Concord rejects housing developers' proposal
But city also gives them until end of January to return with a blueprint, cost estimates
CONCORD >> The City Council has rejected a development team's bid to acquire property rights to the former Concord Naval Weapons Station site without first disclosing details of its plan to build a miniature city of homes there.
But in a compromise move intended to prevent it from walking away from the project, the council Tuesday voted 4-1 to give Concord First Partners until the end of January to return with a blueprint and cost estimates for what's being touted as the largest housing development in the East Bay's recent history.
Concord First Properties, a consortium led by Seeno construction family companies, was supposed to have submitted specifics of the development plan Wednesday. That's when a sevenmonth exclusive negotiating period between the two sides was set to expire.
Had the council acquiesced to Concord First Partners' request to begin acquiring the 2,300acre Navy-owned property now, the city could have been liable to reimburse all of the team's investments if it later bailed.
As part of the compromise, city officials will try to bundle all of the project's key approval steps — for the specific plan, environmental review and property transfer — into one package the council can either pass or reject in a single vote.
The decision buys more negotiating time for Concord First Partners, a development team linked to the Seeno family of building companies, which is notorious in the East Bay for regularly suing public agencies and fighting environmental groups.
If the negotiations fail, it would be the second time in recent years the council had to reboot its quest to build 13,000 homes and millions of square feet of office and commercial space at the former weapons site.
Councilwoman Carlyn Obringer voted against giving Concord First Partners a time extension and rebuked it for suggesting its request constituted anything less than an ultimatum.
“There is potential, in the future, (that) we're going to face this challenge of the developers trying to shift financial risk onto the taxpayers,” Obringer said.
In a letter sent to city staffers in late April, Concord First Partners declared that the costs of building such a large-scale project were “impracticable,” given the city's desire for it to hire only local union labor for construction work and to designate a quarter of the eventual homes as affordable.
Jeb Elmore, vice president of Concord First Partners, told council members the team intended all along to fulfill its labor and af
fordable housing promises.
“There is absolutely no land grab here, as is being suggested by some members of the community,” Elmore said.
City officials begged to differ. Guy Bjerke, the city's economic development director, said the developers repeatedly have demanded an immediate property transfer during negotiations. He warned that buckling to Concord First Partners would open the city to potential litigation later.
“I think it's very important for the council to send a clear message about this,” Bjerke said. “Look, I believe these guys can get this job done, but I don't believe they will take it seriously until this (request) is removed from the table.”
The city's relationship with Concord First Partners could factor into the campaigns of the five council members up for election this year: Mayor Dominic Aliano, Vice Mayor Laura Hoffmeister and Councilman Tim McGallian are seeking reelection to the council, and Obringer and Councilman Edi Birsan are running for a seat on the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
Elmore said Concord First Partners wanted property rights now to ensure that a different council makeup in the future won't kick the team off the project after it meets all the rigorous environmental requirements.
Laura Nakamura, a Concord resident who intends to challenge McGallian this November, vehemently opposed continuing negotiations, saying she doesn't trust the developers to honor any of their
early guarantees.
“Do not continue trying to fit a square peg in a round hole,” Nakamura said.
Union representatives who don't want to see a labor-friendly master developer go away supported Concord First Partners.
Some union members warned that the Navy may grow frustrated with Concord's lack of progress and auction off the property instead — echoing an idea that Birsan had suggested in his comments.
“With all the work that's gone forth, it would be a shame to see it all go for nothing,” said Jason Lester, a business manager for Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 159.
But other city officials dismissed the idea, with Bjerke noting that the city and Navy's arrangement for the weapons site now has survived three presidencies.
The doomsday narrative presented by the union workers did not sway Obringer, even though labor groups have independently spent $31,000 to get her
elected as supervisor. She made clear her support for the unions before chastising Concord First Partners for creating a “false choice” between granting the team more power and losing the project altogether.
“At what point are we going to understand how much money (Concord First) is willing to invest in this project?” she asked at one point, noting that the two competing master developer candidates last year also had signed project labor agreements and still might be available to take on the work.
City Councilwoman Laura Hoffmeister, who first motioned to extend the negotiating period eight months, said she expects the developers to come up with creative solutions for some of the issues they've raised around the project's costs.
“But I will say, pretty much at the end of January, there'd better be substantial progress in the information before our community — and we can't wait” any longer, Hoffmeister warned.