Concord City Council Provides Feedback Project on Former Coast Guard Site

On Tuesday, the Concord City Council provided its feedback on project that could bring 800-900 homes to the City of Concord.

The council discussed the preliminary application and provided feedback on the 59-acre former Coast Guard site (Victory village and Quinault village). Last January, the council heard the project, but at that time, it was for a plan of up to 714 units. On Tuesday, the project size increased with additional units and mixed-use. This comes after study sessions in June of 2021 and January 2025.

The Property currently contains 366 vacant military housing units, including 286 apartment units and 80 duplex units configured as single-family residences.

According to the staff report, On November 14, 2025, Eddie Haddad and Georges Maalouf (“Applicant”) submitted a Preliminary Application for a new development concept that would demolish the existing 366 units and construct an estimated 800 to 900 dwelling units (not including the proposed accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”)). The current concept plan shows 940 total dwelling units, comprised of 812 single-family homes (403 townhomes and 409 detached homes), 56 ADUs, and 72 deed-restricted affordable multifamily units (this concept plan is referred to herein as the “Project”). The unit count is anticipated to change prior to the formal application being submitted to account for further refinement of the Project design.

The council did not be make any final decisions on the project, but provided feedback on four potential topics which include:

Density
Housing types & mix
Affordable housing strategy
Community benefits.

Staff says previous proposals submitted by the Applicant maintained the two existing village concepts (the northern “Quinault Village” and the southern “Victory Village”) and had separately designed areas with different development timelines, the current Project concept proposes to redevelop the entire site as a single, integrated development to be constructed in phases. Access is provided via the Property’s three existing driveways: two in the southern portion on East Olivera Road (where Victory Village1 is currently located) and one in the northern portion at Hamilton Avenue (where Quinault Village2 is currently located).

Councilmember Carlyn Obringer called the number of units tentative and conceptual, but the number of units could change.

Staff confirmed that was correct as tonight they were not seeking a “blessing” on the exact number of units or breakdown of type—but rather direction on the broad concept of the project and site plan such as unit layout and open space layout.

According to City Manager Valorie Barone, after feedback from the council, the timeline depends on how long it takes the developer to go from concept to submitting plans. Once the application comes in, the process will take more than a year, including a three-step review process for the design-review, planning commission and then the city council.

At the meeting, David Bowlby spoke on behalf of the owners of the Coast Guard Site highlighting they have spent the past year taking a pause in an effort to gain feedback, listen to the community, what the mixed-use and community benefit would be. He says they spoke to multiple consultants, builders, and built a team regarding the project while ensuring it’s a good fit for the community.

“We are not going to satisfy everyone equally, but how do we come together and compromise,” asked Bowlby. “That is what this conceptual plan is, it’s a compromise on multiple levels. Working with many developers, we came up with this conceptual plan. Its housing for various income levels.”

He added that while they were start with the 15%, they will work through the numbers and get to a final produce that “honors” inclusionary housing element.

Bowlby said he understood the traffic concerns and during the tentative map, they will look to address some of those issues and begin discussion. They have also signed a Project Labor Agreement with the trades — however, during public comments, Ramon Amaral, Field Representative for the North States Carpenter Union, took issue stating the carpenters union had been trying to make contact with the applicant, and been in talks with the applicant since 2024, he called the talk about the carpenters not reaching out was “confusing”. Amaral added that carpenters are 70% part of any given construction project.

After the architect provided some commentary on the community, Bowlby asked the council the 8 questions (see below) stating they were looking for feedback

The council then took public comments from 9 individuals before the council provided their feedback.

Concord

The council was asked to provided feedback on 8 questions:

Does the Council support the overall concept of developing the site with up to 900 units (not including ADUs) and the housing types proposed?

Obringer – Yes
Aliano – Yes
Benavente – Yes
Nakamura – Yes

Does the Council support the proposed density of approximately 15 du/ac considering the TOC Policy encourages a higher density transit-oriented development for the Property?

Obringer – Yes
Aliano – Yes
Benavente – Yes
Nakamura – had some concerns, but more information should be coming in the future.

Is the Council satisfied with the proposed housing types and mix, or does it wish to add other housing types such as “missing middle” (i.e., duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and bungalows) housing?

Obringer – Yes
Aliano – Yes
Benavente – yes
Nakamura – concerned about the “missing middle” and didn’t think they were addressing it.

Should the apartments include units with a higher bedroom count (i.e., three or four bedrooms) to provide increased rental housing opportunities for families?

Obringer – leave it up to the market to decide (developer/affordable housing)
Aliano – wanted to allow for flexibility instead of boxing them in.
Benavente – agreed with Obringer/Aliano
Nakamura – Yes, especially if its in the inclusionary housing ordinance.

Is the Applicant’s affordable housing plan of 72 deed-restricted rentals and 56 non-deed-restricted ADUs an acceptable alternative to providing 122 of the 812 single-family homes as ownership inclusionary units? Or does the Council desire another alternative?

Obringer – Yes, appreciated what was being done. She wanted the mix, not isolate the units and called this a “unique approach”
Aliano – wanted to move forward with applicants language.
Benavente – agreed with Obringer/Aliano
Nakamura – had concerns noting she didn’t think the 56 non-deed restricted ADU’s are something they could count on for affordable housing. But understood by design it could be possible, not something they could count.

What are the Council’s expectations and timeframe for the deed-restricted units?

Obringer – says it was committed in the first phase of development, in support.
Aliano – no expectations, wanted flexibility going forward. More conversations needed.
Benavente – agreed with Obringer/Aliano
Nakamura – agreed

Where should community benefits be provided by the Project?

Obringer – wanted to look at immediate area, Willow Pass Park
Aliano – wanted to be flexible, no commitment at this time.
Benavente – agreed with Obringer/Aliano
Nakamura – anywhere in District 2

Is there any other feedback the Council wants to provide on issues that were not discussed in this report?

Obringer – requested the formation of an ad-hoc committee, including herself and Hoffmeister, to look at community benefit, but proforma issues, final number of units vs. conceptual. “I am very excited about this opportunity.
Aliano – no other concerns at the moment, wanted to continue process. Would support an ad-hoc committee and called it a smart thing to do.
Benavente – agreed with Obringer/Aliano
Nakamura – agreed to the ad-hoc. Hopes they would be working with BART but will know in two years where BART stands.

For more information, here is full agenda with documents on the project – click here

Related