CONSULTANT’s own personnel involved in the performance of this AGREEMENT, at public hearings, or in response to questions from a Legislative committee.
D. CONSULTANT shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding work performed or to be performed under this AGREEMENT without prior review of the contents thereof by LOCAL AGENCY, and receipt of LOCAL AGENCY’S written permission.
E. All information related to the construction estimate is confidential, and shall not be disclosed by CONSULTANT to any entity, other than LOCAL AGENCY, Caltrans, and/or FHWA. All of the materials prepared or assembled by CONSULTANT pursuant to performance of this Contract are confidential and CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of City or except by court order. If CONSULTANT or any of its officers, employees, or subcontractors does voluntarily provide information in violation of this Contract, City has the right to reimbursement and indemnity from CONSULTANT for any damages caused by CONSULTANT releasing the information, including, but not limited to, City’s attorney’s fees and disbursements, including without limitation experts’ fees and disbursements.
ARTICLE XXIX NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION In accordance with Public Contract Code §10296, CONSULTANT hereby states under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against CONSULTANT within the immediately preceding two-year period, because of CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders CONSULTANT to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board.
ARTICLE XXX EVALUATION OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT’s performance will be evaluated by LOCAL AGENCY. A copy of the evaluation will be sent to CONSULTANT for comments. The evaluation together with the comments shall be retained as part of the AGREEMENT record.
ARTICLE XXXI RETENTION OF FUNDS
A. No retainage will be withheld by LOCAL AGENCY from progress payments due the CONSULTANT. Retainage by the CONSULTANT or subconsultants is prohibited, and no retainage will be held by the CONSULTANT from progress due subconsultants. Any violation of this provision shall subject the violating CONSULTANT or subconsultants to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Business and Professions Code §7108.5. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the CONSULTANT or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the CONSULTANT or deficient subconsultant performance, or noncompliance by a subconsultant. This provision applies to both DBE and non-DBE CONSULTANT and subconsultants.
ARTICLE XXXII TITLE VI ASSURANCES
APPENDICES A-E of the TITLE VI ASSURANCES
The U.S. Department of Transportation Order No.1050.2A requires all federal-aid Department of Transportation contracts between an agency and a consultant to contain Appendices A and E of the Title VI Assurances. Include Appendices B, C, and D if applicable as shown below. In addition, the consultant must include the Title VI Assurances Appendices A and E, and if applicable Appendices B, C, and D in all subcontracts to perform work under the contract.
The clauses of Appendix B of this Assurance shall be included as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting or recording a transfer of real property, structures, use, or improvements thereon or interest therein to a LOCAL AGENCY.
The clauses set forth in Appendix C and Appendix D of this Assurance shall be included as a covenant running with the land, in any future deeds, leases, licenses, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the LOCAL AGENCY with other parties:
a. for the subsequent transfer of real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program; and
b. for the construction or use of, or access to, space on, over, or under real property acquired or improved under the applicable activity, project, or program.
APPENDIX A
During the performance of this Agreement, the contractor, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as CONSULTANT) agrees as follows:
a. Compliance with Regulations: CONSULTANT shall comply with the regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the REGULATIONS), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement. b. Nondiscrimination: CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed by it during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability in the selection and retention of sub-applicants, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment.
CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the agreement covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the Regulations.
c. Solicitations for Sub-agreements, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a Sub-agreement, including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub-applicant or supplier shall be notified by CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANT’S obligations under this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin.
d. Information and Reports: CONSULTANT shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the recipient or FHWA to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives. Where any information required of CONSULTANT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, CONSULTANT shall so certify to the recipient or FHWA as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts CONSULTANT has made to obtain the information. e. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of CONSULTANT’s noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this agreement, the recipient shall impose such agreement sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:
i. withholding of payments to CONSULTANT under the Agreement within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 90 days; and/or
ii. cancellation, termination or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. f. Incorporation of Provisions: CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6) in every sub-agreement, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto.
CONSULTANT shall take such action with respect to any sub-agreement or procurement as the recipient or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance, provided, however, that, in the event CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub-applicant or supplier as a result of such direction, CONSULTANT may request the recipient enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, CONSULTANT may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.
APPENDIX B CLAUSES FOR DEEDS TRANSFERRING UNITED STATES PROPERTY The following clauses will be included in deeds effecting or recording the transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or granting interest therein from the United States pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 4:
NOW THEREFORE, the U.S. Department of Transportation as authorized by law and upon the condition that the recipient will accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon in accordance with Title 23 U.S.C., the regulations for the administration of the preceding statute, and the policies and procedures prescribed by the FHWA of the U.S. Department of Transportation in accordance and in compliance with all requirements imposed by Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d to 2000d-4), does hereby remise, release, quitclaim and convey unto the recipient all the right, title and interest of the U.S.
Department of Transportation in and to said lands described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(HABENDUM CLAUSE) TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto the recipient and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which Federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits and will be binding on the recipient, its successors and assigns. The recipient, in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interest in lands, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns, that (1) no person will on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed [,] [and]* (2) that the recipient will use the lands and interests in lands and interest in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Non-discrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations and Acts may be amended[, and (3) that in the event of breach of any of the above- mentioned non-discrimination conditions, the Department will have a right to enter or re-enter said lands and facilities on said lands, and that above described land and facilities will thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the U.S. Department of Transportation and its assigns as
such interest existed prior to this instruction].* (*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)
APPENDIX C CLAUSES FOR TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR IMPROVED
UNDER THE ACTIVITY, FACILITY, OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, leases, permits, or similar instruments entered into by the recipient pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(a):
A. The (grantee, lessee, permittee, etc. as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree [in the case of deeds and leases add “as a covenant running with the land”] that:
1. In the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the property described in this (deed, license, lease, permit, etc.) for a purpose for which a U.S.
Department of Transportation activity, facility, or program is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the Acts and Regulations(as may be amended) such that no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities.
B. With respect to licenses, leases, permits, etc., in the event of breach of any of the above Non- discrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to terminate the (lease, license, permit, etc.) and to enter, re-enter, and repossess said lands and facilities thereon, and hold the same as if the (lease, license, permit, etc.) had never been made or issued.* C. With respect to a deed, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to enter or re-enter the lands and facilities thereon, and the above described lands and facilities will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the recipient and its assigns.* (*Reverter clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary to make clear the purpose of Title VI.)
APPENDIX D CLAUSES FOR CONSTRUCTION/USE/ACCESS TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED
UNDER THEACTIVITY, FACILITY OR PROGRAM
The following clauses will be included in deeds, licenses, permits, or similar instruments/agreements entered into by the recipient pursuant to the provisions of Assurance 7(b):
A. The (grantee, licensee, permittee, etc., as appropriate) for himself/herself, his/her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest ,and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree (in the case of deeds and leases add, “as a covenant running with the land”) that (1) no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities, (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land, and the furnishings of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits or, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination, (3) that the (grantee, licensee, lessee, permittee, etc.) will use the premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to the Acts and Regulations, as amended, set forth in this Assurance.
B. With respect to (licenses, leases, permits, etc.) in the event of breach of any of the above of the above Non- discrimination covenants, the recipient will have the right to terminate the (license, permits, etc., as appropriate) and to enter or re-enter and repossess said land and the facilities thereon, and hold the same as if said (license, permit, etc., as appropriate) had never been made or issued.* C. With respect to deeds, in the event of breach of any of the above Non-discrimination covenants, the recipient will there upon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the recipient and its assigns.
APPENDIX E
During the performance of this contract, the CONSULTANT, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “CONSULTANT”) agrees to comply with the following non- discrimination statutes and authorities, including, but not limited to:
Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21. • • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 • U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects); • Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex;
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
• Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, sub-recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); • Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination of the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; • The Federal Aviation Administration’s Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100);
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq).
Dated: ______________ CONSULTANT
BY: ________________________
Jaemin Park, President
[email protected]
Dated: ________________ CITY OF CONCORD
By:______________________________
Valerie J. Barone
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________________ Susanne Brown Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION:
Concord, California
Date: ________________
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.
THE SUM OF $234,930.81
Account Code: 4029500C999-74500 / 4022455213-74500
Finance Director's Signature
PARK
ENGINEERING
Submitted By:
Proposal to Provide
City of Concord
Construction Management and
Materials Testing Services for
Monument Boulevard Class 1 Path
City Project No. 2455; Federal Project No. CML-5135(059) March 17, 2022
Attachment 1 to Attachment 3
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Concord
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Pavement Maintenance – Zone 3 Project
Proposal to Provide Construction Management and Material Testing Services to the City of Concord Community Development Department for
Monument Boulevard Class 1 Path Project
City Project No. 2455
Federal Project No. CML-5135(059)
March 17, 2022
Section Title
1 Table of Contents
2 Cover Letter
3 Professional Experience
4 Project Team Experience
5 Consultant’s Proposed Approach to the Scope of Work and Project Understanding
6 Fee Proposal (separate envelope, US Mail)
Caltrans Exhibits 10-H and 10-K
Proposal Submitted by:
Park Engineering, Inc.
Jaemin Park, PE, President
[email protected]
Orinda Office
372 Village Square
Orinda, CA 94563
Tel: 925-257-2508
Fax: 925-401-7030
Emeryville Office
3960 Adeline Street, #3
Emeryville, CA 94608
Tel: 925-257-2508
Fax: 925-401-7030
March 17, 2022
Tianjun Cao, PE
City of Concord
Engineering Services Division
1950 Parkside Dr., M/S 40
Concord, CA 94519
RE: Proposal to Provide Construction Management and Material Testing Services to the City of Concord for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project City Project No. 2455 / Federal Project No. CML-5135(059) Dear Mr. Cao:
Park Engineering, Inc. is pleased to submit our proposal to provide construction management and material testing services to the City of Concord for the Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project. Park Engineering has performed construction management and inspection services for numerous public works agencies, including the City of Concord, that have encompassed such work elements specific to this project – curb and gutter replacements, curb ramp replacements, roadway rehabilitation, paving and striping, pathway construction, traffic signal upgrades, and landscaping & irrigation. We have the personnel with the experience and expertise to successfully complete this project for the City.
Our proposed Resident Engineer for the project is Steve Patterson, PE, who has over 30 years of experience managing transportation and public works projects built to local, Caltrans and federal standards. Steve has worked previously on numerous local projects with similar scope of work. Steve has also managed multiple projects for the City of Concord.
Steve is supported by Construction Inspector Mike Johnson, who has over 35 years experience in public works construction, including recently working on a City of San Pablo project that included pathway improvements. Mike has worked with several other agencies on similar scoped projects. To provide materials testing on the project, we have included Applied Materials & Engineering, a local materials testing and special inspection firm with exceptional experience with Caltrans and ASTM certified testing for roadway and public works construction projects. Their testing technicians will be bound by the City’s PSA.
Our team has the expertise to meet the challenges of this project and ensure that the work is successfully completed in accordance with City, Federal and contract requirements.
Sincerely,
Jaemin Park, PE
President
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE and CAPABILITIES
Company Profile
Park Engineering, Inc. was founded in 2013 with the
vision of providing high quality construction
management, construction inspection,
program/project management, project controls, and
contract administration services to public agencies
on transportation and infrastructure projects.
The firm’s guiding principle is to add value to
public agencies by furnishing high level technical
resources and expertise. Our approach combines
highly developed engineering and management
capabilities with proven problem solving and
relationship building skills.
Park Engineering specializes in providing
construction management, construction
inspection, program/project management and
contract administration services on projects with
federal, state, bond, grant and other specialty
funding requiring coordination with and audits by,
Caltrans, FHWA and other oversight agencies.
Certifications
State of California CUCP DBE (No. 41711)
State of California DGS SBE (No. 1757722)
State of California PUC MBE (No. 17000825)
Services
• Construction management
• Construction Inspection
• Project management / program management
• Resident engineering
• SWPPP implementation and inspection
• Scheduling and schedule control
• Cost estimating and cost control
• Utility coordination
• Claims analysis, negotiation and resolution
support
• Value engineering
• Permit compliance
• Constructability and bid-ability review
• Bid advertisement and award process
• Staff augmentation
• Federal and state audit support
• Federal fund reimbursement and project
closeout
Our key personnel have experience delivering
projects of this nature for transportation and local
agencies that have included water/wastewater,
sanitation, utility undergrounding, flood control,
new roadway and existing street improvements,
and other public agency and private development
projects. In addition, we have extensive
experience with administering construction
projects that receive funding from multiple
sources, including FHWA funds. We have the skills
necessary to ensure thorough reporting and strict
adherence to federal guidelines.
Year Founded 2013
Form of Organization Corporation
Location of Offices Headquarters:
Orinda, CA
Additional Office:
Emeryville, CA
Number of Employees 3 Project Managers/
Resident Engineers
10 Construction
Inspectors
Terminated Contracts None
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
City of Concord Project Management,
Construction Management and Inspection
Services, Concord, California
Description: Park Engineering has provided
construction management and inspection services
for City public works projects, including street
rehabilitation, bicycle lanes, pedestrian
improvements, bridges and roadway
improvements. Projects include:
Denkinger Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project
This $1.2M locally funded project rehabilitated
the existing pavement for approximately 1/2 mile
along Denkinger Road by a full depth reclamation
process. 7 curb ramps were also upgraded, spot
repairs were made at various curb location, and
final re-striping of the roadway and adjacent
intersection with Concord Blvd.
