Category Archives: Seeno property

Rose Estates, Seeno, Seeno property

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:
Brentwood CA, North Study Area, Rose Estates, Seeno, Seeno property

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:

North Study Area, Seeno, Seeno property

Benicia’s Housing Element has been approved, throwing Seeno’s ‘builders remedy’ threat into question

By BenIndy Contributors, April 12, 2024

The City of Benicia affirmed that it has received notification of its “substantial compliance” with State Housing Element Law as of April 4, 2024, undermining Seeno’s threat to deploy the dreaded “builders remedy” on the town of 28,300.

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.

First submitted to the City in September 2023, the Rose Estates proposal from Seeno-owned West Coast Home Builders, LLC (hereafter referred to simply as”Seeno”) took an aggressive turn on March 12 when Seeno submitted an updated application under the provisions of the builder’s remedy.

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.

In its March 12, 2024 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.”

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.

In particular, the City claimed it was unable to verify who currently owns the Seeno empire and the land in Benicia to be developed due to active litigation stemming from a family dispute over the Seeno construction and development empire.

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.

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:

North Study Area, Seeno, Seeno property

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: