A 70-unit townhome residential project in Concord can move forward, with the Concord City Council’s rejection of an appeal of the project’s Feb. 19 approval by the city planning commission.
The council’s 3-2 vote came despite dozens of commenters – via Zoom, telephone and email – who blasted the project for myriad reasons, most notably its density, its expected impacts on traffic and safety impacts on
students at nearby schools.
The 70-unit Clayton Road Townhomes is planned to be built behind existing businesses on the south side of the 3500 block of Clayton Road, at Roslyn Dr.
Catalyst Development Partners is the project applicant.
The Planning Commission’s approval had been appealed by longtime Concord resident Colleen Coll. She reiterated several reasons for her appeal, including that the development is too dense for that area, that it would adversely affect already crowded nearby streets, and that the project is “pro-developer and not pro-Concord taxpayer.”
“This is not a not-in-my-backyard NIMBY group — we’re very amenable to construction,” she said.
Several neighbors described traffic issues, the height of the proposed buildings and toxic waste cleanup at the building site.
Early in the 3.5-hour hearing, Councilwoman Carlyn Obringer asked her colleagues to consider postponing the townhome discussion until residents in the area could address the council with their concerns in person.
Because of concerns about the COVID-19 coronavirus, Tuesday night’s meeting — as local government meetings generally are in the COVID-19 era — was conducted remotely. Obringer said that, given the shutdown of home construction, it wouldn’t have hurt Catalyst to wait until the meeting could have been safely carried out in front of an in-person audience.
But City Attorney Susanne Brown told the council that proper notice was given about the meeting, and the acceptance of public comments was done electronically. Brown said that if the council opted to not take up the
townhome project appeal Tuesday night, that, legally, the planning commission’s Feb. 19 approval would stand.
Catalyst’s consultant Guy Houston would not agree to a postponement.
“We feel this is a badly needed project in Concord … and we’d like to hear it this evening,” he said.
Several residents blasted the decision to move ahead Tuesday night; one called it “blasphemous.”
“You’re all elected officials – people want to engage in the democratic process,” Coll told the council. “I do not think a Danville developer should overrule the citizens of our community.”
Edi Birsan joined Obringer in voting against the project, saying that even a string of added conditions addressing turn lanes, security and parking weren’t enough to offset the lack of in-person public participation
in the process.
Mayor Tim McGallian, Vice Mayor Dominic Aliano and Councilmember Laura Hoffmeister voted in favor of the project.
24 comments
Great, another traffic signal on Clayton Road to slow traffic down even more. “One block at a time” the Concord City motto…
I was out at lunch once and heard a interesting conversation regarding this development. It was between the developers and another party. All I can say is someone got paid.
All they care about are the fees they collect.
One thing I like about this project. It creates home ownership opportunities.
Concord has way too many rental-only apartments.
Wish I could’ve placed a bet on this. It was always a done deal.
Concord’s new motto: Concord, Where Congestion Comes First.
Cities grow. People have kids. Maybe you’ve had kids yourself? Populations get BIGGER.
If you don’t like it, there are other places to where you can move.
The quote from the City Attorney is not accurate. She said that if the council did not hear the item it was possible, not a definitive, that the Planning Commission ruling would stand. Construction of non-affordable housing is shut down under the emergency stay so there is a good argument this project was not “essential” to hear at this time. Too bad none of the Councilmembers have enough experience or desire to push back on the City’s legal argument. Doubtful a court would have ruled Council had violated appeal meeting rules – and even if it did, it’s doubtful that a state court would allow the Planning Commission ruling to stand rather than just admonishing Council to “correct” the situation by holding the hearing. Concord could easily argue they postponed the hearing to help appellants avoid violating social distancing during shelter in place. This company isn’t even doing the building and doesn’t have a buyer interested or lined up for the property. The company could have easily agreed to postpone – now we know why people are worried as this company clearly doesn’t care to coordinate with existing neighborhoods. A short delay would not have made much difference now. Just another lot that will sit empty for years. Tired of Council hiding behind legal semantics and staff’s overblown threats of lawsuits.
@ hope -Agree 100% . This has been a done deal from the begining! I don’t know how these people live with themselves ! So corrupt !!!
Anyone know the status of Chif-fil-A going in where Lin’s was?
They haven’t jumped through enough of the city councils hoops.
It’s all political. If the council like you
the project gets rubber stamped
Several people on the council don’t like Chick Fil A
Conservative stand so the council keeps putting up more hoops until they finally get up.
The will of the people, the one’s who’s tax dollars supported and built Concord all these years, is being sidelined in favor of what the City Council thinks is best for them. This is how their loyalty and investment is rewarded.
SO NOW will any of you vote against HOFFMEYER!! Tried to tell you at the LAST election!!
I haven’t voted for Hoffmeister in years, but, alas, I’m just one person. AND since we now vote by district, I can’t vote against her any longer. The people in her district have to do that.
I think there should be term limits for city council. Some of these people have been on and not caring for our city for way too long!
Yayyyyy!!!! Just what we need, MORE TRAFFIC!!!
On the face of it, this was a railroad job. There is no good reason this hearing could not have been delayed until the appellants could have been there in person. We haven’t had this type of disease before and construction like this is halted everywhere anyway.
The location they considered is terrible. It’s primarily business and not set up for housing.
Somebody is getting a new driveway.
Like there was snowballs chance in hell of this being rejected. They have already started cleanup and various other things on the site. Given the nature of Concord politics these day, I wonder if Birsan and Obringer just didn’t get the kickback they wanted from this project developer
Relax, the traffic on Clayton Rd. will be fine. I drove up and down it today… no problem.
Thank you for trying, Councilpersons Obringer and Birsan!
Behind Kasper’s and Philly Cheesesteak or behind Barney’s Hickory Pit?
“We feel this is a badly needed project in Concord.” I think it was said during the meeting that the townhomes are expected to sell for $800,000+ per unit. Why does Concord badly need housing that far exceeds the average house price in Concord, which is only $560,147?
It was repeatedly mentioned that this project is a 10 minute walk from BART. What they really mean, is that it’s a 10 minute walk from the stadium district that the super rich developers and politicians want to build.
Gentrification in SF, Oakland and Berkeley created a rise in crime and homelessness in those cities. Concord should not follow in those cities’ footsteps. The problem is that the state government took away some of the rights and protections neighborhoods had to defend themselves from exploitative developers.
We need more traffic in Concord, and especially on Clayton Road…said no one who lives in the area.
Comments are closed.