Tag Archives: Rose Estates

Warning re: Benicia’s “Rose Estates” – Jerry Hayes, former Mayor

Editor: Former Benicia Mayor Jerry Hayes sent me the following email message: “Roger – I have grown increasingly concerned that our City Council is about to approve the issuance of building permits for Seeno’s Rose Estates project. I think the Council as well as the majority of our citizens are ill-informed about the ongoing hazard presented by the closed IT Toxic Waste Dump.”

Tale of Two Failures

By Jerry Hayes, Benicia Mayor, 1996-2000

Jerry Hayes, Benicia Mayor 1992-2000 and local historian. Photo from Benicia Main Street Facebook

Over 30 years ago, shortly after being elected to the Benicia City Council, I met with and was given friendly advice by our former mayor, Marilyn O’Rourke. She told me of her own, eight-year experience serving on the City Council. Perhaps Mayor O’Rourke’s greatest accomplishment was managing the closure of the IT class one toxic waste facility on Benicia’s northern border.

Mayor O’Rourke cautioned me that two issues, the Rose Drive dump and the IT toxic dump, would occupy most of my time and energy during my future tenure on the City Council.  Boy, was her warning prophetic.

During my first term on the City Council, I spent countless hours meeting with Rose Drive residents and Department of Toxic Substances Control officials. I would have much rather spent my time and energy promoting ferry service for our community or working on the revitalization of our waterfront for the benefit of all our residents.

Rose Drive (Braito) Dump

The Rose Drive dump, also known historically as the Braito/Solano County Sanitary Landfill, began operations in the mid-1950s and accepted a mix of household waste, scrap metal, tannery waste, sewage sludge and industrial waste. The dump operated until 1979 when it was closed with the purchase of the property by the Southampton Company. Homes were built over the landfill area soon after closure, as part of the Southampton residential community.

In 1991, ground settling and the discovery of a soft black material beneath backyards of several homes revealed that buried waste remained under residential lots. Several homes were evacuated for cleanup.  Methane leaking from the buried waste was ignited by a pilot light in one residence, resulting in a fire and evacuation. Investigations revealed that roughly 24,000 cubic yards of potentially hazardous waste had not been removed and remained buried near or beyond the original landfill boundaries.

What followed next was litigation, with residents suing the developer and the City of Benicia and former Mayor O’Rourke’s warning became a reality. By the time I took office as a council member in 1992, scores of Southampton residents had filed lawsuits against our city, and by the time I was sworn in as mayor in 1996, nearly 100 lawsuits had been filed asserting that the city, as well as the developer, had been negligent.  Again, I found myself spending most of my time in countless meetings with attorneys who we had hired to defend our city and its citizens. My principal job as mayor was protecting the reputation of our city and the property values of every homeowner.

Historically, Braito landfill wasn’t regulated as a hazardous waste site, but the presence of wastes like tannery refuse raised concerns about contaminants in the soil or groundwater. Some residual wastes were found outside the closed landfill leading to long-term monitoring requirements. In 1998, a jury found negligence by the developers regarding homes built on the old landfill, though damages awarded were limited.

IT Class 1 Hazardous Waste Dump

Operations at the IT Panoche facility predated IT ownership. In 1968, the facility was permitted by the State of California as a Class 1 hazardous waste disposal site and received its first conditional land use permit from Solano County. Originally owned by J&J Disposal Company, the site was purchased by IT in 1974. This hazardous waste management facility covers 242 acres, of which 190 acres are permitted for disposal of hazardous waste, within a 2,350-acre parcel of land owned by IT.

Types of waste received

From 1970 to 1985, the facility annually received between 80,000 and 220,000 tons of hazardous waste for disposal. In 1986, the facility accepted 67,867 tons of waste for landfill disposal and approximately seven million gallons of liquid waste which were disposed in surface impoundment ponds. During 1985, more than 98% of all the hazardous wastes received at the facility were from outside Solano County. The specific types of hazardous waste handled by the facility included: acid and alkaline solutions; metal sludges; solvents; pesticide rinse water; PCB’s; paint sludge; laboratory wastes; heavy metal wastes; contaminated soils; asbestos; chloroform; tetrachlorethene; dichloropropane.

Violations and closure

From 1984 through 1988, state regulators issued numerous notices of violations (NOV) and cleanup and abatement (CAB) orders until the facility ceased operations in 1988. In 2002, IT Corporation declared bankruptcy. On May 1, 2004, the IT Environmental Liquidating Trust (ITELT) was established to oversee the long -term post closure, maintenance and upkeep of the site.

