TEXT NEWSTIPS/PHOTOS - 925-800-NEWS (6397)
Advertisement
Home » Concord City Council To Discuss Naval Weapons Station Development On Tuesday – Topics Include Choosing New Developer

Concord City Council To Discuss Naval Weapons Station Development On Tuesday – Topics Include Choosing New Developer

by CLAYCORD.com
13 comments

The Concord City Council on Tuesday will hold a study session to discuss the city’s next steps for selecting a new master developer for the former Concord Naval Weapons Station.

In January, the council voted 3-2 to reject the city’s term sheet with Seeno Homes-owned Concord First Partners (CFP) to develop one of the largest redevelopment projects in Bay Area history.

The city’s exclusive negotiating agreement with Seeno expired Jan. 31.

The council will act in its official role as the designated Local Reuse Authority for the 2,275-acre future development on the city’s northeast side. The site was originally 5,046 acres, 2,600 of which will become a new East Bay Regional Park named Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – Home of the Port of Chicago 50.

Advertisement

The city envisioned approximately 13,000 units of housing and millions of square feet of commercial space in what has been the biggest ongoing issue in the city since the Navy abandoned the property in 1999.

The city abandoned its agreement with Seeno after being widely criticized by the community. Among the points of contention between the city and the developer were CFP’s requests to amend the agreement to give them early property rights and reimbursement of costs should the deal fall through.

A report for Tuesday’s meeting says city staff is asking the council for direction on desired term sheet parameters and a method for selecting a new master developer.

Staff said it wants to return to the council on April 23 for it to review and give staff the green light to release a new request for qualifications to potential developers.

Advertisement

The Concord City Council meets at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at the city council chambers at city hall, 1950 Parkside Drive, in Concord.

13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

C’Mon Man, . . . Sell the Bunkers ! ! !
.
Put the city back on the map, make Concord world famous again.
It’s been a long time since the fame of the Charlie Brown Christmas Tree.
.
Each bunker would have a bronze plaque with names of city council.

5
1

Let it be, as the Beatles say, and bring back the Elk.

11
2

This topic with the city council of Concord is like beating tree stump it ain’t going nowhere.

That whole place is nothing but a hazardous dump nothing will ever be done with it I don’t even know why they’re trying to drag this up every couple months.

13,000 homes. The traffic isn’t bad enough already? Make it open space.

Round up all the homeless and toss em in there. It can be their own little city but they can’t leave, they can figure out how to survive growing crops, survival of the fittest and trying to stay on top of the food chain.

3
3

Concord must have third party intervention. The only options to have a reasonable chance at competent and unbiased master developer selection are:

1. Replace City Manager Valerie Barone and/or Redevelopment Director Guy Bjerke. They are either unable to rise to the level of management required for this project or are too entrenched in local politics to avoid allowing the usual corrupt suspects to run the selection. What other entity would allow the same management to start a third time on a twice failed $6B project that involved two of the most criminal developers they could possibly select?

2. Require a third party consultant to manage the RFQ process – completely manage it, no control at all by anyone employed at the City of Concord or elected to its public offices. This would be similar to when Catellus and Lennar were the last two competitors with one very important change – the third party consultant would prepare the recommendation report to Council without allowing any interference whatsoever from the City Manager, Councilmembers, or Guy Bjerke. (City staff could prepare a rebuttal to the report if they wanted to but the recommendation must be required to be delivered as is to council). Remember, it was the City Manager and then Councilmember Grayson who orchestrated having the recommendations made by the expert panel changed when Lennar became the developer (the panel recommended Catellus).

There is no other way. The status quo must be out of the process. Case in point – voters had to get rid of status quo darling Tim McGallian on council to get rid of Seeno.

10
1

Make it a redwood grove park. Would easy to look at. Miles of trails through the redwoods right next door.

14
2

…. the grounds are so polluted.. give it back to the military for manufacture, storage, manufacture, etc. Updated green processing shouldn’t upset anyone. It’ll bring back lots of jobs and a boost to the local economy. Housing is already on base – just needs to be updated but that’s up to whatever branch moves in. oh… definitely bring back the elk. OR….. let us on Claycord plan it 🙂 ….. would be a heck of a more sensible set of solutions from what we’ve heard so far 🙂 (know that would never happen but really, we could do better)

“Among the points of contention between the city and the developer were CFP’s requests to amend the agreement to give them early property rights and reimbursement of costs should the deal fall through.”

So, the right to walk away and not lose a dime. No thanks, Seeno.

The Council will select the new developer after they let them know what their kickback will be.

Has the government ever given Concord the deed to that land?

It may not be Concords to develop if the title to the property is still the governments.

If the land belongs to Concord, then a third party should purchase the land outright and develop it.

There is no one in Concord, elected or an employee, capable of dealing with this boondoggle.

I believe that the land should remain open space for trails and recreation.

Seeno is lucky to have not been chosen. Nothing but bs at city council starting with Laura H.

The property is likely environmentally compromised. Perhaps it’s best use would be as a dumping ground for all those expired EV batteries they have no idea what to do with.
The perfect Newsom press release, “We here in California, the fourth largest innovative economy nation state are once again setting the example for the United States in the safe disposal of EV batteries.” Better record several versions, “the fifth largest, the six largest, the seventh largest” etc.

1
1
Advertisement

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Latest News

© Copyright 2023 Claycord News & Talk