing development at the end of Rose Drive that directs too much traffic on to Rose Drive already. I often have to wait for 10-15 cars to whiz by to be able to just get in or out of my own Rose Drive driveway. Because we have so many young children living on Rose Drive, and a school, adding more traffic load simply increases the risk of a tragic event someday from small to nearly certain.
BLAKE COURT HILLSIDE IS A FIRE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD
Climate change experts are finding that Benicia will be having warmer summers, extended doughts, and occasional very heavy rain as the climate instability progresses. The dryness and heat lead to increasing risk of fire. Only a few months ago, one carelessly lit match at the intersection of Blake Ct and Rose Drtive led to an instant conflagration that blackened the whole Blake Ct hillside with flames reaching right up to our homes on Rose Drive. I called an insurance company about increasing our home insurance after that and was told that not only was that no lomger possible, but that they wouldn’t provide us an earthquake insurance quote either because no responsible insurance company would provide a policy to any building located so close to a hillside so likely to have future landslides. If they would not even give us a quote, living on Rose Drive, what will they do for a building located on the steep hillside itself?.
CELL PHONE & TV RECEPTION
Our pocket of Rose Drive near Blake Ct is subject to very poor TV reception and even variable quality cell phone reception. We are some of the 1/3 of people who have switched to cell phones from land lines. When I dial a 911, I want to feel certain that the call will go through. I see no evaluation of the risk of increasing interference produced by any structure larger than the single family dwelling for which we are zoned. All my neighbors on the hills of Rose Drive have single family homes with 1500-2500 sq ft of space. The proposed structure is 20,000 sq ft, hardly qualifying it as a single family dwelling.
PLANNING
IF the City of Benicia has a master plan for locatng new religious congregations, the choice of Blake Ct has to be the most bizarre and inconvenient site imaginable. Just to handle the propoed traffic will require a major roadway with less ongestion than Rose, somewhere else in Benicia. Placing a 20,000 sq ft structure on a steep unstable hillside terrain cannot remake it into the fiction that it is a single family dwelling, which is what we all agreed to in buying our Rose Dr homes.
Open space with wildlife is a rarity for city dwellers to enjoy and provides an esthetic amenity that enhances the value of living in Benicia. Since there is no urgent need to destroy it, preserve it when you can and help the Harbor group, if it is a worthy one, to find a more suitable location for its project.
Friends of Rose Drive
FriendsofRoseDr@aol.com
A letter from a neighbor on Rose Drive
Dear members of the Benicia City Council, the Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Review Commission,
I am writing to express my concerns over the impact that the proposed project will have on my community and the street that I live on (Rose Drive). One of reasons why we chose to buy our home on Rose Drive is because we wanted a safe and quiet place to live for our family. We very much enjoy the peaceful community, good neighbors and beautiful surroundings. It is truly a wonder that we can hike along quiet trails in our very own backyards!
However, the amount of traffic and the speed at which many of the cars drive up and down Rose Drive has always been upsetting to me. I am absolutely terrified of letting my 6 year old and 3 year old boys anywhere near the sidewalks out in front of our home. I often see children walking, neighbors walking their dogs, and people jogging or riding their bikes to get some exercise along Rose Drive and then I cringe when I see the cars speeding along besides them. I can only imagine what a nightmare traffic would be should a busy 20,000 sq ft, 2 story church/community center be built just half a block from my doorstep!
I am also concerned about the health hazards that may result from the construction of the project. As a Health Educator who works in the area of children’s environmental health, I know how dangerous it can be to dig up old toxic dirt that can be easily spread throughout the area, blown through the wind and then settles in our yards. This is an unnecessary health hazard and puts our families, children and pets at risk.
Lastly, I am concerned about the amount of noise that construction of the building and activities of the church/community center will create. Will we still be able to enjoy a quiet Sunday afternoon in our backyards? Will we be able to leave our windows open on a warm summer days and not be disturbed by noise from services, parties andbasketball games late into the night?