All closed Class 1 toxic waste dumps located in the state of California leak. The IT Panoche Benicia site has leaked in three directions, east, west and south.

The future Rose Estates

I am writing this rather lengthy treatise because it has been revealed that our city administration is about to issue building permits for a 1,050-home residential project to the Seeno Corporation to be built just south of Lake Herman Road, in the shadow of the closed IT toxic waste dump.

I stand adamantly opposed to this project for a variety of reasons. While Benicia deserves thoughtful, sustainable solutions to our housing needs, placing a large residential development adjacent to a closed Class 1 toxic waste dump, the IT Panoche site, is neither prudent nor responsible. Class 1 toxic waste facilities are designated for the disposal of the most hazardous industrial material. Although the IT Panoche site is officially closed, closure does not mean it is risk-free. Such sites require long-term monitoring because contaminants can migrate through soil, ground water or air over time. Building more than a thousand homes – likely housing several thousand residents including children and seniors – so close to a known toxic waste site exposes future residents to unnecessary and potentially irreversible health risks. No amount of landscaping, fencing or marketing language can change the basic reality: This location was once deemed appropriate for hazardous waste, not for neighborhoods, schools or parks.

Approving Rose Estates would shift environmental risk onto future homeowners and renters who do not fully understand the site’s history. This raises serious environmental justice issues. Residents should not be placed in harm’s way because land is cheaper or easier to develop near a contaminated area.

Health impacts from long-term exposure to toxic substances, such as increased cancer risk, respiratory illnesses, and developmental issues, often take years or decades to become evident. By then, the burden falls on families and the community, not on the developer. Even if current studies suggest the site is “safe,” conditions change. Earthquakes, flooding, erosion or infrastructure failure can all compromise containment systems. Who will be responsible if contamination is discovered decades from now? Will homeowners bear the costs or will Benicia taxpayers? Approving this project creates long-term liabilities for the City of Benicia, potentially far outweighing short-term economic or housing gains.

Allowing dense residential development next to a former Class 1 toxic waste dump sets a troubling precedent. It signals that Benicia is willing to lower its safety standards and gamble with public health to meet development goals. Once established, such a precedent becomes difficult to reverse.

A call for responsible decision making

Rejecting the Rose Estates proposal is not a rejection of housing; it is a commitment to smart, ethical and responsible planning. Benicia can and should pursue housing projects that do not place residents at risk or burden future generations with preventable health and environmental problems. City leaders have a duty to protect the community. In this case, the responsible choice is clear.

The rose estates project should not move forward.

Jerry Hayes is a former City Council Member (1992-1996) and Mayor of Benicia (1996-2000). 


MORE ABOUT THE ROSE ESTATES PROPOSAL

HERE ON THE BENICIA INDEPENDENT

Rose Estates on the Benicia Independent

CITY OF BENICIA
City of Bencia Rose Estates Project

For current information from the City of Benicia, check out their ROSE ESTATES page. For larger image, just click on the map at right.

 

City of Benicia North Study Area (Seeno property)

Prior to 2024, the City of Benicia conducted a North Study Area community visioning process – see the old web page.

 


MORE ABOUT SEENO

BENICIA BACKGROUND:
CITIZEN BACKGROUND:
CONCORD/CONTRA COSTA BACKGROUND:

Elizabeth Patterson: Lessons from Benicia’s past have implications for Benicia’s near future…

Telling the Tale of the Tail That Wagged the Dog

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 - present
Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 – 2020

By Elizabeth Patterson (Benicia Mayor 2007-2020), May 29, 2025

The tale is about Sky Valley development for thousands of homes and businesses. Business as usual with city officials and land developers. “Gotta” build in the next undeveloped land. Need more housing to bring revenues to the city. We must grow more housing to survive. I always wonder how far we need to “grow” – to Fairfield, to Sacramento, to Reno? In other words, it makes no sense to say “we have to grow to survive”. What is the alternative? Let me make a suggestion or two.

When there was city leadership driving the development for Sky Valley (this is the Lake Herman area), residents began to question the collective vision of the city. This city vision is required by the State – known as the General Plan. Bob Berman, a planner and leader for smart growth and open spaces – testified and wrote that Sky Valley was the tail wagging the dog. He campaigned for updating the General Plan that would be the legal vison of the city. This was a pivotal moment for Benicia.

