Category Archives: North Study Area

Seeno invokes ‘builder’s remedy’ to force Benicia’s hand on major housing project, but the city is pushing back

March 20, 2024

The battle over urban development and housing policy has escalated in Benicia, exposing tensions between developers, local governance, community sentiment, and the state as Sacramento works to increase California’s housing stock.

The proposed Rose Estates project, shared by the City of Benicia in the Facebook post pictured above and an official City webpage, could turn more than 527 acres of the former Benicia Business Park into a new community. With 1,080 new homes, 20 percent of which could be allocated for lower-income families, and 250,000 square feet of new commercial space, the company proposing the development touted it as Benicia’s most “expeditious” path to meeting its housing obligations.

But before the City deemed that application complete, the Seeno-owned West Coast Home Builders, LLC (WCHB; hereafter referred to simply as”Seeno”), raised the stakes on March 12 by submitting an updated application under the provisions of the “builder’s remedy,” drawing scrutiny from Benicia city officials and residents alike.

Seeno in Benicia

The genesis for the proposed development in Benicia’s former business park, also known as the North Study Area, reaches back many years. After City staff and leadership held several “visioning” sessions on the area’s future in 2023, Seeno representatives submitted a preliminary housing application for the space on September 15, 2023.

Since then, talks between Benicia and Seeno appear to have soured, culminating in the developer’s apparent decision to submit its “complete” application on March 12 under the provisions of the builder’s remedy, according to the City of Benicia.

The builder’s remedy is a legal mechanism under state housing law that allows developers to bypass local planning regulations for housing projects if a city fails to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets or pass a state-certified “housing element” that abides by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s allocation requirements. In its March 12, application, Seeno claimed that “Per HCD website [sic], the City did not meet its housing allocation […]. Consequently, the City is subject to the most stringent provisions of various housing laws […] [that] greatly limits local control over housing.”

Benicia City Council Member Kari Birdseye addressed Seeno’s assertion that Benicia was vulnerable to the builder’s remedy in the City’s Facebook post’s comments section, writing that “Our Housing Element has been certified and was before [Seeno’s] latest plan was submitted. The City is now evaluating the application and will be keeping our community updated as public hearings and other milestones happen.”

It is unclear why the City is listed as negligent in fulfilling its obligations on the HCD website when City officials state otherwise. (Benicia’s City Attorney did not respond to requests for clarification at publication time; this post will be updated to include comment if/when it is provided.)

But whether or not Benicia is truly vulnerable to the builder’s remedy, opponents of the project insist that Seeno’s invocation of it represents the developer’s cynical intention to abandon its first application, for a project that would have to abide by Benicia’s zoning and planning rules, to advance a nearly identical project, one that could be unencumbered by those rules.

Other issues

The threat of having to face the builder’s remedy wasn’t the only issue the City took with Seeno’s applications. According to letters issued from Benicia’s Community and Development Department , Seeno failed to complete both its September 15 and March 12 applications, preventing Benicia from lawfully deeming them submitted.

Most glaringly, the City claims that it has been unable to verify who currently owns the Seeno empire and the land in Benicia to be developed due to active litigation. A family dispute over the control and leadership of the Seeno construction and development empire is making its way through the court system, and until the matter of who exactly Seeno belongs to is fully resolved, any application submitted by a Seeno company cannot be considered complete. (Albert Jr. and Thomas Seeno asserted principal ownership of the company in Rose Estates applications.)

A list of the application’s other critical omissions included the absence of a site plan with the project’s proposed heights for residences and square footage for commercial buildings, information about “bonus units and any incentives,” and proof that a portion of the property does not qualify as Wetlands, which would be subject to certain environmental protections.

The City’s has so far issued two responses to the September 15 application. The first was a December 13 letter from Jason Hade, Planning Manager for Benicia’s Community Development Department, that noted the omissions but included a a friendly offer for assistance. After a January 9, 2024 meeting where a Seeno representative apparently asserted the application was, despite the noted omissions, actually complete, Hade responded in a February 29 letter that the omissions were a nonstarter.  He also downgraded his offer of support to advise that Seeno could complete its application through the City’s online permit center.