I feel that a project of this magnitude does not belong in a residential area and will negatively impact the safety and enjoyment of my neighborhood. I respectfully ask that you consider the many factors that have been addressed by me, my neighbors and the Friends of Rose Drive and that approval for this project not be granted. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Letter from a neighbor
Hello Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing to you on behalf of the friends of Rose Drive. They have brought to my attention some serious concerns about the building of a new church on Blake Court.
I am sure that you are all aware of how congested Rose Drive is already.
I also have the great pleasure of living on Bolton Circle and am regularly exposed to Rose Drive traffic every time the city repaves a section of Rose or has to fix a sewer leak or water pipe. I can tell you first hand that this is nothing short of a nightmare.
The cars come speeding around the corner of Bolton at break neck speeds. It is not safe for my two young children to play out front.
The reason I mention this to you, is in the event the Church is allowed to be built most of the Rose drivers will use my street, Bolton Circle, to circumvent the congestion.
This doesn’t even begin to address the concerns I have with lighting and noise in the area. We are living in a residential area that needs to be just that, residences. I do not want a looming, brightly lit structure
towering over my neighborhood and I am sure none of you would either.
I know many of you are running for re-election and I would be very interested in how you would vote on this matter before I give any of you my endorsement.
This is something that cannot be undone, so I want to make sure you hear from someone that this will have a lasting impact on.
Thank you
Letter from neighbor to the City
26 January 2010
Benicia Community Leaders
Subject: Proposed church on Blake Court
My name is Mary Goudy and I live at 926 Rose Drive. I am opposed to the proposed church on Blake Court. I understand the need for this church to have a permanent facility, however, I do not believe that Blake Court is the right location for that facility. There have been other churches that needed permanent facilities in Benicia that have found alternate areas to build. Northgate Christian Fellowship built their facility on Lake Herman Road and did not disturb the inner community at all. They too were temporarily located in the industrial park for many years until a site became available and developed.
Rose Drive is an already very busy thoroughfare. To add a facility the size of the proposed church with the associated traffic alone is unthinkable. It is already dangerous to back out of my driveway and drive my children to school in the morning. If that were to be compounded with traffic associated to the day care facility and the comings and goings of the church attendees – I would never get out of my house.
Traffic signs and speed limits are typically ignored. I have had people run into my vehicles parked right in front of my house on two separate occasions. And I live one house from a stop sign and they should be slowing down not speeding up and watching where they are going.
The parking spaces identified in the plan are 104 when the facility will accommodate 400. Therefore overflow parking will be on Rose Drive and in front of our homes. With their proposed Community Center, Day Care Center and Basketball court – that means that the facility will be open from early morning hours until late evening. I did not move to Rose Drive to live on a freeway.
Will Gregory; Do we have to many Liberals in town? What do we do about them. Or say Attorneys, Enviro Greenies, Bars, Eating Places or maybe Conservatives or Tea Party backers? We have them because people want them. So it may not suit your need, so what. It is not all about you Will Gregory, it is about the residents. I think we have far to many coffee places and loud cell phone users. I could go on forever. But the big one is to many Liberals. That has got to change.
You’re once again fighting the losing fight, Bob. Benicia isn’t becoming any more conservative. What’s the median age of the local tea party members?
Liberals, Attorneys, Enviro Greenies, Bars, Eating Places, Conservatives Tea Party Backers; which amongst these are tax exempt?
Thomas stated: “which amongst these are tax exempt?”
I am not clear on how that is relevant to the point Will was making (restricting the number of churches in the community).
One of the founding principles of the country is freedom of religion. As long as a house of worship complies with fair city ordinances, then any restriction placed on a house of worship because it is a house of worship would obviously be unconstitutional.
Unless one accepts or encourages the selective enforcement of the Constitution.
I am all for freedom of religion (regardless of how I feel about those whom our blinded by mythology). However, in this case the “freedom” to build a church (which I am interpreting from your comment) seems to be a potential inconvenience for the folks that live in the area. Thus, when things such as this impinge on the liberties of others, then there is a limit to freedom. Unless you are arguing for absolute freedom; then I will remind you that absolute freedom has never existed in this country, as it would result in anarchy. That said, my comment was not in response to to WG’s comment.
Thomas stated: “Unless you are arguing for absolute freedom…”
You will note that I qualified my statement by stating that compliance with local regulations is required. Modifying said regulations to specifically exclude a church would be wrong.