Measure Q Paving Rehabilitation, Project #8
This $1.3M project included roadway
reconstruction work on 8 local residential
roadways, including construction of 14 new curb
ramps and replacement of existing valley gutters
and curb & gutter. Roadway reconstruction
methods were varied degrees of grinding &
repaving with some pavement failure digouts and
use of RHMA as the final wearing course.
West Concord Bikeways
This $80,000 project work involved the
installation of new buffered bike lanes on
Meridian Parkway Blvd. and Galaxy Way / John
Glenn Drive.
Citywide Accessibility Improvement Projects #4,
5, 6 and 7
These projects involved the re-construction of
pedestrian curb ramps at various intersections
throughout the City, with a number of locations
included as Alternate Bid Items to allow the City
flexibility to add or remove this specific work
based on bid results.
Central Concord Pedestrian Improvements
Project included roadway resurfacing work of
both the mill and fill method for Willow Pass Road
and a slurry seal for Broadway, as well as
replacement of non-ADA compliant curb ramps
for 25 intersections in downtown Concord, new
traffic signal, and streetscape features installed
near the Concord BART Station.
Detroit Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements Project
This federally funded (OBAG) Project constructed
roadway and streetscape improvements on Detroit
Avenue from Monument Blvd. to Clayton Road.
Work on this $4M project involves full street
rehabilitation including, grading, AC paving, signals
and lighting, new curb, gutter and sidewalks, new
curb ramps, drainage improvements, irrigation and
lighting, and enhanced striping and pavement
markings.
Ellis Lake Restroom Building Project
This locally funded project included the site
preparation and utility installation to accept a
pre-fabricated 4-unit restroom building. New
sidewalk, re-installation of irrigation and grass
and a new picket fence were also part of the
project.
City-wide Bridge Rehabilitation Program –
Package 1
Project work included construction of maintenance
repairs for six bridges throughout the City that
include: Willow Pass Road Over Mount Diablo
Creek, Kirker Pass Road Over Mount Diablo Creek,
Diamond Blvd over Walnut Creek – Left, Diamond
Blvd over Walnut Creek – Right, Cowell Road Over
Galindo Creek, and Walnut Ave Over Contra Costa
Canal.
Services Provided: Park Engineering, Inc. has
provided the City of Concord, construction and
project management services, which includes
resident engineering, construction inspection,
with materials testing and source inspection.
Construction administration includes reporting,
documentation and invoicing assistance for
federal and CCTA funding.
Client Contact Bernard Enrile, PE
Manager, CIP
City of Concord
(925) 671-3031
Dates of Service 2015 - Current
Project Value $80,000 to $4M (Construction
Value)
Key Personnel Jaemin Park, Project Manager
Steve Patterson, Res. Engineer
Chris Kinser, Const. Inspector
Pete Martin, Constr. Inspector
James Beauchamp, Inspector
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
Construction Management and Inspection
Services; City of Alameda, Public Works
Department
Cross Alameda Trail, Main to Constitution
Description: Park Engineering, Inc. provided
construction management services to the City for
this trail project along Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway from Main to Constitution.
This project, the 'CAT/RAMP + Gap' Project,
was part of the City of Alameda’s overall Cross
Alameda Trail (CAT) project, which is a
crosstown four-mile bicycling and walking
corridor that will connect the west side of the
island to the east, from the former Naval Air
Base to the Miller-Sweeney (Fruitvale) Bridge.
The CAT was constructed in segments. This
CAT/RAMP + Gap project, between Main
Street and Constitution Way, totals
approximately 0.9 miles in length.
Project included construction of separate
walking and bicycling paths (asphalt concrete),
plus a decomposed granite jogging path, in the
City-owned abandoned railroad right-of-way
along Atlantic Ave (Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway). Project work included import fill and
management of the existing contaminated
soils, drainage
improvements, decorative concrete sidewalk &
plaza work, existing signal modification,
installation of a mid-block new pedestrian
crossing, landscape & irrigation, bus shelter &
site furnishings, path and roadway striping.
Coordination with multiple businesses, utilities
and schools will be necessary.
Park Engineering provided construction
management and inspection services for this 1-
mile bike and walking trail improvement
project that utilized several funding sources,
including federal monies. Other duties
included constructibility efforts, pre-bid
preparation & cost segregation assistance,
bidding assistance and coordination with
Alameda County Department of Environmental
Health related to contaminated soil
management.
Client Contact Jack Dybas
Project Manager
(510) 747-7948
Type of
Contract
Project Specific – provided
construction management &
inspection services.
Dates of
Service
2018 – 2021
Dollar Amount
of Contract
$5M (construction value)
Key Personnel Steve Patterson, PM/RE
Chris Kinser, Inspector
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
On-Call Project Management, Construction
Management and Inspection Services
City of San Pablo, California
Description: Park Engineering provided the City
construction management services for multiple
capital projects. Services included resident
engineering, construction inspection, materials
testing, construction surveying, biological
monitoring and archeological monitoring. Projects
include:
San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project
is a $5.9M, federal and CCTA funded, roadway
improvement project including streetscape and
pavement rehabilitation. The Project is located
along San Pablo Avenue between Rivers Street
and Hilltop Drive. The project will improve San
Pablo Avenue for all roadway users by adding
Class 2 bike lanes in both directions of travel,
constructing sidewalk along the western side of
San Pablo. Additional improvements include
storm drains, soil nail and retaining walls, new
and modified signalized intersections, standard
and decorative street lighting, new trees and
landscaping, and grinding and HMA overlay of
majority of the roadway.
Plaza San Pablo Phase 3 & 4 Project
This $1.5M project completed the roadway and
utility improvements from Phases 1 & 2 for Plaza
San Pablo. Project work included demolition of
existing concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, AC
pavement, and various utilities. Work included
installation of new underground utilities, storm
drain system, sewer system, ADA ramp, bio-
swales and landscaping.
Wildcat Creek Restoration and Greenway Trail
Project, City of San Pablo, CA - $3.8M
Park Engineering, Inc. provided construction
management services to the City of San Pablo for
this creek restoration and trail project. The
project work involved restoration and grading of
approximately 2,200 linear feet of creek channel
embankment and construction of a trail with
decorative lighting, pocket parks and landscaping.
On-Call Inspection Services
Park Engineering is currently supplementing City
inspection staff for specific requests and
construction projects. Duties have included
interim inspection services during City Staff
vacations for permit compliance and the Hillcrest
Storm Drain Replacement & El Portal Road
Settlement Projects. Duties include daily
documentation of field work and monitoring for
contract compliance. Daily and overall cost
management on the two specific projects above
were also included, along with final negotiations
to total project costs.
Services Provided: Park Engineering, Inc. is
providing the City of San Pablo, construction
management services, which includes resident
engineering, construction inspection, and
materials testing and source inspection.
Construction administration includes reporting,
documentation and invoicing for federal funding.
Also representing the City during Caltrans audits.
Client Contact Jill Mercurio, PE
Public Works Director
City of San Pablo
(510) 215-3060
[email protected]
Dates of Service 2017 - 2021
Project Value $1.5M - $5.9M const. cost
Key Personnel Jaemin Park, PM/RE
Mike Johnson, Const. Insp.
Chris Kinser, Const. Insp.
Danielle White, Const. Insp.
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
City of Orinda Multiple Project-Specific
Construction Services & On-Call Construction
and Project Management Services
Description: Park Engineering provided the City
construction & project management services for
multiple capital project. Services included project
delivery, resident engineering, construction
inspection, and materials testing. Also representing
the City during construction for interactions with
public / homeowners directly impacted. Projects
have included:
Orinda Way Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Construction Cost: $800,000
Park Engineering provided construction
management for this federally funded project.
The project work consisted of concrete curb,
gutter and sidewalk repairs as well as
replacement curb ramps for ADA compliance.
Roadway base failures were completed along with
a 3-inch full width pavement grind & overlay, with
follow up replacement signal loops & roadway
striping.
2017 Annual and Measure J & L Paving
Rehabilitation Project
Construction Cost: $10M
Park Engineering provided construction
management for this project. The project work
consisted of improvements occurring on 65
different streets within the City. Roadway
rehabilitation was primarily through Full Depth
Reclamation with an HMA overlay, extensive
drainage and concrete curb & gutter replacement
work. Other work consisted of utility
adjustments, replacement of HMA dikes & swales
and roadway delineation. The project was locally
funded with the use of both City funds and Contra
Costa County Measure funds.
Crossroads Area & BART Wayfinding Signage
Construction Cost: $140,000
Park Engineering managed the planning and
design and will manage the construction of this
project that will furnish and install new custom
fabricated wayfinding signs, wall graphics and
fabricated light cabinet, concrete foundation,
replacement of existing sidewalk where needed,
extension of electrical conduits and conductor as
needed.
BART-Downtown Access Ramp & Lighting
Construction Cost: $900,000
Park Engineering provided construction
management for this project. The project work
consisted of removing an existing concrete
stairway and replacing with a new stairway and
ADA compliant ramp to link the City’s busy
Theater District with the adjacent Orinda BART
Station. A series of seven retaining walls were
constructed to achieve the ADA ramp in small
work area, located on Caltrans right-of-way.
Other work included improved lighting and new
landscaping with an improved irrigation system.
2014 Annual and Measure J Paving
Rehabilitation Project
Construction Cost: $1.40M
Park Engineering provided construction
management for this project. The project work
consisted of a combination of pavement
rehabilitation, both slurry seal and mill of existing
pavement with Hot Mix Asphalt paving; base
failure repairs, both digout repairs and Full Depth
Reclamation; minor drainage improvements and
repairs; and re-installation of striping and
pavement markings.
Client Contact Jason Chen, PE
Former City Engineer
City of Orinda
(925) 949-9776
Dates of Service 2014 – Current
Project Value $140,000 to $10M
Key Personnel Steve Patterson, PM/RE
Jaemin Park, PM/RE
Adele Ho, PM
James Beauchamp,
Danielle White - Inspectors
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
On-Call & Project Specific Construction
Management and Inspection Services
Contra Costa County Public Works Department,
Contra Costa County
Description: Park Engineering’s key personnel
provided construction management and
inspection for County public works projects
through an on-call Construction Management and
Inspection contract. The team worked on several
federally funded public works as well as privately
funded developer projects, such as new
subdivision construction and the expansion of
local roadways and arterial improvements.
Projects include:
Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing
Lane Project – The project constructed a truck
climbing lane in the northbound direction. The
project is approximately 1 mile in length,
beginning at the Concord Pavilion and ending at
the northern Hess Road intersection. Road
widening required multiple retaining walls due to
the existing slopes and drainage adjacent to the
roadway. The project also included pavement
rehabilitation on the north and south bound lanes
between the City of Concord / County limits to
approximately 4,200 feet north of North Hess
Road for a total of about 1.6 miles. The total
project length is about 2 miles. The project was
funded by Federal grants, State SB1 funds, and
local County funds.
Buchanan Airfield Runway Rehabilitation Project
– The work consists of rehabilitating asphalt
concrete pavement, full width, on Runway 14L-
32R, with the exception of the Runway 1L-19R
intersection. Work included cold milling, crack
repair, full depth asphalt and PCC pavement
removal, earthwork/ grading, asphalt surface
course, runway grooving, application of new
pavement markings, runway & taxiway lighting
improvements and signage modifications.
San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks Levee
Remediation – FEMA mandated levee
remediation to raise freeboard to 100-year flood
requirements. Work involved installation of
sheetpile walls, levee fill, concrete walls, and
HMA pavement to raise levee roads. The project
required close environmental monitoring and
coordination with various entities including East
Bay Regional Park District and County Flood
Control District.
2015 Asphalt Rubber Cape Seal; 0672-6U2149
The work consisted of applying an asphalt rubber
chip seal covered with a type II slurry seal to
approximately 259,020 square yards of roadway
located at East Richmond Heights area of west
Contra Costa County and Shadow Creek area of
Blackhawk in the East Contra Costa.
Additional Project include:
▪ Pinehurst Road Culvert Repair (Federally
Funded)
▪ Bollinger Canyon Bridge over Japonica Creek
(Federally Funded)
▪ South Dougherty Road Bridge and North
Dougherty Road Bridge
▪ Vasco Road Safety Improvements, Phase I
(Federal and CCTA Funded)
▪ Countywide Microsurfacing Project
▪ Giaramita Street Rehabilitation (federal)
Client Contact Adelina Huerta, PE
Division Manager
Contra Costa County
Design and Construction
(925) 313-2305
Dates of Service 2014 – Current
Project Value $2M to $25M (Construction
Value)
Key Personnel Jaemin Park, PM & RE
Steve Patterson, RE
James Beauchamp, Mike
Johnson, Chris Kinser &
Danielle White, all
ARE/Inspector
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
As-Needed Project Management, Construction
Management and Inspection Services,
City of San Rafael, Public Works Department
Description: Park Engineering is currently working
with the City’s Public Works Department. Projects
include improvements to roadways and bridges,
drainage and pump stations, and facility upgrades at
community centers and parking structures. Park
Engineering has provided assistance with multiple
project studies, designs, project deliveries and the
construction management – all phases of the work.