It is currently unclear what additional impacts to the City’s relationship with Seeno may emerge as a result of the developer’s invocation of the builder’s remedy in its March 19 application. Regardless, as the City considers the threat the builder’s remedy poses in terms of allowing Seeno to bypass local zoning, the Rose Estates project has started to appear as less of a miracle solution to Benicia’s housing allocation issues, and more of a threat to the norms, policies and procedures that have, until now, allowed the city to govern development in its own jurisdiction.


MORE ABOUT SEENO

CONCORD/CONTRA COSTA BACKGROUND:
BENICIA BACKGROUND:
CITIZEN 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:

Bad blood: Seeno family feuds over Bay Area real estate empire

[BenIndy contributor Nathalie Christian: Here’s a real gem from the article below: Concord’s negotiations with Seeno were halted not by “term-sheet specifics or the deal point, but rather [by] accusations that were made through editorial comment that were in the local papers.'” There it is, folks – proof that your letters to the editor and other community-facing actions like making a public comment at a city council meeting, public hearing or study can absolutely change outcomes. They sure did in Concord, no? Never underestimate the value of sharing your opinion with your community. Your community is listening. In the next few days I will be sharing other viewpoints on this important topic. Reach out to us at benindy@beniciaindependent.com if you would like to share yours. – N.C.]

East Bay kingpin Albert Seeno Jr. and his son have long courted controversy. Now they’re fighting each other for the family business

Albert Seeno Jr. (left) and son Albert III

The Real Deal [Real Estate News], by Pawan Naidu, May 1, 2023

For a family that’s spent the last nine decades building a real estate empire spanning thousands of homes in the East Bay, the Seenos have generally tried to keep their business dealings quiet.

“They don’t take the Donald Trump approach and pat themselves on the back,” said Phil Tagami, CEO of California Capital and Investment Group, which partnered with the Seenos on a failed bid to redevelop a former naval base in the region. “They just go onto the next project.”

But the spotlight they’ve avoided for decades does find them occasionally — and not for the right reasons.

For the past year, 80-year-old patriarch Albert Seeno Jr. has been waging a battle for control of the family business with his son Albert III, who he claims mishandled funds and attempted to muscle him and other relatives out. That is only the latest chapter in the Seenos’ decades-long legal history, which is dotted with allegations ranging from political meddling to threats of outright violence.

The Seenos did not respond to interview requests for this story.

The American dream

The family’s Bay Area story began when Albert Jr.’s grandfather Gaetano Seeno came to the U.S. in the early 1900s, one of thousands of Italian immigrants who became ​​fishermen in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and Suisun Bay.

Gaetano later worked in construction, eventually bringing his son Albert Sr. into the business.

Albert Sr. launched his own construction business in 1938, and at the time of his death in 2000, the company had built more than 30,000 homes, dozens of shopping centers, apartment buildings and offices, mostly in eastern Contra Costa County.

“In [the East Bay’s] Pittsburg, you can drive for miles and everything you see is a Seeno project,” Bob Rossi, a company executive, told SFGate in 2000. “[Albert Sr.] loved Pittsburg and took great pride in what he and his sons accomplished here.”

When Albert Sr. retired in the 1970s, he turned his company over to his sons, Albert Jr. and Thomas, who continue to run it as a family business across five companies: ADSCO, Seecon, West Coast Home Builders, North Village Development and Seecon Built Homes.

In 1997, third-generation exec Albert III followed in his father’s footsteps and started his own branch of the family business: Discovery Builders.

The growth that Albert Jr. led didn’t come without controversy, even though some locals have seen him in a different light.

“He’s almost like the pope with these people in town,” Allen Valentine, former Pittsburg Planning Commissioner, told SF Gate in 2002.

Nevertheless, he has been accused on multiple occasions of having improper relationships with local leaders — including allegations that he helped former Pittsburg Mayor Frank Aiello secure a favorable mortgage to buy a Seeno home, raising questions about whether the loan constituted a prohibited gift to an elected official. In 2004, Aiello agreed to pay $20,000 after failing to disclose gifts he’d received from Albert Jr., including Oakland Raiders tickets and trips to a casino in Reno, according to SFGate.

In 2003, former Pittsburg Councilmember Frank Quesada was sentenced to 300 hours of community service after pleading no contest to conflict-of-interest charges stemming from his votes on Albert Jr.’s projects while he owed the developer $370,000 in personal debt.