Thomas stated: “Also, correct me if I am wrong, but, I don’t see any specific reference to “House of Worship” in the 1st Amendment.”
Of, course not and I never implied that it was there, but “Freedom of Religion” is there, which is what we are talking about.
It should also be noted that “separation of Church and State” is also not in the Constitution and though not mentioned specifically by yourself, it is a mantra that has been engrained into many by its overuse and false premise.
Thomas Stated: “That said, my comment was not in response to to WG’s comment.”
Correct, your comment was in response to Bob, whose comment was in response to WG, thus a continuation existed.
But that distraction aside, you did not answer the question asked: What does the tax exempt status have to do with the original question posed?
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but, I don’t see any specific reference to “House of Worship” in the 1st Amendment.
A look back at our local environmental history. The Rose Drive Development.
Information for the community to consider.
Toxic Art
by Diana Scott
Source: Albion Monitor.
“Garden for Rose Dr.” by Susan Leibovitz Steinman, at the former Busfield home
Inspired by toxic ooze in Benicia, 15 Bay Area artists explore pollution and waste in our society.
It’s been five years since Tom and Lynn Busfield had to vacate their suburban home in Benicia because of toxic ooze in their backyard. The Busfields and six other families fled after they discovered their average middle class neighborhood was built on land that was once a local dump, and Tom and Lynn began a campaign to have the land cleaned up.
Thus far their campaign’s been fruitless, as they’ve bounced from city to state enforcement agencies with little to show for it. “No one would do anything,” said Tom Busfield, stopping to chat curbside in front of his old home.
That is, not until several artists who’d been invited to participate in a show at Arts Benicia Center Gallery seized the chance to create site-specific environmental works for the Busfield’s front driveway, as well as gallery pieces referencing the site.
Their work is part of a larger exhibit of work by 15 Bay Area artists, entitled “PostWaste,” an issue-oriented collaboration among four galleries in the region, which focuses on waste and waste management: ways that the detritus of our post-industrial society shapes our lives, its potential for reuse, remediation, metaphorical meanings, and — in the case of the Busfield’s old neighborhood of Rose Drive — its harmful effects, even twenty-something years after burial of the waste.
“There’s something that artists can do to make the invisible visible.”
Along with the seven Rose Drive houses evacuated by order of the state because they were deemed too toxic for habitation, another 22 homes in the footprint of the former Braito dump were also impacted. The developer, Southhampton Company, has bought back these houses, including those across the street from the empty ones; they are now rented at below market rates, according to Kathryn Gunther, Director of Arts Benicia gallery, and co-curator of the exhibit.
But unlike other evacuees of Rose Drive, who sold their homes after a” toxics assessment revealed the presence of half a dozen substances in concentrations known to be harmful to humans,” the Busfields retained title to their former dwelling.
By remaining homeowners, the Busfields control the evidence supporting their lawsuit against the developer, and retains a neighborhood presence while pressing for clean-up and compensation. Families whose homes were sold back were required to relocate out of the Bay Area, as a condition of repurchase.
Homeowner status has also enabled them to help create issue- oriented works of art. In fact, working with artists has had its special rewards: “[Artists are] the only ones who listened…,” said Tom Busfield, through the window of his car. “It’s been therapy for us as a family.”
And for artists with an environmental focus, like Robin Lasser, co-curator and contributor to the show, working in this picture-postcard town where middle class families have been touched by a toxic near-catastrophe has been an eye-opener — a warning just how precariously vulnerable to buried history secure domestic life can be.
More About the Post Waste Art Project “I was so struck, I could barely move for a week,” says Lasser, a professor of art at San Jose State University, recalling her initial reaction to the circumstances forcing the evacuation. Having accepted Gunther’s invitation to co-curate “PostWaste,” a show that is subtitled “An Imperative for the Near Future,” she soon regained momentum, feeling she had to do something. One result is “Lamentations,” an audio installation/memorial to lives and relationships disrupted along Rose Drive, created in collaboration with artist Peggy Dyson.
It consists of large, pedestal-mounted, wide-mouthed glass jars which are laser-etched with sing-song epitaphs (“For Rosie who still lives in the neighborhood where dogs turn blue ‘Ashes ashes we all fall down'”). Each jar, with its lid-embedded high tech speaker and movement sensor emits a different lyric or toy- like sound — that of a barking dog or crying baby-doll — as viewers move among the pedestals.
Lasser calls the metaphorical inscriptions “fictitious,” but they’re more like composite stories, collages grounded in life fragments gathered from a neighborhood where the dog really did turn blue. “Waste in our culture is, to me, not a political issue — it’s a crisis,” she says. “By offering a forum [for discussing it] it becomes a political football…There’s something that artists can do to make the invisible visible in a way that is often non-verbal,” something that rhetoric cannot do as well, she says.
In this sense, the show is a bellweather of our growing awareness of the often invisible dangers that toxic waste poses, camouflaged by tidy landscaping. The privately-owned Braito dump on which the houses on Rose Drive were built was not an unusual land-use in the mid-1950s; when it closed in 1978, the site was purchased by the developer, Southhampton, who was responsible for clean-up prior to construction. But the town signed off prematurely.
Now, as homeowners have continued to bring suit against the company, the company has sued the town, leading to a stand-off between city officials, company reps, and local residents who are pressing for a remedy. Partial clean-up of some non-residential sites by the developer has taken place, says Gunther, in the course of company negotiations with the city to permit construction of 300 more homes, and Southhampton has also agreed to hold the town government harmless legally against residents’ claims. Plans to build those new homes are temporarily on hold because of a new danger assessment required since metals were recently discovered on the site in question, which was formerly occupied by the military.
Benicia was an arsenal town until 1965, after which the city government, desperate for revenue, accepted an offer of funds from a local company, Benicia Industries, with which to buy hundreds of acres of land formerly owned by the military. In exchange, the business received leases for choice waterfront parcels at extremely favorable rates, offering these in turn to industries that filled the vacuum created by the arsenal closing. Leasees included Humble Oil (subsequently EXXON), Huntway refinery, and a range of lighter industry, some of it polluting as well. Four years ago, after certain industrial leases expired, a small portion of the former arsenal property was rezoned, says Gunther, in a “planned development” that accommodates artist studios, galleries, and some retail uses.
Benicia’s industrial history makes waste management everyone’s concern.
Not everyone in town has appreciated the Arts Benicia’s effort to inspire and promote dialogue on the issues of toxic waste and land use. At a recent budget hearing, a city councilman, after discounting his resemblance to Jesse Helms, wondered aloud if the content of the show might not inhibit local tourism; in the end, he voted with his peers to approve an additional appropriation for the city-funded gallery which is staffed by volunteers. An uneasy truce prevails. Arts Benicia has, in the past sponsored shows of individual local artists’ work, juried shows, open member group shows, and art auction previews, as well as another regional collaboration last year on the theme of aging.
Curators were gratified to see the dialogue evolve further at a panel discussion June 19 at the local public library, which attracted about 70 people, many of them from Martinez and Vallejo. Panelists included artists, environmental experts and regulators, and anti-toxics activists.
While not all 27,000 town residents are plagued by toxic waste, Benicia’s industrial history makes waste management everyone’s concern. Toxic substances discovered on Rose Drive include hydrogen cyanide, whose known effects include toxic asphyxiation, weakness, headaches, confusion, nausea, vomiting, and respiratory distress; hydrogen sulfide, which can damage the nervous system, eyes and mucous membranes, and produce respiratory problems; and arsenic, linked to lung cancer, gastro- intestinal, skin, and bone marrow damage, and severe shock leading to paralysis of the capillaries (and death). In the last five years, hides, tires, scrap metal and tanks have also filtered up on the former dumpsite.
In addition, toxic levels of chromium found there have been linked to lung cancer, skin ulcers, and liver and kidney damage; and present concentrations of lead are known to cause headaches, muscle and joint pain, neurological, blood and kidney damage, and immune suppression. Other hazardous substances found in toxic concentrations include vinyl chloride, methane, and dioxin (a known carcinogen).
