Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

June 29, 2006

Commission splits on developments

PITTSBURG: Planning board gives mixed reviews to first proposals since passage of urban limit line initiative

If either is approved by the City Council, the proposed agreements -- both brought forth by Albert Seeno companies -- would result in an adjustment of the urban limit line and require the city to apply to the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the land and include it in its sphere of influence.

An agreement also freezes city land-use designation and general plan regulations that apply to the property for at least 15 years. Each site includes portions of land designated as open space and low-density residential, allowing as many as three homes per acre.

The agreements collectively would affect about 767 acres of land. After drawn-out, often heated discussion, the commission narrowly recommended that the City Council approve an agreement for Montreux, which includes about 161 acres on the west side of Kirker Pass Road, but issued no recommendation for Faria, which includes about 607 acres west of Bailey Road and east of the Concord Naval Weapons Station site.

Those who voted for the agreements said they can and should be done. Those voting against them said they wanted to see more information before coming to a conclusion.

"I want to see a big, thick binder full of paper to read," said Commissioner Bruce Ohlson, who voted no both times.

Representatives of the Greenbelt Alliance and Save Mount Diablo called the development agreements "fundamentally flawed" and illegal, saying they can only be reached for properties inside the city's boundary. They noted that no report had been produced detailing the potential effects of development on the site, which they said must be done.

Without this work, said David Reid of the Greenbelt Alliance, "this is a giveaway to the developer."

"The right thing for the city to do is deny these development agreements, which are illegal on their face, and force him (Seeno) to go through the same development process that everyone else goes through," Reid said later.

Seth Adams of Save Mount Diablo said the issue was not whether Pittsburg could execute the agreements, but whether it should. Like Reid, he thought the public should be seeing more information at this stage about what the land might hold.

City staff members disagree, saying an environmental analysis is not required at this point because the proposed agreement is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act. And, they add, property does not have to be inside the city limits for the city to enter into a development agreement governing future development of the site.

The developer's right to proceed with either project would be subject to subsequent approvals, according to staff members, and an environmental review would be conducted when the city receives specific plans for the site.

The agreement for the Faria site, in particular, would be subject to the results of a city study now being conducted that addresses restrictions on hillside development.

Seeno reiterated that point Tuesday, saying no project is now before the city and nothing would be built on either site for years. Securing the agreements allows the development process to begin, he said.

Laurie Phillips covers Pittsburg and Bay Point. Reach her at 925-779-7164 or lphillips@cctimes.com.

###