A family has learned the City Council won’t uphold an appeal to the subdivision of 1035 West K St. into four parcels, and took little comfort in hearing that the Council wants to shorten permitted construction hours so contractors aren’t working until 10 p.m., as city codes currently allow.

Noise was part of the reason Ricki and David M. Steele joined in the original appeal of the Nov. 4 opinion by interim Community Development Director Dan Marks and the subsequent ruling Dec. 11 by the Planning Commission that upheld Marks’s decision to approve the property division.

Originally, another neighbor, Richard Runquist, joined in the appeal. Runquist was instrumental in helping the widow of original owner property Werner Schulze clean the site after Schulze’s death in 2008.

Runquist said his neighbor threw nothing away, and had computers and other electrical equipment, household, industrial and agricultural chemicals, lead-based paint and asbestos stored on the property.

He had suggested further environmental tests should have been made prior to Marks’s action as zoning administrator.

Only Ricki Steele, who lives at 1064 West L St., spoke Jan. 20 for the appeal to the Council.

Just as she told the Planning Commission, she said proper soil samples hadn’t been made to determine whether the “known toxic chemicals” had entered the ground after decades of storage.

Other examinations of the land were inadequate, too, Steele said, explaining that at previous hearings those favoring the subdivision said nothing had been heard or smelled amiss, or had been seen glowing.

She called the Schulzes’ former property and storage practices “a threat to neighbors, fish and wildlife. Water runoff and artesian-type wells could be sending tainted water down creeks into bay waters and the fish that swim and live there.”

She also objected to what she said would be hazards caused by the subdivision and construction in the neighborhood alleyway where high school students regularly walk.

“It’s not a good scene,” Steele said.

Nor is the development according to the late widow’s wishes, she said, though the woman did not put those desires in a will.

But her primary objection was to the possibility of four “mega houses” being built on the divided parcels. “They don’t blend with the area. The houses are huge. We have to move. We have to sell,” Steele said.

“We have spectacular views,” she lamented, calling the area “the last beautiful slope in Benicia.”

Becoming emotional at the prospect of leaving Benicia, she said she wouldn’t be close to her grandchildren and friends.

Saying she was dissatisfied that environmental checks had been done, she said, “We know it’s a lost cause. We know we’re screwed. … I wish Benicia was kinder to the cause.”

Construction manager Jeff Page said his company was brought on board the third week of June 2014 after a stop order had been placed on the project when a previous company had started work without authorization.

He said Benicia Public Works and Building Department employees did a site assessment at the request of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. His own employees found “unsuitable” fill at the site, and removed 100 yards of soil that had pieces of concrete in it. That dirt was replaced with engineered fill, he said.

David Cymanski, of KC Engineering, took core soil samples throughout the site, and his company did “due diligence,” Page said.

“We’re not going to open ourselves to liability,” he said.

He said architect Steve McKee has tried to orient and modify the prospective designs to reduce the future homes’ impact on neighbors’ views.

In addition, Page said, he expected employees to work from 7 a.m. until about 5 or 6 p.m., rather than continue house building into the night as allowed by city codes.

But he made that promise only about the first house, saying he wouldn’t encumber work on future homes, which might be built on speculation by another company.

Improvements to the alley, he said, would make it safer and drain better. “It’s been a puddle,” he said.

McKee said he was sympathetic to the Steeles’ objections. He said his home also is in the neighborhood, and he decided to “bend the masses of the homes to afford a view to neighbors,” he said.

Cymanski told the Council that none of the drilled test borings revealed any evidence of contamination. “I am familiar with the process. It looks like a typical old property,” he said.

Saying he has worked on hundreds of projects in Benicia, Cymanski said he is familiar with applicable procedures, and said he would have been obligated to inform his clients if any contamination had been found.

Vice Mayor Mark Hughes and Councilmembers Alan Schwartzman and Christina Strawbridge expressed sympathy for the Steeles. Both Hughes and Schwartzman live near open spaces, and said they understand the loss they would feel if their views were to go away.

Hughes said that already is happening near his home. “I’m not happy, but I have to live with it,” he said.

“I understand development and infill is about all we have,” Schwartzman said.

They also expressed hope that construction would conclude most days well before 10 p.m., and Councilmember Tom Campbell said he would ask the Council to shorten permitted hours as soon as he could put the request on a Council agenda.

While Mayor Elizabeth Patterson said she supported infill development, she disagreed strongly with city employees’ determination that the project was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

She called the state act “a tool” that could have been applied to this case because noise, views and soil quality are impacted by the requested change.

However, she concurred with the rest of the Council in denying the appeal.

“There is not much more to say. The neighborhood is forever changed.” Steele said. “A lot of us have to move. I’m very sad the integrity of what Benicia had is not true. … You all do what you need to do. You do good jobs. I will be sad to leave Benicia.”