There was a citizen driven petition to stop the Sky Valley project. By a city council one vote margin the city driven development for Sky Valley was scuttled. The city council in the mid 90s by resolution created an advisory task force on the nature and extent of updating the General Plan. And by resolution established a seventeen-member General Plan Oversight Committee (GPOC) to prepare the General Plan.

The GPOC decision making was by consensus during open meetings that were scheduled to encourage public participation. Common and shared values were identified and agreed upon by consensus. Each goal and policy had to meet those common and shared values by consensus. Each legally required element and optional element had to be integrated. A kind of holistic process. The future vision was adopted with clarity and purpose. Each element – housing, transportation, conservation, economic development, heathy community – was driven by sustainable development as the overarching goal.

The Urban Growth Boundary Line restricting urban development replaced the thousands of proposed suburban houses. The Benicia Industrial Park association waged a stellar campaign to prevent changing zoning from light industrial to commercial and mixed use with their focus on expansion for industry along East Second. Their point was to avoid conflict with future residents who would complain about industrial noise, big trucks and other incompatible activities.

The GPOC appointed by the council and made up of voices from every corner of our community was tasked with drafting the general plan. GPOC held nearly a dozen panels of specialists on geology, property rights, economic development, urban design, affordable housing, community health, and hazardous waste to inform the committee and public. We had experts educating citizens so that opportunities and constraints – that is what trained urban and regional planners practice – were known and vetted in public.

So is the potential Valero closure the tail wagging the dog of development? Best to start with what are the objective standards for sustainable development. It sure is not building housing that creates more vehicle trips – in fact there is a state law that says just that.

And what does resiliency mean? Public Resources Code 71360 (Senate Bill 246, 2015) established the Clearinghouse to support holistic, science-based climate resilience decisions, planning, and projects across local communities, regions, and the State. Clearinghouse resources include toolkits and templates, example plans and projects, curated case studies, scientific studies, tools and data, guidance documents, and more.

Lastly, homage to historic downtown Benicia is perfect. There are approximately 482 historic towns and cities in California, though none as special as Benicia. And there is only one Historic Arsenal in California, here in Benicia – which is slated through the congressionally established Delta National Heritage Area as a destination for visitors and residents alike.

The current Benicia General Plan stipulates that goals and policies must meet sustainable development overarching goal. Decision makers for “cohesive new neighborhoods like Rose Estates, [Historic Arsenal] Jefferson Ridge and the Valero property” are not the unifying consensus vision of Benicians. Once again, the tail is wagging the dog of Benicia’s future.

Elizabeth Patterson, Mayor 2007-2020

Benicia Councilmembers Scott and Birdseye on potential Valero closure

To our fellow Benicia Residents and Business owners:

By Benicia Councilmembers Kari Birdseye and Terry Scott, May 27, 2025

This is a pivotal moment in our city’s history. The potential Valero refinery closure isn’t just a challenge—it’s our opportunity to reimagine Benicia’s future.

For decades, Valero has been directly woven into our economic fabric. And, woven directly into being a significant charitable partner.

Now, we must face change. We must look ahead with clarity and purpose.

This transition demands thoughtful planning, which is why Mayor Young has established specialized task forces to guide our path forward. These task forces will focus on economic diversification, sustainable development, and community resilience. Their mission is clear: to mitigate impacts while discovering new possibilities for growth.

The success of this transition depends on inclusivity. We need voices from every corner of our community—businesses, schools, environmental advocates, residents, artists, Bay Area Air District and many others —to participate in this process.

Your insights will shape our economic assessment and redevelopment strategy.

The 940 acres that Valero may leave behind could be the catalyst that will act as a transformative site. But it represents more than land—it may represent Benicia’s next chapter.

This may be our chance to rebuild, reimagine, and reinvent our community for generations to come.

We have received our wake up call as a community. Now it’s time to act. The future belongs to those who prepare for it.

Together, let’s create a Benicia that honors our past while boldly and bravely steps toward a more diverse, sustainable, and resilient tomorrow.

Our challenge is to transform Benicia into a resilient and sustainable community through economic diversification and innovative development, ensuring the prosperity of all residents, businesses and attractive to visitors.

To us the mission is clear: proactively manage the transition brought by potential changes in Valero’s operations by fostering economic resilience, supporting workforce development, and promoting sustainable redevelopment.

We aim to ensure the prosperity and well-being of Benicia’s residents through strategic planning, community engagement, and innovative solutions.

Benicia will be a vibrant, sustainable community where cutting-edge innovation harmonizes with small-town charm.

And finally, we envision a city where green, renewable technologies pioneers work alongside revitalized local businesses. Where our historic downtown thrives as a destination for visitors and residents alike, and where cohesive new neighborhoods like Rose Estates, Jefferson Ridge, and the Valero property reinvention, and others, provide diverse housing options and mixed use housing and retail tied together with micro transit opportunities.

Change is hard. But we must control our destiny.

Terry Scott
Kari Birdseye
Benicia Council Members

Warning re: Benicia’s “Rose Estates” proposal for Seeno property

Seeno’s proposed Benicia project, “Rose Estates.” (Click on image to enlarge…)

BenIndy – The breaking news story below highlights yet another ominous reminder for Benicia City staff and electeds to be extremely wary of any Seeno proposal to develop here. Which is to say, the “Rose Estates” proposal, which is currently under review. For more info on the “Rose Estates” proposal see the City’s brief description and map (at right)  or dive in deep on the City of Benicia website, either the current proposal page or the long listing of individual documents.

In today’s news, from nearby Brentwood…

Brentwood planning commission denies plan to build 272 homes

CBS News Bay Area, July 18, 2024

The Brentwood Planning Commission on Tuesday denied a controversial housing development project that has unsuccessfully made the rounds through the approval process since the early 2000s.

However, the Brindle Gate project by Albert Seeno-owned West Coast Home Builders and Discovery Builders is not necessarily dead in the water.

Should Seeno appeal the Tuesday decision, Bridle Gate could come before the Brentwood City Council, which could ignore the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approve the application.

The most current version of the project proposes to develop 272 homes on 135 acres in west Brentwood bounded by Old Sand Creek Road to the north, state Highway 4 to the east, the Brentwood Hills residential development to the south, and the edge of the Brentwood Planning Area and Antioch’s city limits to the west.

Location of Bridle Gate project in Brentwood, where 272 homes are being proposed. CITY OF BRENTWOOD

This particular project has drawn the ire of residents over the years for its previous lack of any designated affordable housing, plans to build a school that later disappeared, potential environmental and traffic impacts, and Seeno’s lawsuit against the city for previous project denials, among other reasons.

The latest version of the application included 27 affordable units, along with suggestions for addressing potential traffic issues.

Still, the commissioners this week unanimously agreed that the Bridle Gate project is inconsistent with the city’s general plan, which calls to protect Brentwood’s ridgelines and discourage cut-through traffic.

“We do a great job of designing for future residents, and we have to do a great job designing for current residents,” said Vice Chair David Sparling, who acknowledged many residents are worried about the Brentwood hills turning into a speedway in the proposed development area.

Bridle Gate’s history has spanned the last two decades and entailed multiple versions of the project.

The City Council first approved a modified land-use designation and rezoning request for the Bridle Gate project in 2006. But the Tentative Subdivision Map was never finalized and then expired, along with the associated development agreement.

In 2020, the applicant submitted an application, which was denied. Bridle Gate returned again in 2021 with the newest—and current—application. The Planning Commission was set to decide on it in September 2023 but continued the item, which didn’t resurface until this week.

Prior to the Planning Commission’s decision, Doug Chen, corporate engineer with West Coast Home Builders, spoke on behalf of the applicant, alleging that the project was consistent with the general plan. He said the maximum density would have allowed for 408 units, instead of the 272 proposed.

“So we have gone to the path that we want to have good-sized lots,” Chen said. “We think this will give us a good, solid project, decent-sized lots, good-sized homes and still providing for affordable units that meet the city’s affordable housing requirements.”

The public then weighed in with concerns about increased traffic near an area already congested with cars from Heritage High and Adams Middle schools, small parks proposed for the development, environmental impacts, and an increase of homes in a fire-risk area.

Speaker Dirk Ziegler—also a former Brentwood Planning Commissioner and licensed insurance broker—noted there was not enough defensible space for the future homeowners to secure insurance.

“We are witnessing firsthand rate increases between 20 and 40 percent, and non-renewals of many of the largest insurance companies right here in Brentwood, including areas like Shadow Lakes, Deer Ridge and Trilogy,” Ziegler said. “The west side of Brentwood is now considered a high fire area. Prospective homeowners will face significant challenges in obtaining new insurance.”


MORE ABOUT SEENO

BENICIA BACKGROUND:
CITIZEN BACKGROUND:
CONCORD/CONTRA COSTA BACKGROUND:

CITY OF BENICIA
City of Benicia North Study Area (Seeno property)

For current information from the City of Benicia, check out their North Study Area web page, https://www.ci.benicia.ca.us/northstudyarea: