Concord officials this week said they’re glad at the prospect of mixed residential and commercial development around the city’s two BART stations in the next decade or so, and that they want to work with BART officials to help make it happen.
But during a presentation by BART planners at Tuesday night’s Concord City Council meeting, city officials acknowledged BART will ultimately approve those development plans as part of the agency’s Transit Oriented Development program.
“As city staff, we want to work as cooperatively as possible to achieve both the city’s goals as well as the BART district’s goals,” Guy Bjerke, Concord’s director of economic development and base reuse, told the council.
In North Concord, the affected land is a single parcel near and along the BART right-of-way and station.
BART has no intention of developing the portion north of Panoramic Drive, the North Concord-Martinez station entrance, as it is all rail right-of-way. BART wants as much as 800,000 square feet of commercial space near that station eventually.
Officials from both Concord and BART said planning for the North Concord piece will resume after the city chooses a new master developer for the Concord Naval Weapon Station reuse project, to build a new 2,300-acre community with 13,000 housing units, a regional park and millions of square feet of commercial space. The North Concord-Martinez BART station is on the west edge of the weapon station land.
Plans for transit-oriented development near the BART station in downtown Concord are on a five- to 10-year time frame, said Abby Thorne-Lyman, a BART program group manager. BART will not be able to advance all of the various plans for development near its stations in that time frame, but those plans are expected to become part of 2030 Regional Housing Needs Allocation plans.
There are no development plans for either station yet. But planning for transit-oriented development at most BART stations in Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco counties is called for in Assembly Bill 2923, signed into law in September 2018. It requires BART to establish new standards for transit-oriented development on BART-owned land within a half-mile of those stations. That bill, authored by Assembly members David Chiu, D-San Francisco, and Tim Grayson, D-Concord, also requires local governments to update their own zoning on those properties to be in sync with BART’s standards. Such local rezoning would depend largely on whether BART actually plans development on those parcels.
Both Concord locations include land now used mostly for parking lots. A solution to replace that parking, Thorne-Lyman said, will have to be found.
Near Concord, construction of transit-oriented development projects is either finished or in progress adjacent to the Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill-Contra Costa Centre stations. Overall, Thorne-Lyman told the council, there’s more work to be done in getting projects going.
“We’re clearly falling short on our housing goals, and falling very short on affordable housing goals,” Thorne-Lyman said. “That will be our priority.”
Bart can’t even do transportation well and now they want to spread their expertise into housing and retail development. What a joke.
I thought BART was in the business of running trains?
I guess not, judging from their performance. They must be confused.
I guess they want to be Developers. Jack of all trades master of none…
They should talk to the Swiss and Germans on how to run a rail system.
Yes BART is in the business of running trains.
However, your legislators passed laws enabling BART to enter into development agreements with private developers to build mixed-use projects (commercial & residential) on BART property… a land lease.
It turns out when running trains it helps to have people living and working close to the stations so they can use them. Concord’s poor land use policies have prevented lots of people who would like to live near BART from doing so by mandating absurd amounts of parking and preventing the replacement of run down houses and underutilized parking lots with new apartments.
Considering the changes in consumer behavior, I question the wisdom of constructing that much commercial/retail property. But hey, BART does such an efficient job* of transporting people that we should just allow them to do as they think best.
*Claycord.com does not allow the language I would otherwise insert here
Unless that commercial space is for an Amazon hub it will just be vacant space. BART is hoping riders will come back and my guess is more people will continue to work from home.
…constructing that much commercial/retail property. This is great, then the county and state can close it and again ruin the life of the poor investor. Let’s maybe use the vacant stores and properties first. Then again, why is the transit “company” that can’t run the trains efficiently wanting to branch out into property management? Is there any stopping this madness????
Well this is going to be a, if you’ll pardon the expression, train wreck.
You win!
I like the idea of developing these properties. Why not push developers to also develop the empty lots next to BART tracks in DT Concord? They are an eyesore and a magnet for trash and crime.
Concord city council needs to move faster. As usual, Walnut Creek has already promoted these idea and construction is well underway. Concord MUST move faster.
Concord’s City Council would rather focus on union giveaways than on building things. That’s why the Picket Fence property wasn’t developed and that’s why the Naval Weapons station redevelopment failed.
They’ll pack those areas with low income, low information, government dependent voters to solidify their dystopian reign over all of us.
@Kauai Mike Just like the low IQ redneck seditionists, right?
Just as long as they don’t try to build that soccer stadium again near the Bart Station….that was crazy.
Judging by the filthly trains, both reduced hours and passengers, I can’t wait to see the projects rise in my hood.
There is a misspelling in the article: They appear to refer to transit-oriented development projects. Clearly their intention is “transient-oriented development projects”.
I am not that familiar with this problem so my question is was this land given to BART? Did Bart pay for it?
Is this any way to run a railroad?
Well, now we know what will become of the old fleet…..
bart is public transit
it is payed by our taxes and subsidized by fees and now parking
ultimately we pay bart millions and millions
the city has allowed them to have cart blanche over our money so they can keep their union workers doing something
so in essence the city and councils have screwed us over for unions again
you mean nothing the fraud is over they won and wont acknowledge you until 3 years from now ….when they say they have been working hard for you
just like de slacker and others
you dont matter unless your paying taxes or giving them votes
and now they will mandate tax hikes at will after they pass the no 2/3 clause
using vats and fees and fear to add more taxes on top of more taxes
while chasing away tax paying companies
to force us into socialism and then they really rake in the billions
newscum is buying up hotels with our money and using them a dump for bums and druggies
using our money that we will see no returns ….as they will hold the deeds and land ….yeah the land is what they want
in a few years time when large acres are available they will tear down all those properties and profit again off of the sale and new developments
follow the money is always the answer
but obviously the people of this state have no means to fight them
god have mercy on you for allowing gov to rule us in free america
Look at Pleasant Hill. We don’t need another dud.
Just wait until the disaster at WC is completed. Note they already got us with the new garage that was never free. Look at all the “mixed use” projects in WC that have empty store fronts.
There goes all the BART parking. Walnut Creek is so ugly now. Those apartments, cheap, ugly, overpriced crap.
This “Bart housing development” in downtown Concord just equals more high density high rise section 8 housing. It’s insane how property owners in the bay area have basically have no rights or say so.