CONCORD -- Just days before city leaders hold their first public forum on the future of the Concord Naval Weapons Station land, a vocal neighborhood group says it has grown skeptical of the planning process and wants a development proposal eventually put on the ballot.

The Concord Naval Weapons Station Neighborhood Alliance, made up of more than 300 families who mostly live near the former military base, has lobbied for 80 percent of the available land to be kept as open space.

"Putting it to the voters is the only way we'll get it saved for open space," said Kathy Gleason, the alliance's co-founder. "We have to get noisy about this because a lot of people already think (building thousands of homes) is a done deal."

Saturday's opening forum marks the beginning of a multi-year process for Concord City Council members to plan development of one of the last big chunks of available East Bay land.

The weapons station has two parts: the Suisun Bay port on the north side, which the Army will take over, and 5,170 acres of rolling hills and old ammunition bunkers mainly south of Highway 4.

In a cost-cutting move last November, Congress approved the southern area's closure. Concord's draft general plan -- the key blueprint that guides city growth -- calls for allowing up to 13,000 homes there and keeping half the property as open space and parks.

However, after dozens of Neighborhood Alliance members last month criticized large housing developments, the Planning

Commission recommended that the City Council remove from the general plan all references to Naval Weapons Station growth.

Getting a final development plan OK'd by voters might not be a bad idea, said Concord Mayor Susan Bonilla, but residents can ensure their views are considered if they attend upcoming strategy sessions.

"We have not planned anything out there," she said. "I am hoping there will be a clear direction we get from the community. What goes forward will be what residents want."

Plenty of ideas

In the past few months, residents have dreamed up dozens of ideas for the site -- such as a university research center, military cemetery, new county fairgrounds and a Cal State East Bay branch campus.

As soon as next week, the Navy will decide whether to grant a Coast Guard proposal to grab 61 acres south of the North Concord BART station for existing housing it has leased for decades. City officials oppose this plan because those 316 occupied homes could stand in the way of building a high-density transit village next to BART.

The Army also has a standing request to acquire almost 300 acres near Highway 4 for administration offices and other facilities.

In the past couple months, other proposals have fizzled.

A pitch to set aside 30 acres for a National Guard emergency operations center looks doubtful because backers missed a deadline last month to possibly get the land for free under a military transfer program.

Also, a longshot proposal for the National Park Service to pick up half the property to maintain as open space never gained momentum. The agency, lobbied by the East Bay Regional Park District, never applied for a federal land transfer because it didn't want to spend millions of dollars to buy the land.

But that hasn't hurt the spirits of environmentalists, who say the City Council's pledge to keep about half the available land for open space and parks is just a starting point.

A "Golden Gate Park"

City leaders should build a massive recreational area -- similar to San Francisco's Golden Gate Park -- that could become one of the region's few green spaces with easy access to BART, said Kent Fickett of the Mount Diablo Audubon[HUF4] Society.

He envisions people getting off at the North Concord BART station with easy access to the former base next door.

"Can you imagine grabbing your bike and getting on BART anywhere in the Bay Area and having all that land to ride on?" Fickett said. "This is public land and a regional asset. Who gave the development community the right to stake their claim on this land?"

On the flip side, developers say that even building 13,000 housing units -- which could attract more than 30,000 new residents -- won't be enough to address the Bay Area's regional housing needs for a growing population.

"I submit that those folks making the argument against building homes already have their homes and sufficient wealth," said Joseph Perkins, president of the Home Builders Association of Northern California.

"Where are their sons and daughters going to live? There is nothing like having a growing supply of housing to provide them with more affordable opportunities. I believe we can have open space and residential -- the two are not mutually exclusive."

Putting it to a vote

Concord is farther ahead than other shuttered bases because the naval weapons station has been essentially mothballed since 1999 and has few old structures to tear down.

Plus, unlike other cities that lost bases last year, Concord lobbied for the closure and will only lose a handful of jobs. After the City Council forms a reuse plan in the next few years, the Navy could parcel off the land and auction it to developers.

"Concord is unique in that it is so ready to go," said Navy spokeswoman Jill Votaw. "There are few environmental issues to deal with, and the city has been waiting a long time for us to do this. We will move as expeditiously as possible."

Bonilla said she hopes a ballot measure would not spark a decade of battles like those of the 1990s reuse planning for the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station in Southern California.

Orange County residents fought over lawsuits and four dueling initiatives before dumping a plan for an airport in favor of a 3,400-home development surrounded by a huge urban park.

In Concord, "we'd hope there isn't a real division within the community," Bonilla said. "I would hope if something went on the ballot it would be an affirmation of the community's plan to go forward."

Ryan Huff covers Concord and Clayton. Reach him at 925-977-8471 or rhuff@cctimes.com.