Our staff have provided project & construction
management & inspection services for the following
projects:
Francisco Blvd East Sidewalk Improvements
This $5M federally funded project replaced and
widenings the existing busy sidewalk adjacent to a
number of businesses. Storm drain improvements,
street lighting, landscaping & irrigation work are
also part of the project.
2017 Storm Damage Slide Repair Project
This FEMA funded project repair storm damage
slides at three locations throughout the City. The
damage for storms in 2017 were repaired through
three separate construction projects. The project
rebuilt existing failed slopes, added retaining walls,
repaired damaged drainage systems & roadways,
and worked closely with adjacent impacted
residents.
2nd Street & Grand Ave Intersection Improvement
Project improved this busy intersection with new &
improved curb ramps while widening the
northbound approach on Grand Ave. The project
also upgraded and replaced all the traffic signal
components. Daily traffic control and coordination
with adjacent businesses was also a critical
component of the project work.
Regional Transportation Safety Enhancement
Project prepared the City’s busy downtown /
transit area for the arrival of the SMART train.
Work includes traffic signal upgrades and extensive
sidewalk & curb ramp improvements.
H Street Roadway Improvements replaced a
failing drainage system and relocated the existing
sanitary sewer main down the middle of H Street.
Installation of twin 30-inch pipes required
extensive traffic control and
coordination with businesses & resident. The
entire street was resurfaced as well as curb &
sidewalk improvements.
Other projects include:
▪ Canal Street Storm Water Pump Station
Repair Project
▪ 1309 5th Ave Demo & Parking Lot
▪ Terra Linda Pool House Renovation
▪ B Street Community Center Projects
▪ City-Owned Parking Structure Study
▪ 3rd & Union Improvements
Services Provided: include quality assurance of
contractor’s work, preparation of daily diaries,
assisting with monthly pay estimates, contract
administration, office engineering, photo
documentation, overseeing traffic control, ADA
compliance, pedestrian accessibility through the
work zone, SWPPP and regulatory permit
compliance.
Agency Contact April Miller, PE
Assistant PW Director
111 Morphew Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 485-3409
Date of
Contract
2013 – Current
Contract
Amount
Projects range from $30K to
$6M
Key Personnel Steve Patterson, PM/RE
Jaemin Park, PM/RE
Chris Kinser, Inspector
James Beauchamp, Inspector
Andy Bodo, Inspector
Brian Zapalski, Inspector
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
On-Call Construction Management and
Inspection Services - City of San Mateo, Public
Works Department, San Mateo, California
Description: Park Engineering staff provided
construction management and inspection services
for several bridge and roadway improvement
projects for the City of San Mateo. Services have
included full construction management including
CCO, RFI and submittal management, schedule,
constructability reviews, bidding assistance, and
federally funded project support including
contract administration, contract compliance,
audit support and fund reimbursement. Projects
included:
Downtown Parking Technology Improvements
Project This federally funded project upgraded
single & multi-space parking meter systems in the
downtown area. New level-by-level count
systems were installed in the City’s five
downtown parking structures as well as
installation of new way finding signs for parking.
Citywide Crosswalk Improvement Project This
federally funded project constructed high visibility
crosswalks in 40 locations throughout San Mateo.
In addition to the crosswalk upgrades, work
consisted of new and relocated signage, a
pedestrian refuge island, installation of a retro-
reflective flashing beacon system, accessible ramp
improvements, thermoplastic pavement
markings, and green bike lane and box
installation.
E. 3rd Ave Street Rehabilitation Project This
project scope included concrete improvements;
asphalt concrete pavement grinding and removal,
hot mix asphalt paving, pavement striping, storm
drain replacement and utility structure
adjustments.
Poplar Corridor Safety Improvement Project
The project constructed a median island on Poplar
Ave from Amphlett Blvd to Idaho St, as well as
traffic calming improvements along Humboldt St.
Traffic calming improvements included: bulbouts,
landscaping with new trees, pedestrian level
lighting, radar feedback signs, and signal upgrades
at Humboldt/Poplar.
2014 Street Rehabilitation Project
Project consisted of removal and replacement of
curb & gutter, sidewalk, driveways and
construction of new Handicap ramps, bulb outs,
islands, new drainage inlets and storm drain
pipes, relocation of street lights. Work also
involved grinding and paving city streets and
parking lots, striping and pavement markings, and
installing new tree grates.
Additional projects included:
▪ 2014-15 Street Rehabilitation Phase 1
▪ 2015 Community Development Block Grant
(Federally Funded)
▪ Downtown San Mateo Creek Bridge
(Federally Funded)
▪ East Hillsdale Bridge Seismic Retrofit
(Federally Funded)
▪ Norfolk Street Bridge Replacement (Federally
Funded)
▪ Delaware Street Bike Lane and Streetscape
Improvement Project (Federally Funded)
▪ El Camino Real Master Plan, Phase 1
Improvements (Federally Funded)
Client Contact Jay Yu, Engineering Manager
City of San Mateo
(650) 522-7323
[email protected]
Type of
Project(s)
Public works construction:
roadway and bridges
Date of
Performance
2014 to Present
Construction
Cost
$1M to $6M (Construction
Value);
Key Personnel Jaemin Park, PM
Steve Patterson, RE
Andy Bodo, Inspector
James Beauchamp, Inspector
3. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
Construction Management Services for the City
of Pleasant Hill - Golf Club Road Bridge
Replacement and Contra Costa Boulevard
Improvement Project,
City of Pleasant Hill, California
Description: Park Engineering, Inc. provided
construction management services to the City for
two multi-phase projects. Both projects were
federally-funded and CCTA funded with a
combined construction value of $8.5M.
Contra Costa Blvd Improvement project was a
streetscape and pavement rehabilitation project
that constructed traffic safety, roadway and other
“Complete Street” improvements, including
intersection and traffic signal upgrades, pavement
restoration, bike lanes, enhanced sidewalk and
crosswalk, landscaping, and decorative median
and pedestrian lighting. The project provided
beautification of this heavily travelled arterial that
is the main access to Sun Valley Mall and Diablo
Valley College. The project was funded through
Federal HSIP/STP funding and CCTA Measure J
funding - $4.5M.
Golf Club Road Bridge replacement project
involved the replacement of a multi-span concrete
bridge on wood supports, with a new concrete slab
bridge on concrete pile extensions. The project
also included street improvements with full depth
structural section replacement with new base and
AC paving. Additional work included decorative
street lighting, enhanced architectural features
including decorative “Texas” barrier, color
concrete for bridge, curb & gutter, sidewalk and
median island. New landscaping and enhanced
crosswalk striping. Federal HBRR/HBP funding
and CCTA Measure J funding - $4.3M.
Services Provided: Park Engineering, Inc. provided
the City of Pleasant Hill, construction
management services, which included resident
engineering, construction inspection, with ISI
performing materials testing and source
inspection. Construction administration included
reporting, documentation and invoicing for
federal and CCTA funding. Also represented the
City during FHWA and Caltrans audits.
Client Contact Eric Hu, PE
Former Senior Civil Engineer
City of Pleasant Hill
(510) 494-4542
[email protected]
Project Value $4.5M construction cost
Key Personnel Jaemin Park, PM/RE
Sha Azari, Cost. Inspector
Alfio Tonog, Cost. Inspector
Client Contact Mario Moreno, PE
City Engineer
City of Pleasant Hill
(925) 671-5252
[email protected]
Project Value $4.3M construction cost
Key Personnel Jaemin Park, PM/RE
Alfio Tonog, Cost. Inspector
4. PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
TEAM QUALIFICATIONS
Park Engineering brings a team of experienced
personnel to represent the City for this
improvements project. We will provide the City an
experienced Project Manager/Resident Engineer
with highly qualified construction inspector. We
have included on our team Applied Materials &
Engineering to provide the materials testing for the
project. Our team is knowledgeable of
CCTA/Caltrans, Federal and Greenbook
requirements, and has experience completing
comparable projects for numerous local agencies
including the City of Concord.
Steve Patterson, PE, Project Manager/Resident
Engineer will be primary contact managing all
aspects of the project for the City and
management of Park Engineering team.
Steve has over 30 years of experience providing
project management, construction management,
and construction administration for local agency,
highway, bridge, building and public works
infrastructure projects throughout the Bay Area.
He has worked with state, regional and local
agencies in the capacity of project principal,
project manager, resident engineer, construction
inspector, project engineer, and office engineer.
He has contributed to numerous constructability
/ bid-ability reviews and value engineering
studies, as well as provided claims analysis,
mitigation and resolution support to state,
regional and local agencies.
Steve is an expert in federally funded projects.
Steve was the project manager/resident
engineer for following federally funded local
agency projects:
• Francisco Blvd East Sidewalk Improvement,
City of San Rafael ($5M)
• Gate 6 Intersection Safety Improvements,
City of Sausalito ($900k)
• Central Corridor Safety Improvements, City
of Daly City ($2.3M)
• Pinehurst Road Sinkhole Repair, Contra
Coast County ($300k)
• Kirker Pass Road Northbound Truck Climbing
Lane Project, Contra Costa County ($13M)
• San Bruno Ave Medians Improvement
Project, City of San Bruno ($850k)
• Cross Alameda Trail, City of Alameda ($4.3M)
• Moraga Road Resurfacing & Safe Routes to
School Improvements, Town of Moraga
($800k & $160k)
• Safe Routes to School Improvement, Town of
San Anselmo ($600k)
• San Pablo Ave Safe Routes to School
Improvements, City of Emeryville ($650k)
Mike Johnson, Sr. Construction Inspector
Mike has over 35 years of experience as an
inspector for transportation and public works
construction projects that have included bridges
and other structures roadways and highways,
drainage, signal & lighting, and multiple utility
installation / relocations. Mikes has extensive
experience working with local agencies on
federal and local funded projects most recently
completing the federally funded Pinehurst Road
Sinkhole Repair with Contra Costa County Public
Works and the San Pablo Avenue Complete
Streets Project with the City of San Pablo.
Applied Materials & Engineering
Park Engineering Team Member Applied Materials
& Engineering, Inc. (AME), who has also worked on
other previous City projects, will provide quality
assurance testing as required. Testing will be
performed in the frequencies required by the City’s
Quality Assurance Program and the Caltrans Local
Assistance Procedures Manual.
They will support the Team with any submittal
reviews for materials to be used, responses to
RFI’s and support for any disputes. AME will
provide summary of tests performed and results
of tests performed to support quality of the
work. They will provide sufficient information so
that the resident engineer can satisfy the
requirements of certifying that all materials used
on the project meet the contract requirements.
Their lab manager will ensure that all laboratory
tests are performed accurately and submit
reports with certified results.
4. PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
TEAM ORGANIZATION
Steve Patterson, PE will be the Resident Engineer, responsible for management of the overall project. He will be supported by Construction Inspector Mike Johnson. Materials testing services are provided by Applied Materials and Engineering.
4. PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
STEVE PATTERSON, P.E., CONSTRUCTION MANAGER / RESIDENT ENGINEER Years of Experience
31 Education
B.S. Civil Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1991 Professional Registrations
Professional Engineer: California, #C54481, 1995
QSD / QSP: Certificate #22073
Key Qualifications
Steve Patterson’s experience includes roadway widening and rehabilitation, highways and interchanges, emergency slide and flood repairs, sound walls, MSE walls, retaining walls, storm box culverts, utility installations and relocations. He has worked in the capacity of Project Manager, Resident Engineer, Construction Inspector, and Office Engineer. Steve is familiar with the Caltrans Standard Specifications, Standard Plans, Construction Manual, Local Assistance Procedures Manual, and the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
Steve is experienced with supervising inspection staff, CPM schedules, project controls and costs, quality control/quality assurance, analyzing claims, preparing reports, planning personnel resources, negotiating contract change orders. Steve coordinated project work with utility companies, cities, counties, Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Union Pacific Railroad, private businesses, and the public.
Project Experience
• City of Concord, Multiple Projects
Steve was the Resident Engineer/Project Manager on the following projects:
✓ Denkinger Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project, $1.2M Resident Engineer for this locally funded project that rehabilitated the existing pavement for approximately 1 mile along Denkinger Road by full depth reclamation process. 7 curb ramps were also upgraded, spot repairs were made at various curb location, and final re-striping of the roadway and adjacent intersection with Concord Blvd.
✓ Citywide Accessibility Improvement Project #6, $300,000 Resident Engineer for this federally funded project that upgraded 30 curb ramps with signal & striping improvements throughout the City.
✓ Measure Q Pavement Repair Project #8, $1.3M
Resident Engineer for this locally funded project that rehabilitated the existing pavement on 8 local streets along with the construction of ADA curb ramps and valley gutters. ✓ West Concord Bikeways, $80k
Resident Engineer for this locally funded project that revised the existing striping along Meridian Park Blvd to create a buffered Class II bike lane in both directions. ✓ Citywide Accessibility Improvements #4, $365k
Resident Engineer & inspector for this federally funded project that upgraded 45 curb ramps with signal & striping improvements throughout the City.
✓ Central Concord Pedestrian Improvements Streetscape Project, $3M – Resident Engineer for roadway resurfacing project that included work of both the mill and fill method and slurry seal, as well as replacement of non-ADA compliant curb ramps for 25 intersections in downtown Concord, a new traffic signal, and streetscape features installed near the Concord BART Station. ✓ Ellis Lake Restroom Project, $120k – This locally funded project included the site preparation, utility connections and installation of a prefabricated 4-unit restroom building.
4. PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
• Contra Cost County Public Works, Kirker Pass Road NB Truck Climbing Lane Project, Concord Steve was the construction manager on this $15M federally funded project that constructed an additional lane for improved truck climbing safety. The project constructed six retaining walls to complete the widening lane, as well as grind & pave of all lanes (4) for approximately 2 miles, related drainage improvements and restriping work. Coordination was needed with the Cities of Concord & Pittsburg, Union 76 for their close proximity gas line, and the Concord Pavilion. • City of Orinda, 2017 Paving Rehabilitation Project & BART-Downtown Access Ramp & Lighting Project. Construction Cost: $10M & $900,000 (respectively) Steve is the Construction Manager / Resident Engineer for both projects. The 2017 Annual and Measure J & L Pavement Rehabilitation Project had work occurring on 65 different streets within the City. Roadway rehabilitation is primarily through Full Depth Reclamation with extensive drainage and concrete curb & gutter replacement work. Other work consists of utility adjustments, replacement AC dikes and roadway delineation. For the BART-Downtown Access Ramp & Lighting Project, the work consists of removing an existing concrete stairway and replacing with a new stairway and ADA compliant ramp to link the City’s busy Theater District with the adjacent Orinda BART Station. A series of seven retaining walls will be constructed to achieve the ADA ramp in small work area, located on Caltrans right-of-way. Other work includes improved lighting and new landscaping with an improved irrigation system.
• Moraga Road Utility Undergrounding, Sidewalks & Pavement Resurfacing Projects, Town of Moraga, CA - $2.7M
Steve was the Resident Engineer/Project Manager on these three projects for the Town of Moraga that were construction simultaneously.
✓ Utility Undergrounding, $1.7M
A Rule 20A project with PG&E for the Town to convert existing overhead utilities to new underground facilities along one of the main roadways for the Town. ✓ Bicycle & Pedestrian Improvements, $160k
A federally funded project to construct about 300 LF of sidewalk to connect two critical side streets along Moraga Road.
✓ Resurfacing Project, $800k
A federally funded project that removed and replaced the top 3-inches of existing Moraga Road, as well as concrete curb ramps, base failure repairs, slurry seal and final pavement delineation. • City of San Rafael, Public Works & Engineering Department, San Rafael, CA City Owned Property Improvements, Roadway, and Drainage Improvements Steve is Project Manager and Resident Engineer for numerous City Projects ranging in construction costs from $30,000 to $5.8 million and including street rehabilitation, curb ramp improvements, drainage improvements, bridge resurfacing, City-owned facility improvements and sanitary sewer replacements.
Assisting City Staff to develop and/or assist delivery of project documents for construction, advertise projects for bidding, answer pre-bid questions and evaluate bids, conduct pre-construction meetings and monitor contract progress for contract compliance, document the field activities and wrap-up completion documents.
• City of Alameda, Cross Alameda Trail, Main to Constitution, Alameda Steve was the Resident Engineer for this $5.5M federally funded project that constructed a crosstown one-mile bicycling and walking corridor to connect the west side of the island to the east. Project work includes construction of separate walking and bicycling paths (asphalt concrete), plus a decomposed granite jogging path, in the City-owned abandoned railroad right-of-way along Atlantic Ave. Activities included import fill and management of the existing contaminated soils, drainage improvements, decorative concrete sidewalk & plaza work, existing signal modification, installation of a mid-block new pedestrian crossing, landscape & irrigation, bus shelter & site furnishings, path and roadway striping.
4. PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
MIKE JOHNSON, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER / CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR Years of Experience
37 Certifications and Training
California Standard Test Methods: 201, 202, 216, 217, 226, 227, 231, 375, 518, 533, 539-541 Nuclear Gauge Certified, ACI Level 1, Concrete Technician 40-Hour HazMat Certified
Key Qualifications
Mike’s experience in the construction industry includes construction inspection and materials testing on highway, bridge, and underground utility projects. He has intimate knowledge of Caltrans standards and has performed construction inspection and material testing in accordance with Caltrans requirements. He is skilled in construction inspection, materials testing, concrete sampling, asphalt pavement inspection, pile driving and concrete placement, excellent communication skills, submittal review, progress pay estimates, and effective teaming with contractors, designers, oversight agencies, and the general public.
Representative Project Experience
• Pinehurst Sinkhole & Culvert Repair Project (Federally Funded), Contra Costa County Mike was the Construction Inspector for this emergency culvert repair project that replaced a portion of the existing 84-inch culvert with new RCP and lined the remaining portion with new invert concrete pavement. Project work required extensive public interaction and compliance with multiple permitting agencies related to the work in the existing creek.
• Wildcat Creek Restoration and Greenway Trail Project, City of San Pablo - $3.5M Mike was the construction inspector for this multiple grant funded creek restoration and trail project.
The project work involved restoration and grading of approximately 2,200 linear feet of creek channel and removal of existing trees, gabions, concrete and other vegetation. The Project also included installation of habitat/ log anchor structures or rootwad, paved bike/pedestrian trail path and landscaping, trail lights with associated underground conduit systems, security cameras, parking lot, recreational pocket parks, concrete benches, interpretative signs, bicycle racks, and bollards. The project had required compliance with CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, US Army Corp of Engineers, and Bay Area Air Quality District permits. The project was funded by two grants from CCTA Measure J, East Bay Regional Parks Districts WW grant, California Coastal Conservancy grant, California Natural Resources Agency grant, and local City matching. • San Pablo Avenue Complete Streets Project (Federally Funded), City of San Pablo Mike was the Construction Inspector for this $5.8M, multiple grant funded, roadway improvement project including streetscape and pavement rehabilitation. The Project is located along San Pablo Avenue between Rivers Street and Hilltop Drive. The project will improve San Pablo Avenue for all roadway users by adding Class 2 bike lanes in both directions of travel, constructing sidewalk along the western side of San Pablo. Existing traffic signals at all intersections will be replaced or modified and a new signalized intersection at La Puerta will be constructed. Two new retaining walls will be constructed along with a new soil nail wall to allow the roadway to be widened sufficiently to accommodate the new facilities for non-motorized roadway use. Additional improvements include storm drains, new electrical, standard and decorative street lighting, new trees and landscaping, and grinding and HMA overlay of majority of the roadway.
• Wanlass Park, Phase 3, San Pablo, CA.
Construction Inspector. The Wanlass Park project consisted of demolition, drainage, excavation, asphalt paving, irrigation, and landscaping of park grounds. Included in the project was the erection of two
4. PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
playground structures, maintenance building, gazebo, and pergola structure. Mike provided field inspection of the project’s construction activities, verified work conformance to requirements of the project plans and specs, and documented construction contractor’s activities in a daily report. He was also responsible for pay quantities calculation and documentation for work performed and quality assurance for materials used. Mike attended weekly progress meetings with city and contractor personnel, coordinated operations with project field staff and public daily. • I-80/ Central Avenue Operational Improvements Project – Phase I, CCTA, Richmond, CA Construction Inspector. This project improves the traffic operations at the I-80/Central Avenue interchange and along Central Avenue between Rydin Road and San Pablo Avenue. The project will be completed in two phases. This phase redirects left turns from westbound Central Avenue onto I-80 WB to the adjacent I-580 eastbound on-ramp at Rydin Road during weekend peak hours; and installs traffic signals at the I-580 ramps.
• Safe Routes to School - Cycle 1 Improvements, Federal-Aid Project No. SRTS-5137(038), City of Richmond, Engineering Services Department; Richmond, CA.
Construction Inspector. The Safe Routes to School Cycle 1 Improvements Project enhanced pedestrian safety near Ford, Grant, King, and Lincoln elementary schools in Richmond, by making improvements to asphalt and concrete infrastructure, including installing in-roadway lights, constructing ADA-compliant curb ramps, installing pavement striping and markings, and erecting safety signs. • East Contra Costa Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Extension Project Transfer Platform and Guideway Improvements, Pittsburg, CA.
Construction Inspector. Site work constructed approximately 3.5 miles of rail transit facilities within the median of SR-4, West of BART's existing Pittsburg/Bay Point Station. Work included the construction of a platform for BART riders to switch trains, (from existing electrical to new diesel trains), electrical facilities, including an ancillary train control building, median traffic barriers and subgrade construction.
Additional work encased an EBMUD 96” underground aqueduct with reinforced concrete (staging, excavation, placement).
• 2009 Pavement Management and Rehabilitation Program, Richmond, CA.
Construction Inspector. The objective of this project was to provide design management for the City’s pavement management plan and implementation of a pavement management program based on the plan. Site work involved the rehabilitation of existing asphalt concrete pavement throughout the City, which included base-failure repairs, crack sealing, chip sealing, slurry sealing, wedge and conform grinding, milling existing asphalt concrete, removal of surfacing and base, overlaying using conventional asphalt concrete and rubberized hot-mix asphalt (RHMA), constructing a concrete ADA curb ramp, driveway, curb and gutter, as well as the placement of striping and installing traffic signal detector loops.
• Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project, Phase I, Contra Costa County, CA.
Construction Inspector. This Federally funded project constructed a ½ mile concrete median barrier, widened approximately one (1) mile of Vasco Road, widened one (1) single-span bridge, as well as constructed drainage, storm water, and erosion control facilities. In addition, site work constructed wildlife crossing systems, directional fencing, and Kit Fox and Tiger Salamander jump-outs. Also constructed was concrete retaining wall, MSE wall, soldier-pile walls, and soil-nail walls. As construction inspector, Mike’s responsibilities included extensive wildlife habitat Red Legged Frog/Tiger Salamander, wildlife exclusion fencing installation, underground wildlife crossings of various sizes, and wildlife “Jump-outs” along Vasco Rd.
4. PROJECT TEAM EXPERIENCE
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
JAEMIN PARK, P.E., PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE
Years of Experience
30 Education
B.S. Civil Engineering, Cal Poly Pomona 1992
Licenses and Registrations
Professional Engineer: California, #C54476, 1995
Licensed General Contractor #770073, California 1999
Key Qualifications
Jaemin has over 28 years of experience providing project management, construction management, construction administration, and design of highway, bridge, building and public works infrastructure projects throughout California. He has worked with state, regional and local agencies in all capacities, as well as contributed to numerous constructability/bid-ability reviews and value engineering studies. He has provided claims analysis, mitigation and resolution support to state, regional and local agencies. Jaemin is an expert in federally funded projects including HBP, HBRR, ARRA, SRTS, NTPP, and TIGER funds.
Representative Project Experience
• On-Call Construction Management, Inspection and Materials Testing Services - Contra Costa County Jaemin was the Project Manager for this on-call contract constructing numerous public works projects, federally funded, tax measure funded, locally funded and developer projects throughout the County, including new roads, bridges and bridge widenings, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks, storm drains, traffic signals, culverts, parks and playgrounds, and utilities. • On-Call Construction Management and Inspection Services – City of San Mateo Jaemin was the Project Manager for this on-call contract constructing numerous public works projects throughout the City for over 13 years. Projects were funded from various sources including federal grant funds, state grant funds, local funds and developer funds. • John Daly Boulevard Streetscape Improvements Project (federally funded), City of Daly City Resident Engineer/Project Manager for this $3.3 million federally funded streetscape improvements project that includes roadway modifications, installation of a concrete walkway, ADA compliant ramps, landscaping, irrigation using recycled water, bioswales, Class II bicycle lanes, and pedestrian amenities such as benches and trash/recycling receptacles
• Contra Costa Boulevard Improvements and Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Federally Funded), City of Pleasant Hill, CA
Project Manager and Resident Engineer for this $4 million project funded through three federal HSIP and STP grant funds and CCTA measure J grant fund. Project included traffic safety, roadway and other improvements, including full depth pavement restoration, grind and overlay, intersection and traffic signal upgrades, bike lanes, enhanced sidewalks and crosswalks, new irrigation and landscaping, and decorative street median and pedestrian lighting on the main arterial through a busy commercial district. • John Daly Boulevard OC Widening (Federally Funded), City of Daly City, CA Jaemin was the Project Manager and Resident Engineer for this $4 million project that consisted of widening the structure to add one additional traffic lane and a wider pedestrian walkway. Jaemin provided construction management and administration for this bridge-widening and interchange modification project that crossed over both I-280 and Highway 1 and was adjacent to the Daly City BART station, requiring traffic control for heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The project was also federally funded requiring cooperation with Caltrans Local Assistance.
5. APPROACH TO SCOPE OF WORK
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
There are many challenges that come with the
responsibility of providing quality service on
public works construction projects. At Park
Engineering, we understand that a public agency
has to answer to elected officials, oversight and
permitting agencies, and third-party funding
sources. We also understand the public relations
pressures on visible community improvements
projects and that public perception can make the
difference to the success of a project. Our
resident engineers and construction inspectors
take ownership of our projects and act in the
City’s best interest to manage, coordinate and
inspect the project to successful completion.
For this project, the scope of work includes traffic
control, water pollution control, cold planning of
existing pavement and paving of hot mix asphalt,
of both leveling course and Thin Maintenance
Overlays, along with slurry seal work. Work also
includes concrete improvements – removal and
replacement of curb, gutter & sidewalk, 8 curb
ramps, and median islands. Tree removals, utility
lowering & raising, planting & irrigation,
pavement delineation and roadway signs is
included in the project’s scope of work as well.