At a panel discussion ahead of the 2012 Pittsburg City Council election, voters expressed concern about the family’s outsized influence over the body, noting that the Seenos owned 90 percent of the city’s undeveloped land, according to the Mercury News.

Despite the alleged improprieties, the family has sought to maintain a favorable local reputation — and continue developing new projects. Last month, Discovery Builders scored approval to build 1,500 homes on 341 acres just outside Pittsburg after years of pushback from local officials and environmental groups.

But as Albert III tries to move the business forward, the family’s past keeps coming back to haunt him.

Seeno evil

Other far more serious accusations have been levied against the family. In 2012, the Seenos sued influential Las Vegas lobbyist Harvey Whittemore, accusing him of embezzling millions from a joint real estate venture called Wingfield Nevada Group Holding Co.

Whittemore countersued Albert Jr., accusing the father and son of threatening him and his family of failing to repay millions of dollars in alleged debts from a real estate partnership that fell apart in 2011. Whittemore sought $1.8 billion in damages from Albert III and his brother, accusing the Seenos of racketeering, extortion, grand larceny and threats of bodily harm.

No criminal charges were filed, and the lawsuits were settled confidentially in 2013, months before Whittemore was sentenced to two years in prison for illegal campaign contributions to Senator Harry Reid.

“[Whittemore] filed a frivolous, baseless lawsuit that went nowhere and was dropped,” Louis Parsons, president of Seeno-affiliated Discovery Builders, told The Real Deal.

But Whittemore wasn’t the only one to make accusations of intimidation against a member of the Seeno family. In 2017, Ayman Shahid, a high school friend of Albert III and former president of Discovery’s sales arm, alleged that the younger Seeno issued him a “chilling death threat,” according to court documents. The alleged threat had to do with Shahid agreeing to assist the FBI in a probe into alleged mortgage fraud tied to the family business.

“Hey [expletive]. You’re going down! I’m going to kill you!” Shahid accused Seeno III of saying, according to court filings.

The charges were ultimately dismissed due to lack of evidence of a credible threat.

“There is no evidence that Shahid was ever in any actual danger,” federal prosecutor John Hemann wrote to the court. “Though totally and completely inappropriate and potentially retaliatory in nature, it appears that his former boss was venting anger rather than actually threatening death or harm to Shahid.”

The FBI’s investigation into mortgage fraud started in 2010 and ended in 2017, with a federal raid of the Seeno family’s headquarters in Concord. Investigators alleged that Seeno companies misled bank underwriters about the true value of homes, according to an FBI spokesperson. The alleged misconduct took place between 2006 and 2008 when Discovery took steps to avoid losing its position in the market, according to court documents.

The filings revealed that Discovery incentived new homebuyers by funding their down payments and subsidizing their mortgage payments. The company’s employees and others worked to ensure these incentives were not disclosed on mortgage loan applications.

While no member of the Seeno family was charged, Shahid pleaded guilty to bank fraud and Discovery Sales was fined $8 million and ordered to pay $3 million in restitution. Albert III denied any involvement.

“The U.S. attorney’s office confirmed after years of investigation and interviewing hundreds of people that there was no evidence that Albert Seeno III or other leadership knew or participated in the actions by rogue [former] employees,” Parsons told TRD.

Even though Shahid cooperated with the federal investigations, he still received a 46-month prison term in 2017.

“It’s important to me that white collar defendants believe if they act this way they will suffer serious custodial sentences,” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers said at the sentencing.

Throughout the various accusations, it has always been the Seenos on the same side. But a new lawsuit between father and son has changed that.

Daddy issues

The recent lawsuit filed by Albert Jr. claims that Albert III was terminated as CEO of two of the family companies: Seecon and Seecon Built Homes. It was a role Albert III was elevated to in July of 2020. Albert Jr. claims he attempted to fire his son in February and March of last year, but his son did not comply. Albert III instead argues that there is language in his employment agreement that states he can only be terminated if he commits a felony that affects his father’s businesses.

Albert Jr., however, claims his succession plan was to promote his son without immediately ceding his own control over the companies. The lawsuit also alleges that the younger Seeno, along with Parsons, retained attorneys to draft an employment agreement with language that could force his father and other shareholders out.

Not long after the agreement was drafted, Albert III allegedly began “coercing, intimidating and then bullying” his father into fulfilling the contract, according to the lawsuit.

