Tag Archives: Rose Estates

Benicia residents send “Scoping” comments on Rose Estates

Editor: Benica’s Elizabeth Patterson, Dirk Fulton and Marilyn Bardet offer public comments on Rose Estates proposal. >> CONTEXT: On June 25, 2026, the City of Benicia issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Rose Estates Mixed-Use Project. The NOP informs responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties that the City will prepare an EIR to meet CEQA requirements and establish the scope and depth of the environmental analysis. The city sought PUBLIC comments on the scope of the Draft EIR and its evaluation of potential environmental impacts. Several distinguished Benicia residents provided comments and submitted them by the July 24 deadline. – R. S.

Elizabeth Patterson: Scoping comments on Rose Estates

July 24, 2026

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 - present
Elizabeth Patterson

The following are comments for the proposed Rose Estates project Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The comments are organized by reference to goals and policies of the existing General Plan which supports the goal of sustainable development based on environmental issues of climate, clean air and water management, habitat and aesthetics. Appendix A of the state Land Use and Climate Innovation (LUCI) is included to support additional mitigation measures for potential significant impacts.

The EIR should identify and mitigate significant climate change impacts as listed here:

• Lead agencies must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions of proposed projects, and must reach a conclusion regarding…. [continued – see the 13-page PDF here]

Dirk Fulton – Rose Estates CEQA Scoping

Dirk Fulton

I write to furnish comments on the City’s Initial Study Scoping for the Seeno family Rose Estates project. The large scale of the development and its proximity to the proposed Valero redevelopment project raise significant environmental issues described below and must be considered under scoping criteria:

1. The cumulative impacts of this project together with the neighboring Valero/Signature Properties development which has been presented to the City must be evaluated; see the No Oil case establish this principle and later case law and CEQA regulations.
2. Impacts on City services including…. [continued – see the 1-page PDF here]

Marilyn Bardet – Rose Estates CEQA Scoping

Marilyn Bardet

As a former appointed member of the General Plan Oversight Committee tasked to help rewrite the General Plan that was finally adopted in 1999, and as a 39 year resident of the East Side, I hereby incorporate by reference all scoping comments submitted by Elizabeth Patterson, our former mayor and the professional planner who, as a council member, served to facilitate and guide the work of the General Plan Oversight Committee. Her comments focus on the role the General Plan must play in determining the ultimate qualities of the Rose Estates project, thus, in accordance with sustainability goals, policies and programs, as well as, all applicable state laws, regulations and guidance relevant to all future development in Benicia.

I also incorporate all comments that may be submitted by residents who previously commented in 2007-08 on the Seeno DEIR for their proposed “Benicia business park”, especially Steve Goetz, Bob Berman, Roger Straw and others who were then fully engaged with that project’s lack of consistency with the General Plan’s primary goal of sustainability for benefit of the City and community of Benicia.

My general comments:
I am deeply concerned about how the proposed Rose Estates project, as it is currently presented through Tentative Maps and other preliminary application materials submitted in 2025 by Seeno’s builder, WCHB LLC, will be consistent with core values of the City of Benicia General Plan, the legally binding document…. [continued – see the 4-page PDF here]


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:

“Rose Estates” is Seeno project all over again…

Editor: I have been overly busy, and failed to send out a timely notice about the City of Benicia’s call for public comments on the 2026 version of Seeno’s proposal to build in Benicia’s northeastern hills, the so-called “Rose Estates” proposal. I missed alerting you to the July 16 meeting and the July 24 deadline for public scoping comments, but many of you did not miss those important dates. See the following two pieces and good links… I will follow this post with several important public comments submitted under the July 24 deadline. – R. S.

Good recent background piece:

The Benicia Bridge, “Rose Estates Update: Public Comments open for housing development” July 16, 2026

A housing development is proposed in Benicia’s rolling golden hills, northeast of the Valero lands and downslope from a former toxic landfill.

click image to enlarge…

Rose Estates, as currently designed, would bring 1,440 single-family homes and 180 multifamily residential units – including hundreds of affordable units. It also includes retail and commercial development, parks and open space. The development would occupy a 527-acre stretch of land between Lake Herman Road and East 2nd Street, surrounding the city’s Water Treatment Plant.

