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

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

January 18, 2007

Despite opposition, council extends growth boundary

Residents wanted vote put off until development plan, environmental review were complete

The Pittsburg City Council late Tuesday approved moving the city's growth boundary to include close to 1,600 more acres in the southern foothills, but not before residents, environmentalists and an attorney for one of the landowners urged them to hold off until guidelines for hillside development had been approved and a thorough environmental review had been done.

The council voted 4-0 to amend its General Plan -- its long-term planning document -- to extend the city's proposed planning boundary to the urban limit line voters approved in 2005, establish guidelines for developing new greenbelts in the southern foothills, designate open space in the Norton Valley and align city policies for conducting traffic studies with county standards.

Councilman Salvatore Evola recused himself from voting because he is related to and employed by the Seeno family, which owns two of the three properties in question.

Although the action the council took was not an agreement for development in the region, "this line is very important because it's the start of expanding the city and developing the hills," said Christina Wong of Greenbelt Alliance, one of 10 people who asked the council to postpone its vote.

The action brings into the city's planning boundary the Seenos' 607-acre Faria property and 161-acre Montreux property, as well as the Thomas family's 800-acre Thomas Ranch property. Those parcels collectively could hold as many as 1,800 new homes; but for any development to proceed, the county Local Agency Formation Commission must first approve the proposed changes and allow annexation of the land into the city. The agency could grant its approval early next year.

Councilmember Michael Kee reminded the audience that regardless of what they thought they were getting, the public decided it wanted the changes by approving developer-sponsored Measure P in 2005. Environmentalists and some residents since have complained that the language in the initiative was unclear and the public didn't know what it was voting for.

"This isn't the end of the road, so to speak," Kee said later.

"This is the beginning of the beginning of the road."

Resident Dennis Linsley urged city officials to solicit the same level of feedback in this case as they did with the transit village envisioned to surround the proposed eBART station at Railroad Avenue and Highway 4.

"The biggest thing that concerns me is the lack of public input" on this, he said.

Another resident, Robert Green, told the council the city had not adequately informed the public of the proposed changes. Notices had been placed in the Times, on the city's Web site, at the city's Civic Center, in the library and on placards placed throughout the community.

One of the groups complaining was the Thomas family, whose attorney told the council the city had not notified them about the proposed changes. Out of fundamental fairness, he said, the city's staff ought to review how the changes might affect the Thomas' property -- the largest piece of land being considered -- before they proceed.

Planning director Melissa Ayres offered the family an apology for not being informed, noting that under state law it isn't required.

Councilwoman Nancy Parent pointed out that the level of public interest seen Tuesday had been missing throughout the process. She added that a public workshop is planned in March concerning proposed hillside development standards, documents made available to the public Tuesday.

Although she said she understands Measure P opponents will be upset by the council's decision, Parent said, "We need to take this step."

Kee agreed, saying, "This is what Measure P has brought to us."

###