There may just be something in this show for everyone, including unborn generations. Currently, the state legislature is considering eliminating many of California’s stringent toxic waste controls in favor of weaker federal regulations, on the grounds that high standards are costly and therefore detrimental to businesses. The battle for adequate pollution control tends to be a drawn-out, bureaucratic process, with key skirmishes often obscured by technical jargon, and under-reported testimony, buried in mainstream newspapers.
“PostWaste” cuts to the punch, reminding us that what we waste can waste us, and that what ultimately happens to our “garbage” is everybody’s business.
Message on garage door from “Garden for Rose Dr”
This is a issue of private property rights and religious freedom.
If I don’t own the property I have no right what to tell someone else what to do with their property and neither does the government or the neighbors!!!!!
I wonder if this were a mosque that was proposed? I’m sure you politically correct people would jump on the band wagon and make sure no one discriminated against those poor Muslims that want to plot the demise of America but you are the first to demand the taking down of a cross. I’m one of those who is tired of being politically correct .
Neighbors and the City of Benicia…Let them build their church!!!!!!!
HPRC, what the heck does a church in a tract home sub-division have to do with historic structures? What qualifications or training do any of you have in regards to this issue?
After approving the building of this church disband the HPRC.
Your religious freedom and personal property rights extend only as far as mine. Neighbors always have a say, as well they should. That’s why this meeting is being held. Go and have your say, and don’t stop anyone from having theirs.
Based on their preference that this church not be built in this area, it seems that 95% of the citizens in the area appear not to be evangelical Baptists. Lacking interest in the facility, their primary concern would most likely be property values. Their concerns may be warranted.
The 95% figure suggests that the majority of people coming to this church will be from out of area. In reviewing their leaderships and membership information on their site, they appear to have a large presence in Vallejo. Clearly this implies a large number of people will be driving down Rose Dr to attend services rather than walking in form the local community.
Unlike the past, in the modern day a new church in an area often lowers property values because of the additional traffic, noise, and loss of what is often a large open space. If the church’s population is not reflective of the local community these effects are amplified. This is the heart of the local residents’ concern based on these hard economic times. This is what should be focused on.
One idea would be to improve the traffic flow to help mitigate the problems on Rose drive. In looking at the aerial map of Rose Drive, I see two things that would help traffic on all of Rose drive. One connect Blake court directly to Columbus Parkway via a bypass that connects to Bulton Circle. Two connect Bantry Way to Lake Herman Road. These two changes will eliminate a huge amount of traffic on Rose drive and offer more ways to approach and leave the city. Since these two areas presently have no construction on them, the two roads are open in these places to what appear to be cleared land; the city could do this without the cost of purchasing developed properties or forcing anyone from their homes. I might suggest business zoning along the Bantry Way access and at the intersection of the Columbus Parkway to the new Bulton Circle bypass as these roads will be away from the homes and the taxes and benefits from having local business will help offset the costs to put in the roads. It will make it much easier for emergency services to enter and exit the area as well. One might even add a community park near the Columbus park/Bulton bypass as the area lacks one in easy walking distance. This would benefit Vallejo as well with new business and community resources in an area currently lack either. There would even be enough space depending on how the road was built to allow for the construction of a new primary school to serve the Regents Park area. Given they promised this to those residents and developers area restarting construction in the area, combing this with any new road work in the are only makes sense.
Very logical solutions which would help alleviate several of the problems associated with this issue.
The back exit to Lake Herman Road makes perfect sense.
There may be more to this issue than just traffic. i do understand the home owners concerns. They should be addressed. I do not know the zoning rules after the Church is built if it is built. But this might be where the rub is. Fear that the size could someday become a k/12 school. Religious leaning schools seem to put some political fear in the residents. Remember it was only fifty years ago we elected a Catholic President. Now fifty years later look at the dust up over Romney and his faith. We may not want to admit it but religion does play a big part in our political make up. We all like to feel we are beyond that. Now look at where they say the members will come from. Another fear. For what I do not know. But as I say it is more than just a church Lets hope this gets resolved to everyones satisfaction. Yes, why is the HPRC involved in this. City staff overload I would assume. If that is the case it may be a good time to look at the number of Boards and Commissions and the time staff takes to service them. Just a thought. Thats a memo