The Seeno family is behind the project – homebuilders with a long and storied record in the Bay Area. The applicant is…  [continued]

About the maps…

Marilyn Bardet, “Tentative Maps for Rose Estate tell a story: Scoping comments for EIR preparation due tomorrow by 5 pm!” by email, July 23, 2026

Dear fellow Benicians,

A picture is worth a thousand words. A plan view map of a massive development project proposed for our northern hills is a picture worth looking at closely.

Have a look at the Tentative Maps for the Rose Estates as currently proposed. [below]

For your benefit— a bit too late, admittedly— I’ve attached screenshots of a few of the Tentative Maps the developer provided to the City, and which are posted on the City’s website, where all of the maps are presented, somehowing enlarged sections of various “village” areas of the development site. I’ve selected only a few to show you to highlight the extent of the massing and design of the plan.

If you haven’t yet seen them yet or have forgotten about what’s proposed, here in a nutshell you can see a few of the maps and imagine the whole development of 527 acres of our northern hills.

The entire property has been owned by Seeno for decades, and several times Seeno has proposed developments that were ultimately rejected and then withdrawn, in 2005, and again in 2007-’08, the latter for a business park for mainly warehousing. Now the project proposal is predominantly for residential, to be developed by WCHB Development LLC.

The maps show the suburban layout of 1,440 single family homes, each averaging 2,500 sq ft with 45% lot coverage. There are 180 multi family units located together at the east end of the site, and, two commercial areas, one along East 2nd and the other wrapping around toward Lake Herman Rd. There are 3 small parks.

Please put on your thinking caps and ponder what these maps tell you and call up.

For example: notice on the “Overall Map[Rose Estates Project] that old Reservoir Rd, (which currently leads up to Lake Herman Rd from East 2nd St, and which borders the City’s property dedicated to our city water supply intake), is “erased”— removed. Notice that two new major boulevards would link Lake Herman Road to East 2nd Street.

On the last map below [TRACT MAP], you’ll see a blowup of the planning area farthest east on the site where the 180 multi-family housing units are proposed to be located: all clustered in one place, next to one of the two proposed commercial areas, and far from the 3 parks.

— Look closely: right above the area for the multi family units, e.g., outside the boundary of the site, you’ll see the entrance to the IT Panoche Class I Hazardous Waste Dump, which was “closed” way back in the early 90’s. BUT all the toxic materials impounded in that site are still in the ground, held back by a porcelain cement “earthen dam”, which is located right at the base of Lake Herman Rd. and across from the site for multi-family housing. Our former mayor Jerry Hayes reminds us of the liability that future homeowners will bear should those toxins move in the ground, leach into Paddy Creek, etc etc. CalEPA’s Dept of Toxic Substances is supposed to be monitoring the dump site for any water intrusion and contamination….

The city is inviting our comments on what the full extent of the scope of the environmental review should address. The Environmental Impact Report [EIR] is the public’s legal tool for understanding and evaluating a development’s various foreseeable impacts, such as impacts pertaining to traffic; air quality; geotechnical/soil stability; GHG climate (vehicle miles traveled ), energy; water supply; City services; infrastructure, protections for streams, creeks, wildlife, and scenic vistas.

Maps can tell you lots! Just imagine. This is your city, this could be its future. . .

Editor: the public comment period closed on July 24. Please disregard this paragraph…
You can send in your comments to planning@ci.benicia.ca.us (the name of the planner in charge of receiving Scoping comments was not identified on the City’s website for Rose Estates— or I couldn’t find it!) The City says, “Project information will be posted and maintained on the City’s website at www.ci.benicia.ca.us/roseestates.”

Marilyn Bardet

I believe the public comment period should be extended so that more people can become aware of the project as a whole and have their say.  See maps BELOW

Onward!
🙂 Marilyn

* * *

From the City’s website: Rose Estates
The City of Benicia has received a Development Application for Rose Estates, a proposed site development of the 527 acre “North Study Area” property for residential and commercial/industrial uses. The applicant, WCHB LLC, asserts that the Development Application is filed under provisions of the so-called “Builders Remedy” (Government Code section 65589.5(d)(5) of the Housing Accountability Act).
The project proposes:
• Development of approximately 1,440 single-family residential units and 180 multifamily residential units
• Construction of approximately 110,000 square feet of retail and 152,000 square feet of commercial/light industrial
• Provision of three parks of approximately 2.6 acres, 2.7 acres, and 6.0 acres
• Preservation of approximately 245 acres of undeveloped land for open space, including sensitive habitats, wetlands, and natural slopes

click on the map to enlarge…

click on the map to enlarge…

Return to top


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:

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