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

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

December 2, 2005

Roddy Ranch battle moves to City Hall, perhaps court

IN DEPTH: RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE

After the Nov. 8 election is officially certified on Dec. 13, Roddy Ranch PBC has five days to submit a development agreement to the City Council. Then the partnership of San Ramon-based Castle Cos., Black Mountain Development of Pleasanton and Pacific Coast Capital Partners of Sacramento, intends to begin laying the groundwork for the project, including what promises to be a hotly contested environmental review.

"We have a lot of work to do," said Dan Boatwright of the Castle Cos., who added that he was not surprised by the election's outcome, only very, very pleased.

He missed the chance to join the ranch's former owner, Jack Roddy, as he downed a glass of scotch to celebrate the victory on election night. Boatwright said he was still checking out results from polling stations.

Boatwright would not speculate about when the first house will be built. The environmental community, which opposed Measure K, plans to bird-dog the Roddy Ranch developers every step of the way.

"It's not over," said David Reid of the Greenbelt Alliance. "The houses still have to go through a lengthy review process and a normal regulatory review process, including an EIR and permits from the city and the natural resource agencies."

Reid believes that when voters see detailed development plans, they will fight it because they "don't want to see more cars on the road or more houses on the hillsides."

He and others accused the developers of lying during the campaign about what a 'yes' vote on Measure K actually meant.

"If you had been in Antioch and seen the campaign literature, you would have been convinced that voting 'yes' on K meant controlling growth and fixing infrastructure," Reid said.

As far as the developers are concerned, that is exactly what it meant.

Dismissing charges that they deceived the voters, Boatwright said Measure K passed because Antioch residents believed it would control growth by moderating the allocation of housing permits and halting construction until the Highway 4 bottleneck is fixed.

Boatwright, who has worked on the project since February when the joint venture bought the property from Roddy's bankrupt partnership, believes voters understood what they were voting for and clearly embraced it.

"We can't build any houses on Roddy Ranch until 2009 or Highway 4 has been widened to L Street," he said.

Joseph Perkins, president of the Home Builders Association of Northern California, agreed with Boatwright's assessment. He noted the success of a similar measure that allows for additional development around Pittsburg and the defeat of housing development measures in Brentwood and Livermore.

"Overall if you take all four builder-sponsored measures," Perkins said, "the voter said, 'We are not antithetical to new home construction. We just want balance.' "

Another reason Measure K won by such a wide margin was that it "enjoyed the good will of the electorate," Perkins noted. "The support of the mayor and the council was a huge factor."

But that has not stopped any of the groups opposing Measure K - the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, Save Mt. Diablo - from pondering legal action, although representatives of all three organizations said that fighting the 700 homes in Roddy Ranch plus another 400 on the nearby 150-acre Ginochio property more likely will take place in City Council chambers rather than in a courtroom.

"I hate to say it, but with 60 percent of the vote, you have to start wondering if the public has spoken," said Mike Daley, the Sierra Club's conservation director. "When it gets up to 60 percent, some strong percentage knew it was Roddy Ranch development.

"We'll have to assess that they knew (Measure K) was not a reduction, that they said, 'This is development and I want it.' "

Daley said the Sierra Club would either poll voters or conduct a town hall meeting to "get a sense of how much people were aware."

Seth Adams of Save Mt. Diablo said he is still weighing options regarding Measure K and Measure P in Pittsburg.

Still angry with supporters of those measures for calling the initiatives "growth control," Adams said, "They spent over $1 million convincing the voters they were getting growth control and the voters voted for growth control. They deceived the voters about who they were by using our messenger."

In Livermore, where Measure D went down to a decisive defeat, voters were asked to approve 2,450 homes and 62 percent said "no." Adams said that is the difference between creating an urban limit line, even if it expands the current boundary, and asking voters to approve development.

"If developers are relying on this as a mandate for development, it's just not the case. People thought they were voting for growth control. That's the way it was campaigned and the way it appeared on the ballot measure. It was not: Should we build 700 homes? It was: We'll decrease the number of homes from 1700 to 700 and enact a building moratorium for two years."

In Pittsburg where the "yes" and "no" votes were separated by only a few hundred ballots, the environmental groups said the decision to pursue legal avenues is not only possible, but likely. Opponents have until 30 days after the election is official to decide whether to file a lawsuit alleging violations under the California Environmental Quality Act. Measure P, sponsored by housing developer Albert Seeno, expands Pittsburg's boundaries by almost 1,400 acres and allows up to 1,400 homes to be built on 550 acres.

The threat of a lawsuit hanging over either of the winning initiatives irritates Perkins, who said such actions smack of a poor loser.

"We accept the verdict of the voters in Livermore. But in the meantime they refuse to accept the verdict in Pittsburg and Antioch," Perkins said. "The enviros are saying, 'We are going to continue to oppose this development in Antioch, even though the voters have spoken.' "

If all goes as the Roddy Ranch owners intend, the property will be developed as an upscale neighborhood with large houses on lots of up to one-third of an acre rather than thousands of tract homes. Antioch leaders have long said the city needs homes where corporate decision-makers could live before companies would open their headquarters in eastern Contra Costa County, thus bringing jobs to the employment-starved regions.

But Boatwright says he doesn't believe the fact that Roddy Ranch will offer an exclusive address swayed many voters. And as far as the entire property goes, Boatwright said the joint venture plans to stay with the property until the land is developed.

"It has to work for us," he said. "We plan to hold onto the property."

kconrad@bizjournals.com | 925-598-1427

###