The estimated construction cost of this federally
funded project is $3.75M with 95 working days to
complete the work.
KEY ISSUES
Having reviewed the contract documents
available and performed construction inspection
for similar projects, we have identified elements
of the work that are key to the success of this
project. They include, but are not limited to:
• Public Outreach & Safety – The planned
concrete and paving improvements will impact
the normal patterns of the residents on the
affected streets, as well as the traveling public,
deliveries and services. The project work is
isolated to short stretch of road, but it is the very
busy Monument Blvd. The new pathway
construction will not involve public interaction
except at the beginning and end of trail. A
combined work approach will be necessary to
meet the overall aggressive project schedule –
staged efforts to complete the curb ramps, then
the roadway paving work, while also
constructing the new trail facilities. New curb,
gutter, sidewalk and curb ramp work will require
lane and sidewalk closures, and advance notice
to the public & adjacent residents for access,
local activities and street parking will be
required. The contractor’s schedule must be
accurate, for both the timeframe and duration. It
will be the weekly progress schedules from the
contractor that will help provide accurate
advanced notices on the work to be performed,
what to expect, and the duration of the related
impact.
Strict adherence to approved traffic handling
plans, work schedules & hours related to
residential access & improvements, no parking
postings, and closely monitoring pedestrian
access will help keep the public informed on
what to expect and when it will occur.
• Tracking of Costs & Schedule – Constant
monitoring and reporting of project costs to
control bid quantity overruns that can occur
and for any change order work to prevent
escalated contract costs are critical to keep
the project on budget. Potential item
overruns for this project include square foot
concrete, various grinding amounts detailed
and the overall tonnage of HMA for the
project. Detailed field estimates and weekly
agreements with the contractor will help
provide accurate tracking of project costs.
Additionally, the short duration for the
project work will require a pro-active
approach identifying time impacting issues.
Weekly Statements of Working Days, Daily
Inspection Reports and progress pictures will
be kept current and provided to the City in a
timely manner to benefit the monitoring of
the project’s schedule. Weekly Construction
Progress Meetings will be held to help track,
monitor and verify all work performed to
closely monitor project budget & schedule.
• Project Documentation and Administration – It is
critical that the project is administered using
standard, recognized administration system such
as the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures
Manual, meeting all Caltrans, Local and FHWA
requirements. Project filing and accounting must
meet standards with all supporting documents for
costs and materials quality, summaries and
reports for materials, labor compliance,
contractor payments, quantity calculations and
5. APPROACH TO SCOPE OF WORK
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
schedule. We will use the standard Caltrans
project filing and accounting system to ensure
that all project information is kept in order for
audits and transparency. Park Engineering, Inc.
specializes in federally funded projects and has
successfully completed numerous Caltrans, Local
and FHWA audits. We know exactly what is
needed to pass an audit, complete and close-out
projects, and to receive full funding
reimbursement from all sources.
• Quality of Work – Acceptance of only the best
quality work with strict adherence to the City’s
quality assurance plan (QAP) and Caltrans testing
requirements, performing the required
acceptance testing to verify quality of the
completed work, and documenting results for
compliance with local, state and federal
requirements is critical to meet funding
requirements for full reimbursement and to
make the project a success. The final quality and
appearance of the finished project features will
be one measure of how the project is judged as a
success with the local residents. Acceptance of
only the best quality work ensures compliance
with the contract & funding requirements, that
the funds utilized are well invested and the
improvements will last.
• Project Appearance / Environmental Concerns /
Permits/ Water Pollution Control – A clean
project will promote a positive public perception,
increase the project safety and aid the effort to
compliance with Permits, Environmental and
Water Pollution Control requirements. Installing
water pollution control measures and
maintaining it regularly is very important to
prevent violations to permits from Regional
Water Quality Control Board and eliminate any
potential impacts to the adjacent drainage
systems. Additionally, weekly project cleanup
will provide a safer environment for the public
and the project personnel.
WORK PLAN
Park Engineering will support the City by
providing construction management, inspection,
and materials testing services. We will perform
all the duties required in the RFP.
Project Administration
• Schedule, conduct and document the
project’s Pre-Construction Conference
with City Team Members, the
Contractor, the Designer and other
supporting agency personnel, as needed.
• Coordinate, conduct and summarize
weekly progress meetings with the
Contractor during construction.
• Maintain close contact with City Project
Manager for project status to ensure
that the City is kept up to date on all
project matters.
• Review contractor’s planned schedule
for conformance with the specifications
and for reasonableness of the sequence
and duration of the activities.
• Review work progress as compared to
the planned schedule and notify
contractor of schedule slippage.
• Photo documentation of project work and
the project site before, during & after
construction.
• Monitor and report on project budget and
construction status and provide any
necessary info needed for update reports.
• Act as the single point of contact for all
communications and coordination
between the contractor, utility
companies, regulatory agencies, local
businesses and residents, the designer,
and the City.
• Maintain all project records specific to
Contractor’s activities including
schedule, costs, correspondence,
submittals and documenting all daily
activities.
• Prepare, monitor & distribute Weekly
Statements of Working Days to monitor
project schedule.
5. APPROACH TO SCOPE OF WORK
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
• Manage and coordinate with project
stakeholders, schools, residents, and any
necessary utility coordination for
conflicts or relocation work required.
• Assist with the review and approval of
contractor submittals required by the
construction contract plans and
specifications including traffic control
plans, Storm Water Pollution Control
Plans, sewer by-pass systems/plans and
various mix designs.
• Support the management of submittals
from the contractor, tracking date
submitted, duration for review and
making sure that submittals are
reviewed and returned within the
allotted time to prevent any delays.
• Coordinate, manage and respond to
Requests for Information (RFI’s)
submitted by the contractor, including
tracking RFI’s sent to the designers
and/or other agencies for timely replies.
• Review contract documents to
determine validity of change orders and
provide support to the City.
• Evaluate contractor's change order
requests and claims and make
recommendations to the City based on
the merit and circumstances.
• Review and approve change orders with
the City’s concurrence.
• Review cost estimates and back up
documentation for change order work.
• Prepare independent cost estimates to
verify contractor’s cost proposals for
change orders.
• Negotiate and prepare any contract
change orders with justification
memorandums for the City’s approval.
• If change order prices cannot be agreed
upon with the contractor, perform work
at force account and track all labor
equipment and materials.
• Identify actual and potential problems
associated with the construction project
and recommend sound engineering
solutions to the City Project Manager.
• We will analyze, negotiate, provide
recommendation and supporting
information to resolve any outstanding
potential claims.
• We will support the City to fight and
resolve any outstanding issues, looking
out for the best interests of the City.
• Prepare supporting quantity calculations
for work performed, including any contract
change orders, and progress pay estimates
on a monthly basis.
• Review contractor’s invoices to verify
accuracy and “sign-off” on construction
progress pay estimates for City’s payment
approval.
• Review and approve extra work bills
verifying hours of labor, equipment and
materials and rates for labor, equipment
as well as costs for material.
• Include change order payments in monthly
progress payments and review.
contractor’s invoices to ensure accuracy.
• Assist with the review of contractor’s
weekly certified payroll for compliance
with prevailing wage requirements and
conduct any necessary labor compliance
interviews of Contractor’s field staff.
• Monitor contractor’s construction
activities for conformance with the
approved Water Pollution Control Plan,
SWPPP and NPDES General Permit
requirements.
• Work with the contractor’s staff to
prepare and transition, official and
accurate construction record drawings.
• Conduct, review, and follow up on inspection
work to assure completion of the contract
including any punch list items of work.
• Perform final inspection of all work for
acceptance.
5. APPROACH TO SCOPE OF WORK
Construction Management & Material Testing Services for Monument Blvd Class 1 Path Project
Quality Assurance, Inspection & Materials Testing
• Perform all field inspection activities to
monitor compliance with the contract
plans and specifications. Record all
items of work, labor, equipment,
materials incorporated, materials tested,
traffic control utilized and any other
pertinent information in a daily diary for
permanent record.
• Project photographs and video
documentation of project progress and
major work components will be done on
a weekly basis and kept for permanent
records to support disputes and verify
quality for acceptance.
• Review all necessary sampling and
testing of materials for the project,
performed by the Contractor, in
accordance with the specifications and
ensure that all materials meet the
contract requirements.
• Make sure that the Contractor performs
necessary quality control sampling &
testing required.
• Review test data and materials
certifications submitted by the contractor
and suppliers for compliance with the
contract requirements.
• Schedule and coordinate acceptance and
quality assurance sampling and testing to
be performed by Applied Materials &
Engineering.
• We will review quality assurance testing as
required. Testing will be performed in the
frequencies required by the City’s Quality
Assurance Program (QAP) and any other
required State and Federal guidelines like
the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures
Manual and Construction Manual.
• Observe and document final testing &
acceptance of the utility work performed.
• Maintain and enforce safety awareness
for the protection of workers and public.
• Analyze records of materials used in the
project in accordance with ASTM and
California Standard Test Methods.
Public & Community Relations
• Ensure all public notifications are
accurate and posted in a timely manner
• Coordinate and communicate with
adjacent businesses and residents to
minimize impact and maintain a
neighborly reputation for the project.
• Coordinate with any property owners,
City Staff, transit agencies and delivery
services to inform them of the project’s
upcoming work.
• Coordinate any necessary utility agency
coordination for conflicts and/or
relocation needed.
• Assist in organization and execution of
any public outreach meetings and
events.
• Assist with questions from the public
concerning the project work and
schedule.
• Address public concerns on a daily,
weekly, and monthly basis.
Post Construction
• Review/Assist with the preparation of all
required close-out documents, as
required, as submitted by the
Contractor.
• Coordinate efforts with the Designer for the
conversion of the As-Built Drawings to the
Record Drawings for the project work.
• Finalize all bid item and change order totals
for the project’s Final Progress Payment.
• Maintain the construction contract
accounting, filing and administration in
accordance with City requirements and
provide files (electronically and/or paper
files) to the City upon project completion
& acceptance.
• Provide a list and details of any lessons
learned during construction specific to
the work performed for use on future
City projects.
• If requested, and necessary, provide
supporting information to dispute
construction claims and/or perform an
as-built schedule analysis.
372 Village Square
Orinda, CA 94563
(925) 257.2508
PARK
ENGINEERING
Regular
Rate
Overtime
Rate Pre-Con Construction Close-out
BASE BID
Steve Patterson, PE
Resident Engineer 200.29$ 200.29$ 40 290 40 370 0 74,108.51$ Mike Johnson
Senior Construction Inspector 150.38$ 225.57$ 16 680 24 720 20 112,783.28$ ADDITIVE BID 1
Steve Patterson, PE
Resident Engineer 200.29$ 200.29$ 0 30 0 30 0 6,008.80$ Mike Johnson
Senior Construction Inspector 150.38$ 225.57$ 0 80 0 80 0 12,030.22$ Direct Cost
Applied Materials & Engineering 30,000.00$
234,930.81$
2. 95 working days for base bid per Contract Documents.