“Seeno III intimidation tactics included, but were not limited to, attempting to bully and denigrate his father. When these tactics failed, Seeno III resorted to pressuring Seeno by telling him that if he did not sign the employment agreement, Seeno would never see his three grandsons again,” the filing reads.

Albert Jr. has also accused his son of blocking him from accessing company records and using Seeno Companies employees for Discovery Builders projects.

In one example, the lawsuit alleges that Discovery Builders used the Seeno Companies’ name and trademarks on a project to bring 252 single-family homes to Brentwood.

Albert III has denied all of the allegations in the lawsuit, according to Parsons.

“This is reflective of some natural tensions with succession planning that are often typical, unfortunately, and in my opinion, hardly newsworthy,” he said.

Albert III countersued his father in October, disputing claims of roughly $100 million of debt allegedly owed by Albert III and Discovery Builders.

Albert III alleges that funds from a trust his parents set up were used to pay down Albert Jr.’s debts without his permission. Albert III also accused his father of attempting to interrupt operations at Discovery Builders in the lawsuit.

The family feud has not only pitted father against son, but it also sent a warning shot across the Bay and played a role in killing a major project for the firm.

A partnership between Discovery, Lewis Group & Cos. and California Capital and Investment Group was selected to transform a former naval station in Concord into 16,000 new homes and more than six million square feet of commercial space. The partnership known as Concord First Partners was approved by the Concord City Council in a 3-2 vote in August 2021.

But after a two-hour special meeting on Jan. 28 of this year, the council voted to cut ties with the group, citing concerns over the Seeno family feud and why it wasn’t disclosed sooner.

“Where’s the integrity, where’s the information to let us know?” Concord Mayor Laura Hoffmeister said during the meeting. “We had to read about it in the newspapers, that’s not what I’m looking for in a partnership arrangement.”

The development team believes the city’s decision to halt negotiations was misguided.

“A lot of the questions are personal and aimed at personalizing the issue,” Capital California’s Tagami said. “It didn’t have to do with the term-sheet specifics or the deal point, but rather addressing accusations that were made through editorial comment that were in the local papers.”

It’s another issue the father and son duo will have to sort through as the future of one of the last family-run development firms in the Bay Area hangs in the balance. While the court can settle their business dispute, it’s up to Albert Jr. and Albert III to squash their personal differences. Otherwise, it will be an awkward Thanksgiving for the Seeno family.


CONCORD/CONTRA COSTA BACKGROUND:
BENICIA BACKGROUND:
CITIZEN 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:

BENICIA ALERT 4/20/23 – Seeno / North Area Study Community Open House

City of Benicia Consultants guiding us to accept housing plan in Seeno property

Seeno owned property (Google Earth, 2008) with inset of Benicia’s “North Study Area” (2022) – click to enlarge

By Larnie Fox, April 20, 2020

Good Morning all ~

Bodil and I went to the North Study Area (Seeno) “Community Open House” last night at Northgate Church. There is a Zoom equivalent tonight that you may want to attend:

Online Community Open House
April 20, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
Zoom Link
Passcode: 322062

I have to say it was less of an “open house” and more of a consultant-led workshop ~ the consultant leading us towards agreeing to build housing up there.

The elephant in the room was Seeno’s dismal record of not fulfilling promises and constant litigation. The Benindy has an excellent archive HERE.

To make anything happen there, we will have to amend the General Plan. Personally, I like the plan the way it is: the area is currently zoned for light industrial use with a little bit of commercial use on the Eastern end.

What I don’t want to see up there is more automobile-centric suburban sprawl ~ but it feels like that is where we are headed.

Onward?
=+=
Larnie


CITIZEN 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:

Seeno / North Area Study – Stakeholder Seat at the Table

WHERE IS THE TABLE?

By Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007-2020, March 19, 2023

Seeno owned property (Google Earth, 2008) with inset of Benicia’s “North Study Area” (2022) – click to enlarge

Hats off to Steve Golub providing residents and businesses news and information in “Benicia and Beyond”.  His first stab at this is a recent interview of Mayor Young.

Council member Tom Campbell has expressed concern about how many years someone needs to live here to fully understand Benicia. He, I believe, is right.  For instance, what is the status of the Class I landfill and plume of really bad stuff moving down Paddy Creek? Paddy Creek drains toward Lake Herman watershed.  This closed landfill is why in the 80s the City Council adopted a resolution prohibiting residential development on Lake Herman road and East Second street (Seeno).  Or what about the 90s when the General Plan was updated and the Benicia Industrial Park Association  (BIPA) advocated in large red and black lettering on a poster board  “no residential” development – same place.  Or in the 2000s when there were two organized groups advocating for denial of Seeno project because there was too much grading, six waterways filled, and  traffic was going to be ugly adding to our greenhouse gas emissions.  City Council denied the project and then adopted a resolution for specific conditions for any future project.

The Benicia Army’s Arsenal Reservation closure was before there was the federal Base Realignment and Closure Act  https://wikipedia.org/wiki/2005. Benicia was on its own.  Benicia got zero redevelopment planning help, and there was removal of chemical war weapons and nuclear material, but left unexploded ordinance to be found, lead, tetrachloroethylene, and used infrastructure – in some cases hastily built for the war effort. What part of the Seeno site was used?

Context matters.  Historic issues and context is not always easy to find.

The General Plan provides some of this history (at least up to 2000).  The General Plan process is explained at the end of the General Plan.  We were appointed.  We did authentic public engagement.  We adopted decisions by consensus.  We started with common vision and shared values. We were a committee of citizens representing all sectors of the community (the General Plan Oversight Committee).  Until that vision and its goals are changed, it is the law of the land.

And this gets me to the main point which is the following:

At the beginning of this piece I acknowledged Steve Golub’s “Benicia and Beyond”.  Steve came to Benicia in 2019 and has the right skills for learning about places and people.  His inaugural column addressed questions to Mayor Young, including as follows:

SG:  What are your thoughts on whether and how [Seeno property or North Study Area] that should ever be developed for housing?  Do you see alternative uses for it.

SY:  “I would like to withhold my specific preferences on that in deference to the [North Study] planning/visioning process that is currently underway, and that may eventually come to Council for decision.  But I can say, that, as one member of the community, I would hope to see a mixed use development including multifamily and single family housing, in addition to some localized commercial development.  Ideally, we would have direct micro transit options to downtown and a few locations in Vallejo.  And perhaps some office or R/D uses along the East 2nd St. frontage.”

What is the North Study planning/visioning process?  The consultants working for the city and paid for by Seeno conducted an in-person open house at Northgate church and virtual sessions and an online survey.  None of these sessions have provided the sixty (60+) relevant goals and policies of the General Plan.  Not on a poster board.  Not linked to the virtual meetings and nothing in the online survey.  Opinions are sought without context or consistency to existing policies in the General Plan.

The 1996 Urban Design Background Report by Mogavero Notestine says this about expanding residential use toward Lake Herman:

  • “[There] is a lack of connectivity to the rest of the community. Southampton has a sense of isolation from the older parts of Benicia.  The sense of isolation [Lake Herman] would be more substantial.
  • In addition, the sense [of isolation nearer Lake Herman Road] would create a substantially higher demand for automobile trips than, for example, infill.
  • The present value of the full range of [city] capital and operating public costs created by the development could be $57,000 to $75,000 [adjusted for 2023] per dwelling unit . . .”

World renowned urban economist Joe Minicozzi provided information at the Vets Hall before the Pandemic.  We learned that the city would prosper by increasing value of the existing urban footprint.  If you are in a hole, stop digging.  Benicia is a small town, with limited staff and resources. Smart development avoids a deeper hole– meaning the cost of future maintenance of new infrastructure.

Will the consultants evaluate the economic implications for individual households and broader economic impacts for the community?  Computer models should be utilized to comprehensively evaluate the broad fiscal and economic implications of various growth alternatives for the Seeno site, including the impacts for individual households.

The cost to the public depends upon, among other things, the location.  Residential infill projects do not require the construction or future maintenance of new infrastructure.  It can sometimes provide the resources to repair or replace dilapidated infrastructure. Thus infill provides revenue flow where there was none before without creating new infrastructure cost.

The  General Plan goals and policies address the overarching goal of the General Plan.  Are you comfortable with the process where staff has the final word on the visioning report that goes to the City Council?  Would a seat at the table with stakeholders representing all sectors of Benicia to oversee a report to the City Council be a good idea? Better to be at the table than on the menu, right?  Where is the table?

End of Patterson article…
More below provided by the BenIndy and City of Benicia


CITIZEN 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: