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
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.”
The proposed Rose Estates project, shared by the City of Benicia in the Facebook post pictured below and on an official City webpage, would transform 527 acres of the former Benicia Business Park into a new community with 1,080 new homes and 250,000 square feet of new commercial space.
The builder’s remedy is a legal mechanism 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.
But the April 4 certification letter from the HCD implies that the City of Benicia is now fully compliant with housing laws and has regained full control over its zoning and planning decisions, diminishing any leverage to override local zoning laws that Seeno might have had under the builder’s remedy.
And it’s clear the City wants to be calling the shots moving forward.
Seeno applications still incomplete
Letters issued from Benicia’s Community and Development Department in response to the September 15 and March 12 applications indicated that Seeno failed to complete either application, preventing Benicia from lawfully deeming them submitted.
Click the image to be redirected to the letter on the City’s website.
In his most recent correspondence to Seeno, Benicia Community Development Department Planning Manager Jason Hade affirmed that Seeno’s March application is still deemed incomplete, but provided greater detail regarding additional requirements required to consider it legally complete:
Payment of outstanding fees totaling $27,873.40;
Amendments to align with Benicia’s General Plan and Zoning requirements;
A detailed written statement and supporting maps for the proposed amendments;
Clarification of the usage of government funds, which may trigger additional ADA and CBC requirements;
Descriptions of previous land use, expected traffic types, delivery schedules, environmental nuisances (e.g., odors, noise), temporary structures, hazardous materials, and all relevant permit requirements;
Current and proposed zoning and land use designations;
A Master Plan detailing large property developments;
Necessary identification and project details like the title block, site address, and legal compliance;
Comprehensive plans showing existing conditions, proposed changes, and structural details, including trees, natural features, and utilities;
A “more detailed” subdivision map, including legal descriptions, natural features, and existing structures;
A detailed topographic survey and grading plans to meet city specifications;
Specific plans for grading, including volume estimates and impact analyses;
Detailed feasibility studies for water and sewer services, including capacity and compliance with city standards;
Utility plans with necessary details for connection points and compliance;
A comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
A detailed traffic, photometric, and landscaping plan that addresses both aesthetic and functional requirements of the project;
Detailed architectural plans including elevations, floor plans, and roof plans;
Specific details on landscaping, lighting, parking, and circulation; and
A plan for public and safety-related improvements.
Until these items are provided, the City may not process the application as complete.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.