1. Rate includes vehicle, mobile phone, laptop and all equipment required to perform required duties.
Cost
BASE BID TOTAL =
Total
Overtime
Hours
(Estimate - As Needed)
City of Concord
Monument Boulevard Class 1 Path Project
City Project No. 2455
Name/Classification
Rates Hours
Total
Regular
Hours
Federal Project No. CML-5135(059)
Attachment 1
Updated 4/15/2022
City of Concord
Monument Blvd. Class 1 Path Project
City Project No. 2455
Federal Project No. CML-5135(059)
Task Narrative
Construction
Manager
Construction
Inspector
Hours Hours
8 0
20 4
12 12
40 16
270 220
Project correspondence
Submittal reviews
Coordination with utilities
Responding to RFI's
Daily reports
Materials testing summaries
Quantity verifications
Checking certified payrolls
Resolving construction issues
Contract change orders
Weekly project meetings
Project schedule reviews
Tracking of working days
Project filing
Monthly progress payments
Dispute mitigation and resolution
Weekly updates to City
Project accounting and summaries
50 540
Construction inspection
Project documentation
Project photos
Quantity measurements
Quantity calculations
Daily reports
Coordination for materials testing
BASE BID + ADDITIVE 1
Pre Construction - Base Bid
Pre-Construction Hours
Set up project files and accounting system
Pre construction meeting
Pre construction photos and documentation
Construction - Base Bid
Contract management and administration:
Construction inspection and acceptance:
City of Concord
Monument Blvd. Class 1 Path Project
City Project No. 2455
Federal Project No. CML-5135(059)
Task Narrative
Construction
Manager
Construction
Inspector
Hours Hours
BASE BID + ADDITIVE 1
Verification of materials
Resolving field issues
Verifying layouts and grades
Punchlist
Public relations
Coordination with contractor's field personnel
Verifying and enforcing safety orders
Tracking quantities and extra work
Performing employee interviews
320 760
4 8
2 4
24 6
2 2
8 4
40 24
Post Construction - Base Bid
Construction Hours
Post-Construction Hours
Final Estimate
Proposed Final Estimate
Final project fiing and accounting
Verifying As-Built plans
Final inspection
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /i255 /6 /7 /7 /8 /7 /9 /3 /10 /2 /11 /i255 /12 /13 /1 /2 /11 /14 /15 /13 /11 /7 /i255/16/3/10 /15 /3 /4/i255/17 /18 /19 /8 /20 /8 /9 /i255 /21 /22 /23/24/25/i255 /26 /1 /10 /7 /15 /4 /9 /3 /10 /9 /i255 /26 /1 /10 /9 /13 /3 /2 /9 /i255 /27 /28 /17 /i255 /26 /1/29/29/8/9/29/11/10 /9 /i255 /17/30/31/32/28 /32 /33 /i255/21 /22 /23/24/25/i255 /26/24/34/35 /36 /0 /33 /6 /34 /33 /i255/26/24/34/33 /37 /6 /26 /33 /i255/27 /28 /17 /i255 /26/24 /16/16/32/33/16/17/34 /33 /38 /39 /40 /41 /42 /43 /44 /i255/46 /47 /48 /49 /42 /50/51/52 /39 /53 /41 /49 /54 /55 /43 /42 /54 /i255 /56 /57 /58 /i255/59/41/43 /44 /51 /60 /39 /61 /55 /41 /62 /48 /42/54 /i255 /56 /48 /63 /42 /55 /64 /65 /54 /64 /41 /49 /51 /66 /39 /61 /55 /41 /62 /48 /42/54 /i255 /40 /41 /42 /43 /54 /64 /41 /49 /51 /67 /39 /53 /41 /49 /63 /68/44 /54 /43 /49 /54 /69 /63 /i255 /70 /43/71/48/51/72 /39 /61 /55 /64/71/48/i255 /53 /48 /55 /54 /64 /73 /64 /48 /74 /i255 /56 /57 /58 /51 /i255/75/76 /39 /i255 /77 /41 /54 /43 /44 /i255 /53 /41 /49 /54 /55 /43 /42 /54 /i255 /46 /78 /43 /55 /74 /i255 /46/71/41/68 /49 /54 /51 /79 /39 /77 /41 /54 /43 /44 /i255/56 /41 /44 /44 /43 /55 /i255 /46/71/41/68 /49 /54 /i255 /73 /41 /55 /i255 /80 /81 /81 /i255 /83 /68 /84 /42 /41 /49 /63 /68 /44 /54 /43 /49 /54 /63/51/85 /39 /77 /41 /54 /43 /44 /i255 /70 /68/71/84/48 /55 /i255 /41 /73 /i255 /80 /81 /81 /i255 /83 /68 /84 /42 /41 /49 /63 /68 /44 /54 /43 /49 /54 /63 /51 /38 /86 /39 /56/48 /63 /42 /55 /64 /65 /54 /64 /41 /49 /i255 /41 /73 /i255/87/41/55 /88 /89 /i255 /83 /48 /55 /90 /64 /42 /48 /89 /i255 /41 /55 /i255/91/43/54 /48 /55 /64 /43 /44 /63 /83 /68 /65 /65 /44 /64 /48 /74 /i255
/38 /38 /39 /56 /57 /58
/53 /48 /55 /54 /64 /73 /64 /42 /43 /54 /64 /41 /49 /i255 /70 /68/71/84/48 /55 /i255
/38 /52 /39 /56 /57 /58 /i255 /53 /41 /49 /54 /43 /42 /54 /i255 /92 /49 /73 /41 /55/71/43/54 /64 /41 /49 /38/60 /39 /56 /57 /58
/56 /41 /44 /44 /43 /55
/46/71/41/68 /49 /54
/81 /93 /94 /95 /96 /i255 /80 /97 /98 /99 /94 /100 /i255 /101 /93 /i255 /102 /93/103/104/96 /98 /101 /98 /i255 /101 /105 /106 /107 /i255 /108 /98 /94 /101 /106 /93 /99 /i255 /109 /110 /111 /112/113/112/80 /81 /i255 /102 /81 /80 /114/115/116/117 /i255 /117 /118 /116 /i255 /119 /80 /120 /112 /114 /102 /114 /119 /80 /112 /114/113/121 /122/52 /86 /39 /40 /41 /42 /43/44 /i255 /46 /47 /48 /49 /42 /50 /i255 /53 /41 /49 /54 /55 /43 /42 /54 /70 /68/71/84/48 /55 /51 /i255
/52 /38 /39 /123 /48 /74 /48/55 /43 /44 /124 /46 /64 /74 /i255 /61 /55 /41 /62 /48 /42 /54 /i255 /70 /68/71/84/48 /55 /51 /52 /52 /39 /53 /41 /49 /54/55 /43 /42 /54 /i255 /58 /125 /48 /42 /68 /54 /64 /41 /49 /56 /43 /54 /48 /51
/40 /41 /42 /43 /44 /i255 /46 /47/48 /49 /42 /50 /i255 /42 /48 /55 /54 /64 /73 /64 /48 /63 /i255 /54 /126 /43 /54 /i255 /43 /44 /44 /i255 /56 /57 /58 /i255 /42 /48 /55 /54 /64 /73 /64 /42 /43 /54 /64 /41 /49 /63 /i255 /43 /55 /48 /i255 /90 /43 /44 /64 /74 /i255 /43 /49 /74 /i255 /64 /49 /73 /41 /55/71/43/54 /64 /41 /49 /i255 /41 /49 /i255 /54 /126 /64 /63 /i255 /73 /41 /55 /71/i255 /64 /63 /i255 /42 /41/71/65/44 /48 /54 /48 /i255 /43 /49 /74 /i255 /43 /42 /42 /68 /55 /43 /54 /48 /39 /i255 /52 /60 /39 /40/41 /42 /43 /44 /i255 /46 /47 /48 /49 /42 /50 /i255 /127 /48 /65 /55 /48 /63 /48 /49 /54 /43 /54 /64 /90 /48 /69 /63 /i255/83 /64 /47 /49 /43 /54 /68 /55/48/52 /66 /39 /i255 /56 /43 /54 /48 /52 /67 /39 /40 /41/42 /43 /44 /i255 /46 /47 /48 /49 /42 /50 /i255 /127 /48 /65 /55 /48 /63 /48 /49 /54 /43 /54 /64 /90 /48 /69 /63 /i255 /70 /43/71/48 /52 /72 /39 /i255 /61 /126 /41 /49 /48 /52 /76 /39 /40 /41/42 /43 /44 /i255 /46 /47 /48 /49 /42 /50 /i255 /127 /48 /65 /55 /48 /63 /48 /49 /54 /43 /54 /64 /90 /48 /69 /63 /i255 /77 /64 /54 /44 /48 /128/i255
/92/91/61/129/127/77 /46 /70 /77 /51 /i255 /92 /74 /48 /49 /54 /64 /73 /50 /i255 /43 /44 /44 /i255 /56 /57 /58 /i255 /73 /64 /55/71/63/i255 /84 /48 /64 /49 /47 /i255 /42 /44 /43 /64/71/48/74 /i255 /73 /41 /55 /i255/42 /55 /48 /74 /64 /54 /89 /i255 /55 /48 /47 /43 /55 /74 /44 /48 /63 /63 /i255 /41 /73 /i255 /54 /64 /48 /55 /39 /i255/87/55/64 /54 /54 /48 /49 /i255 /42 /41 /49 /73 /64 /55/71/43/54 /64 /41 /49 /i255 /41 /73 /i255 /48 /43 /42 /126 /i255 /44 /64 /63 /54 /48 /74 /i255 /56/57 /58 /i255 /64 /63 /i255 /55 /48 /130 /68 /64 /55 /48 /74 /39 /i255
/38 /67 /39 /i255 /61 /55 /48 /65 /43 /55 /48 /55 /69 /63 /i255 /83 /64 /47 /49 /43 /54 /68 /55/48/38 /72 /39 /i255 /56 /43 /54 /48 /38 /76 /39 /i255 /61 /55 /48 /65 /43 /55 /48 /55 /69 /63 /i255 /70 /43/71/48 /38/79 /39 /i255 /61 /126 /41 /49 /48 /38 /85 /39 /i255 /61 /55 /48 /65 /43 /55 /48 /55 /69 /63 /i255 /77 /64 /54 /44 /48 /56 /92 /83 /77 /127 /92 /57/131 /77 /92/129/70/51 /i255 /38 /39 /i255/129/55/64 /47 /64 /49 /43 /44 /i255 /132 /i255 /40 /41 /42 /43 /44 /i255 /46 /47 /48 /49 /42 /50 /i255 /52 /39 /53 /41 /65 /50 /i255 /132 /i255 /53 /43 /44 /54 /55 /43 /49 /63 /i255 /56 /64 /63 /54 /55 /64 /42 /54 /i255 /40 /41 /42 /43 /44 /i255 /46 /63 /63 /64 /63 /54 /43 /49 /42 /48 /i255 /58 /49 /47 /64 /49 /48 /48 /55 /i255 /133 /56 /40 /46 /58 /134 /39 /i255 /123 /43 /64 /44 /68 /55 /48 /i255 /54 /41 /i255 /63 /68 /84/71/64/54 /i255 /54 /41 /i255 /56 /40 /46 /58 /i255 /78 /64 /54 /126 /64 /49 /i255 /60 /86 /i255 /74 /43 /50 /63 /i255 /41 /73 /i255 /42 /41 /49 /54 /55 /43 /42 /54 /48 /125 /48 /42 /68 /54 /64 /41 /49 /i255/71/43/50 /i255 /55 /48 /63 /68 /44 /54 /i255 /64 /49 /i255 /74 /48 /124 /41 /84 /44 /64 /47 /43 /54 /64 /41 /49 /i255 /41 /73 /i255 /73 /48 /74 /48 /55 /43 /44 /i255 /73 /68 /49 /74 /63 /i255 /41 /49 /i255 /42 /41 /49 /54 /55 /43 /42 /54 /39 /80 /117 /80 /i255/121 /93 /101 /106 /94 /98 /135/i255/123/41 /55 /i255 /64 /49 /74 /64 /90 /64 /74 /68 /43 /44 /63 /i255 /78 /64 /54 /126 /i255 /63 /48 /49 /63 /41 /55 /50 /i255 /74 /64 /63 /43 /84 /64 /44 /64 /54 /64 /48 /63 /89 /i255 /54 /126 /64 /63 /i255 /74 /41 /42 /68/71/48/49 /54 /i255 /64 /63 /i255 /43 /90 /43 /64 /44 /43 /84 /44 /48 /i255 /64 /49 /i255 /43 /44 /54 /48 /55 /49 /43 /54 /48 /i255 /73 /41 /55/71/43/54 /63 /39 /i255 /123 /41 /55 /i255 /64 /49 /73 /41 /55/71/43/54 /64 /41 /49 /i255 /42 /43 /44 /44 /i255 /133 /85 /38 /72 /134 /i255 /72 /67 /66 /124 /72 /66 /38 /86 /i255 /41 /55 /i255 /77 /56 /56 /i255 /133 /85 /38 /72 /134 /i255 /72 /67 /66 /124 /60 /79 /79 /86 /i255 /41 /55 /i255 /78 /55 /64 /54 /48 /i255 /127 /48 /42 /41 /55 /74 /63 /i255 /43 /49 /74 /i255 /123 /41 /55/71/63/i255/91/43/49 /43 /47 /48/71/48/49 /54 /89 /i255 /38 /38 /52 /86 /i255 /70 /i255 /83 /54 /55 /48 /48 /54 /89 /i255/91/83/124 /79 /85 /89 /i255 /83 /43 /42 /55 /43/71/48/49 /54 /41 /89 /i255 /53 /46 /i255 /i255 /85 /67 /79 /38 /66 /39 /i255 /12 /3 /136 /11 /i255 /21 /i255 /1 /137 /i255 /25 /i255 /138 /15 /4 /139 /i255 /25 /140 /141 /i255 /25 /22 /21 /142 /i255 /143 /144 /145 /146 /147 /148 /149 /150 /147 /151 /144 /145 /i255/153/154/145 /154 /155 /156/157/156/145 /147 /i255 /158 /156 /148 /159 /151 /150 /156 /146 /i255 /160 /144 /148 /i255/153/144/145 /149/157/156/145 /147 /i255 /161 /144 /149 /162 /156 /159 /154 /148 /163 /i255 /143 /162 /154 /146 /146 /i255 /164 /i255 /165 /154 /147 /166 /143 /151 /147 /167 /i255 /144 /160 /i255 /143 /144 /145 /150 /144 /148/163/164 /168 /169 /143 /151 /147 /167 /i255 /144 /160 /i255 /143 /144 /145 /150 /144 /148 /163 /170 /i255 /143 /154 /162 /151 /160 /144 /148 /145 /151 /154 /165 /154 /148 /171 /i255 /172 /145 /155 /151 /145 /156 /156 /148 /151 /145 /155 /170 /i255 /173 /145 /150 /174/175 /176/177 /178 /179 /170 /180 /178 /181 /174 /182 /164 /143 /144 /145 /146 /147 /148 /149 /150 /147 /151 /144 /145/i255/153/154/145 /154 /155 /156/157/156/145 /147 /i255 /183 /i255 /173 /145 /146 /184 /156 /150 /147 /151 /144 /145 /179 /164 /185 /164 /164/165 /154 /148 /171 /i255 /172 /145 /155 /151 /145 /156 /156 /148 /151 /145 /155 /170 /i255 /173 /145 /150 /174 /178 /185 /177 /i255 /186 /151 /162 /162 /154 /155 /156 /i255 /158 /187 /174 /170 /i255/188/148/151 /145 /163 /154 /170 /i255 /143 /189 /i255/176 /i255 /177 /181 /179 /170 /180 /178 /181 /174 /182 /164 /177 /181 /179 /180 /178 /181 /174 /182 /164
/182 /185 /174 /181 /181
/179 /190 /164 /168 /190 /177/181
/191 /154 /156/157/151/145 /i255 /165 /154 /148/171/179 /190 /164 /168 /190 /177/181 /177 /177 /165 /148 /156 /146 /151 /163 /156 /145 /147
22 1
Staff Report
Date: May 24, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3155
Subject: Considering approval of a lease agreement between the City of Concord and BART for BART’s use of two City-owned parcels located at Sunset Avenue and Sinclair Avenue; and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the lease in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
CEQA: Not a project/exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), 15273,, 15378, 15301, 15302, 15303, 15304, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.
Report in Brief
The City owns two vacant parcels located at Sunset Avenue and Sinclair Avenue that adjoin two vacant BART parcels. Elevated BART tracks traverse across two of the four parcels. The BART Right of Way and its associated setbacks limit the available uses of all four properties. BART wishes to lease the two City parcels in connection with normal BART operations.
Recommended Action
Approve the lease agreement between the City of Concord and BART for BART’s use of two City-owned parcels located at Sunset Avenue and Sinclair Avenue; and authorize the City Manager to execute the lease in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
Background
Many years ago the properties located at Sunset Avenue and Sinclair Avenue were reconfigured. During this process, structures were removed to facilitate street rerouting and the construction of BART’s East Bay extension to Antioch. Since that time, four parcels located at Sunset Avenue and Sinclair Avenue have remained vacant and
3.h3.h
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.h
May 24, 2022
unused. The City owns two of the four parcels while BART owns the other two; BART wishes to lease the two City parcels for an initial period of three years. Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the four parcels and ownership of each.
Figure 1
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 3.h
May 24, 2022
Analysis
A future sale or disposal of the subject properties is not up for consideration; they are to be retained for government purposes. It should be noted that any potential development of the properties would be constrained by the elevated tracks which cross on top of two of the four parcels. The BART rail line Right of Way and its associated setback requirements further limit development and/or future use of the properties.
BART wishes to lease the two city-owned parcels for an initial period of three years and utilize the property for its normal operations; BART will erect fencing and store certain small equipment and materials, but will not be erecting buildings under the proposed lease agreement. Various City departments discussed whether there are existing or planned City uses of the property that would prohibit the proposed lease to BART – there are no such uses existing or planned at this time. The City-owned parcels are severely impacted by the presence of the BART tracks and the public safety concerns thereof.
Financial Impact
In lieu of compensation for the lease, BART will be required to manage and maintain the two City properties for the life of the agreement.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065, this lease agreement is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, as it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In the alternative, the lease agreement is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 – Existing Facilities, 15302 -- Replacement or Reconstruction, 15303 – New Construction or Small Structures, 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, and/or 15305 – Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.
Attachments
1. Lease Agreement between the City of Concord and BART
Attachment 1
140207.1
Lease Agreement
This Lease, dated as of May 24, 2022, is between the City of Concord, a municipal agency ("CITY" or "Lessor") and the SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, a rapid transit district (hereinafter referred to as “BART” or "Lessee").
Lessor, in consideration of the rents and covenants herein to be paid, kept and performed by Lessee, and upon the condition that all thereof shall be fully paid, kept and performed by Lessee, hereby Leases to Lessee those premises as described herein.
ARTICLE 1. PREMISES
Lessor hereby Leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby Leases from Lessor, for the term, at the rent, and upon the covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, those Premises located off of Sunset Avenue, in the City of Concord, County of Contra Costa, State of California, Assessor Parcel # 113-271-014-4 containing approximately 1,948 square feet and Assessor Parcel # 113-271-019-3 containing approximately 2,411 square feet. Said parcels are located to the north of the BART owned parcel with the street address of 2547 Sinclair Ave, Concord. The City owned parcels are depicted on "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, subject to easements and restrictions of record and subject to the restrictions and regulations of any and all federal, state, county or municipal authorities having jurisdiction and any amendments or additions thereto (the “Premises”).
ARTICLE 2. TERM AND RENT
2.1 Term
The term of this Lease shall be for three (3) years commencing May 24, 2022 and ending April 30, 2025, with right of termination by Lessor and Lessee as set forth in Article 9 herein, or as terminated earlier as provided herein.
2.3 Rent
As consideration for a three-year lease, Lessee shall provide certain maintenance services for the Premises as shown in Exhibit “A”. Such services include installation of fencing with a minimum quality matching the Skate Park located at Cowell Road and Monument Boulevard (6 feet in height, black, vinyl-coated fabric black poly coated posts, pipe and fittings), and ongoing maintenance thereof; removal of graffiti, litter, debris, abandoned property, and trash, as required, including as provided in Section 3.7 (Removal of Waste), below; removal of trespassers and homeless encampments; and seasonal mowing and discing, as required.
140207.1
ARTICLE 3. USE
3.1 Specified Use
Lessee shall use and occupy the Premises only in connection with BART’s normal operations, to include the storage of small equipment and materials. The sale of food, beverages (including alcoholic beverages) and tobacco products is strictly forbidden.
3.2 Condition of Premises
Lessee hereby accepts the Premises in their condition existing as of the date set forth above, subject to all applicable zoning, municipal, county, state and federal laws, ordinances and regulations governing and regulating the use of the Premises, and accepts this Lease subject thereto. Lessor has not made any representation or warranty with respect to the condition of the Premises or the suitability thereof for the permitted use, nor has Lessor agreed to undertake any modification, alteration or improvement to the Premises.
3.3 Compliance with Law
Lessee shall not use the Premises or permit anything to be done in or about the Premises which constitutes a nuisance or waste or which will in any way conflict with any law, statute, zoning restriction, ordinance or governmental rule or regulation or requirements of duly constituted public authorities now in force or which may hereafter be in force insofar as Lessee is subject thereto.
Commencement of any proceedings to prohibit Lessee's use of the Premises shall, at the option of the Lessor, be deemed a breach hereof.
3.4 Improvements
Lessee shall not make any initial improvements or alternations to said Premises until design and improvement plans are reviewed by City and written approval from City Manager or designee is received by Lessee. Subsequent improvements or alterations shall also require review and prior written approval by City Manager or designee. Unless directed other- wise in writing by Lessor, Lessee shall remove any additions or improvements within thirty (30) days of termination of the Lease and shall restore the Premises to their condition at the commencement of the Term.
3.5 Utilities
140207.1
Lessee shall pay for all water, heat, light, power, telephone, and any other utilities supplied to the Premises.
3.6 Omitted
3.7 Removal of Waste
Lessee shall, at its own expense, be responsible for the removal of all waste, water, trash and rubbish resulting from the maintenance or operation of said facility. Lessee shall supply its own means of trash removal and shall not in any way use City refuse containers.
3.8 Signs
Lessee shall not place, or permit to be placed on the Premises, any signs (other than “no trespassing” signs), advertisements or notices, without Lessor's prior written consent.
3.9 Vending
Lessee shall not conduct or permit the vending or sale of any goods or services upon the Premises.
3.10 Hazardous Materials
Lessee shall not use, create, store or allow any hazardous materials or waste on the Premises. Lessee shall be responsible for and bear the entire cost of removal and disposal of hazardous materials or waste, including any spills or leaks of oil, gasoline, or contaminants, introduced to the Premises by Lessee during Lessee's period of possession of the Premises. Lessee shall also be responsible for any cleanup and decontamination on or off the premises necessitated by such material or waste introduced to the Premises by Lessee during Lessee's period of possession of the Premises.
ARTICLE 4. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS
4.1 Lessee's Obligations
Lessee, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain the Leased Premises, improvements and landscaping thereon, in good repair and in compliance with all requirements of law.
Lessee shall designate in writing to Lessor a representative who shall be responsible for the day-to-day operation and level of maintenance, cleanliness and general order of the Premises.
140207.1
4.2 Lessor's Rights
In the event Lessee fails to perform its obligations under this Article, Lessor shall give Lessee thirty (30) days written notice to do such acts as are reasonably required to so maintain the Premises. If Lessee fails to commence the work within the said thirty-day period or fails to diligently prosecute it to completion, Lessor shall have the right, but not the obligation, to do such acts and expend such funds at the expense of Lessee as are reasonably required to perform such work.
Any amount so expended by Lessor shall be paid by Lessee promptly after demand. Lessor shall have no liability to Lessee for any damage, inconvenience or interference with the use of the Premises by Lessee as a result of performing such work.
4.3 Condition of Premises on Termination or Expiration of Lease Upon termination or expiration of the Lease, Lessee, at its sole cost, shall surrender the Premises to Lessor in good and sanitary order, condition and repair except for ordinary wear and tear, and free of subleases, liens, charges, restrictions or encumbrances and have restored the Premises to their condition at the commencement of the Term, subject to Article 3.4.
ARTICLE 5. INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Waiver of Claims
Lessee shall assume all risk of damage to property and/or personal injury or death of any person in or about the Premises from any cause arising out of this Lease, except to the extent caused by Lessor’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Lessee hereby waives all claims in respect thereof against Lessor except to the extent cause by Lessor’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. It is expressly agreed that Lessee rather than Lessor is wholly responsible for maintaining safe conditions on the Premises during the term of the Lease, and that Lessor’s non- provision of maintenance, police or safety services does not constitute negligence of any kind.
5.2 Agreement to Indemnify
Lessee shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands, suits, loss, damages, injury and liability (direct or indirect, including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith) arising out of this Lease except to the extent caused by Lessor's sole negligence or willful misconduct.
140207.1
5.3 Agreement to Provide Defense
Lessee agrees at its own cost, expense and risk to defend any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought or instituted against the City, its directors, officers, agents, and employees arising out of this Lease, and to pay and satisfy any resulting judgments, except to the extend caused by Lessor’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.
ARTICLE 6. INSURANCE
At all times during the life of this Lease, or as may further be required by this Lease, Lessee at its own cost and expense shall provide the insurance specified by this Article.
6.1 Evidence Required
At or before execution of this Lease, Lessee shall provide Lessor with a certificate of insurance executed by an authorized representative of the insurer(s) evidencing that Lessee's insurance complies with this Article. The certificate shall reference the applicable Rental Account Number and Name of Tenant/City as title to which the certificate relates, In addition a copy of all required endorsements shall be included with and attached to the Certificate of Insurance.
6.2 Notice of Cancellation, Renewal, Reduction or Material Change in Coverage
All policies shall be endorsed to provide thirty (30) days prior written notice of any cancellation, reduction or material change in coverage. For policies that extend beyond the coverage policy year, Lessee shall submit to the City's Manager of Insurance certification confirming the insurance has been renewed and continues in place. Notice shall be forwarded to:
City of Concord
City Clerk
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
6.3 Qualifying Insurers
All policies shall be issued by California admitted companies which hold a current policy holders alphabetic and financial size category rating of not less than A:VII according to Best's Insurance Reports.
6.4 Insurance Required of Lessee
140207.1
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance for bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides limits of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence and Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) annual aggregate.
1. Coverage shall include:
a) Premises and Operations;
b) Products/Completed Operations;
c) Broad Form Property Damage;
d) Contractual liability;
e) Personal Injury liability; and
f) Cross-Liability and Severability of Interests.
2. Such insurance shall include the following endorsements, copies of which shall be provided:
a) Inclusion of the City, its officials, officers,
representatives, agents and employees (individually
and collectively, “City Parties”) as additional
insured as respects to Lessee's operations in
connection with this Lease, with no special
limitations on the scope or protection afforded to
any City Parties;
b) Stipulation that the insurance is primary insurance
and that no insurance or self-insurance of the City
will be called upon to contribute to a loss.
c) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions
of the policy or self-insurance shall not affect the
coverage provided to any City Parties
B. Comprehensive Automobile Liability for bodily injury (including death) and property damage which provides coverage limits of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence applicable to all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles.
The provisions of Section 6.4.A.2, above, shall also apply to such insurance.
C. Workers' Compensation/Employer's Liability Insurance Statutory Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance for not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per accident applicable to Employer's Liability coverage for all employees engaged in services or operations under this Lease. The policy shall include broad form all-states/other states coverage. Coverage shall be specifically endorsed to include the insurer's waive of subrogation in favor of the City, its directors, officers, representatives, agents and employees, a copy of which shall be provided to the City.
140207.1
Should Lessee contract any work to be done on the Leased premises, Lessee shall require each contractor or subcontractor of any tier to similarly comply with this Article, all in strict compliance with federal and state laws.
6.6 Special Provisions
A. The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Lessee and any approval of said insurance by Lessor is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by Lessee pursuant to this Lease, including but not limited to the provisions concerning indemnification.
B. Lessor acknowledges that some insurance requirements contained in this article may be fulfilled by a funded self-insurance program of Lessee. However, this shall not in any way limit liabilities assumed by Lessee under this Lease. Any self-insurance program must be approved in writing by Lessor.
C. Should any of the work under this Lease be contracted, Lessee shall require each of its contractor or subcontractor of any tier to provide the aforementioned coverage, or Lessee may insure its contractor(s) under its own policy(s).
D. Lessor reserves the right to terminate the Lease in the event of material noncompliance with the insurance requirements of this article.
ARTICLE 7. DEFAULT
7.1 Material Default
The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease by Lessee.
A. Any failure by Lessee to maintain the subject property or the Premises or to pay rent, if applicable, or any other monetary sums required to be paid hereunder.
B. The abandonment or vacation of these Premises by Lessee. Failure to occupy and operate the Premises for thirty (30) consecutive days shall be deemed an abandonment or vacation.
140207.1
C. A failure by Lessee to observe and perform any other provision of this Lease to be observed or performed by Lessee, where such failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by Lessor to Lessee; provided, however, that if the nature of such default is such that it cannot be reasonably cured within such thirty (30) day period, Lessee shall not be deemed to be in default if Lessee shall within such period commence such cure and thereafter diligently prosecute it to completion.
D. The making by Lessee of any general assignment or general arrangement for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Lessee of a petition to have Lessee adjudged bankrupt or of a petition for reorganization or arrangement under any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Lessee the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days; the appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially all of Lessee's assets, where possession is not restored to Lessee within forty-five (45) days; or the attachment, execution or other judicial seizure of substantially all of Lessee's assets, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty (30) days.
7.2 Immediate Termination
In the event of any material default or breach by Lessee, Lessor may at any time thereafter, without limiting Lessor in the exercise of any right or remedy at law or in equity which Lessor may have by reason of such default or breach, immediately terminate this Lease.
7.3 Lessor's Remedies
In the event of any material default or breach by Lessee, Lessor may at any time thereafter, without limiting Lessor in the exercise of any right or remedy at law or in equity which Lessor may have by reason of such default or breach:
A. Maintain this Lease in full force and effect and recover the rent and other monetary charges as they become due, without terminating Lessee's right to possession, irrespective of whether Lessee shall have abandoned the Premises. In the event Lessor elects not to terminate the Lease, Lessor shall have the right to attempt to re-let the premises at such rent and upon such conditions and for such a term, and to do all acts necessary to maintain or preserve the premises as Lessor deems reasonable and necessary without being deemed to have elected to terminate the Lease, including removal of all persons and property from the premises; such property may be removed and stored in public warehouse or elsewhere at the
140207.1
cost of and for the account of Lessee. In the event any such re- letting concurs, this Lease shall terminate automatically upon the new Lessee taking possession of the Premises. Notwithstanding that Lessor fails to elect to terminate the Lease initially, Lessor at any time during the term of this Lease may elect to terminate this Lease by virtue of such previous default of Lessee.
B. Terminate Lessee's right to possession by any lawful means, in which case this Lease shall terminate and Lessee shall immediately surrender possession of the premises to Lessor. In such event Lessor shall be entitled to recover from Lessee all damages incurred by Lessor by reason of Lessee's default including without limitation thereto, the following:
i) the worth at the time of award of any unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of such termination; plus
ii) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after
termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that is proved could have been reasonably avoided; plus
iii) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that is proved could be reasonably avoided; plus
v) any other amount necessary to compensate Lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by Lessee's failure to perform his obligations under this Lease or which in the ordinary course of events would be likely to result
therefrom; plus
v) at Lessor's election, such other amounts in addition to or in lieu of the foregoing as may be permitted from time to time by applicable State law.
Upon any such re-entry Lessor shall have the right to make any reasonable repairs, alterations or modification to the premises, which Lessor in its sole discretion deemed reasonable and necessary. As used in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), above, the "worth at the time of award" is computed by allowing interest at a rate equal to the Federal Reserve Bank discount rate per annum from the date of default. As used in subparagraph (iii), above, the "worth at the time of award" is computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank at the time of award. The term "rent" as used in this Article shall be deemed
140207.1
to be and to mean rent to be paid pursuant to Article 2 and all other monetary sums required to be paid by Lessee pursuant to the terms of this Lease.
7.4 Lessor's Right to Cure Lessee's Default
At any time after Lessee is in default or material breach of this Lease, Lessor may cure such default or breach at Lessee's cost. Unless shorter notice is expressly provided for herein, Lessor shall give Lessee thirty (30) days written notice prior to curing such default or material breach at Lessee's cost. If Lessor at any time, by reason of such default or breach, pays any sum of does any act that requires the payment of any sum, the sum paid by Lessor shall be due immediately from Lessee to Lessor at the time the sum is paid.
ARTICLE 8. ASSIGNMENTS, SUBLEASES AND ENCUMBRANCES
8.1 Assignments and Subleases
Lessee shall not assign, transfer or sublease its interest in this Lease or in the premises without first obtaining Lessor's prior written consent which shall be granted or withheld in Lessor’s sole discretion. Lessor's consent to any assignment, sublease or encumbrance shall not constitute a waiver of any of the terms, covenants or conditions of the Lease, which shall apply to each and every assignment or sublease of this Lease. Lessor's consent to one assignment or subletting shall not be construed as a consent to any other assignment or subletting. Despite consent of Lessor to assignment or sublease, Lessee shall remain liable for any cause of action arising out of the subsequent lease.
Lessee's failure to obtain Lessor's required prior written approval of any assignment or sublease shall render such assignment or sublease void.
8.2 Encumbrances
Lessee shall not encumber the Leased Premises in any manner whatsoever.
Lessee shall keep the Premises and the property in which the Premises are situated free from any liens arising out of any work performed, material furnished, or obligations incurred by or for Lessee.
ARTICLE 9. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
9.1 Termination for Convenience
Either party to this Lease may at any time during the term hereof terminate the Lease by giving written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to the date when
140207.1
such termination shall become effective. In the event of such termination, any unearned rental paid by Lessee shall be returned to Lessee.
9.2 Quiet Enjoyment
Lessor hereby agrees that Lessee, upon paying rent and other monetary sums due under the Lease and performing all obligations required to be performed herein, shall during the term of the Lease quietly hold and enjoy the Premises without hindrance from Lessor.
9.3 Right to Re-entry
A. General
Lessor shall have the right to enter the Premises at reasonable hours and, except in the event of an emergency, on reasonable prior notice to (1) inspect the Premises; (2) exhibit the Premises to prospective purchasers, lenders, or tenants; (3) determine whether lessee is complying with all obligations under this Lease, including but not limited to the right to take samples of substances and materials present for testing should there be a concern that hazardous materials have been placed on the Premises; (4) perform testing or other investigatory work, including, but not limited to, excavating around pier footings, surveying and potholing. Re- entry by Lessor shall be done as promptly as reasonable possible and with as little interference to Lessee as reasonably possible.
E. Waiver of Claims
Lessee waives any damage claims for inconvenience or interference with Lessee’s business or loss of occupancy or quiet enjoyment of the Premises caused by Lessor’s entry pursuant to this Article 9.3. Entry to the Premises by Lessor in an emergency shall not be construed as forcible or unlawful entry, a detained, or an actual or constructive eviction of Lessee.
9.4 Holding Over
Any holding over, with Lessor's consent, after the expiration of the term of the Lease, shall be a tenancy from month to month, and shall otherwise be on the terms of this Lease, except that a holdover rent can be assessed as determined by Lessor.
9.5 Non-Discrimination
Lessee for itself, its representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land that (1) no person on the grounds of race, color, religion or
140207.1
national origin shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of the Leased Premises and (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination. In the event of breach of the above non- discrimination covenants, Lessor shall have the right to terminate the Lease pursuant to Article 7.2.
9.6 Relocation
Lessee understands and agrees that this tenancy is of a temporary nature, and that no relocation payment will be sought or provided in any form as a consequence of this tenancy.
9.7 Condemnation
If any of the Premises shall be taken by eminent domain and a part thereof remains which is susceptible of occupation for the Specified Use hereunder, this Lease shall, as to the part taken, terminate as of the date title shall vest in the Condemnor, and the rent payable hereunder shall be adjusted so that Lessee shall be required to pay for the remainder of the term only such proportion of such rent as the value of the part remaining after condemnation bears to the value of the entire premises at the date of condemnation; but in such event Lessor may terminate this Lease as of the date when title to the part so taken vests in the Condemnor. If all of the Premises of such part taken thereof be so taken so that there does not remain a portion susceptible of occupation for the Specified Use hereunder, this Lease shall thereupon terminate. If a part of all the Premises be so taken, all compensation awarded upon such taking shall go to Lessor, and Lessee hereby assigns to Lessor any right to compensation or damages to which Lessee may be entitled by reason of any such taking.
9.8 Notices
All notices and payments of rent shall be given to the Lessor in writing, personally or by mail, addressed as follows: City of Concord Finance Department, 1950 Parkside Drive MS/06, Concord, CA 94519.
All notices given by Lessor to Lessee shall be addressed as follows: BART, Real Estate and Property Development Department, 2150 Webster Street, 9 th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. Attention: Director of Real Estate and Property Development.
9.9 Subordination of Prior Lease
140207.1
This Lease terminates any prior or existing Lease, tenancy or permit between Lessor and Lessee with respect to the Premises leased hereby.
9.10 Tax
Lessee recognizes and understands in accepting this Lease that his interest therein may be subject to a possessory interest tax that the City or County may impose on such interest, and that such tax payment shall not reduce any rent due the Lessor hereunder, and any such tax shall be the liability of and be paid by the Lessee.
9.11 Entire Agreement
This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and it may be amended only in writing signed by both parties. No obligations other than those set forth herein will be recognized.
9.12 Severability
If any term or provision of this Lease shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
9.13 Cost of Suit
If Lessor or Lessee shall bring an action for any relief against the other, declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this Lease, the losing party shall pay the successful party's reasonable attorneys' fees.
9.14 Governing Law
This Lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
9.15 Waiver
No covenant, term or condition, or the breach thereof, shall be deemed waived, except by written consent of the party against whom the waiver is claimed. Any waiver shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach.
Acceptance by Lessor of any performance by Lessee after the time the same shall have become due shall not constitute a waiver by Lessor of the breach or default of any covenant, term or condition unless otherwise expressly agreed to by Lessor in writing.
140207.1
9.16 Binding Effect
Subject to any provisions herein as to assignment and subletting, the terms of this Lease shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease the day and year first above written.
LESSEE: LESSOR:
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA CITY OF CONCORD
RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
By: By:
Abigail Thorne-Lyman Name:
Director of Real Estate and Property Its:
Development
DATE DATE
Staff Report
Date: May 24, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Guy Bjerke, Director of Economic Development and Base Reuse Prepared by: Marie Suvansin, Economic Development Manager [email protected]
(925) 671-3048
Subject: Considering adoption of a resolution to declare surplus lands and issue Notices of Availability for Town Center II Property (an approximately 3-acre property located at 1765 Galindo Street and bounded by Galindo Street, Concord Boulevard, and Clayton Road) and the Oak Street Project Property (an approximately 4.2-acre property composed of two parcels separated by Mt. Diablo Street and bounded by Galindo Street, Oak Street, and Laguna Street).
CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15378 and/or 15061(b)(3).
Report in Brief
The City of Concord owns and may consider disposal of the following former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) properties, all of which are located in downtown Concord:
Town Center II, an approximately 3-acre property located at 1765 Galindo Street and bounded by Galindo Street, Concord Boulevard, and Clayton Road (Attachment 1)
Oak Street Project, an approximately 4.2-acre property composed of two parcels separated by Mt. Diablo Street and bounded by Galindo Street, Oak Street, and Laguna Street (Attachment 2)
4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a4.a
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
May 24, 2022
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1486, an amendment of the Surplus Land Act (SLA), the City of Concord must first declare the parcels associated with Town Center II and Oak Street Project as “surplus land” at a regular public meeting prior to beginning the process for disposition. After declaration, the City Manager would make a determination on when to issue Notices of Availability (NOAs) to a list of affordable housing developers provided by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and enter good faith negotiations should the City receive a timely notice of interest from a responding entity.
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution declaring the properties associated with Town Center II and Oak Street Project as surplus land and authorizing the City Manager to issue NOAs for the sites.
Background
Town Center II is an approximately 3-acre site bounded by Galindo Street, Concord Boulevard, and Clayton Road. Oak Street Project is an approximately 4.2-acre site consisting of two parcels separated by Mt. Diablo Street and bounded by Galindo Street, Oak Street, and Laguna Street. Both sites are former RDA properties transferred to the City to facilitate a catalyzing development project in downtown Concord.
History of Development Interest
In 1998, the former RDA entered a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with John F. Kennedy University to develop a new, consolidated campus on the Oak Street Project; however, the university exited the agreement to locate elsewhere. Other than an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA), from which Hall Equities Group withdrew in 2020, that involved multiple parcels in downtown Concord for a potential mixed-use development centered on a soccer stadium, the City of Concord has not entered other agreements for the Oak Street Project or issued a Request for Proposals (RFP).
On April 9, 2019, the City Council considered but did not approve a DDA between the City and AvalonBay Communities for development of 310 market rate apartment units, a 6,500 square foot restaurant/gourmet grocery store, a contribution of $650,000 to support affordable housing in Concord, a $300,000 contribution to Community Event funding, $50,000 to support public art, $450,000 for funding of community benefits, a commitment that 15% of hard construction costs would consist of union labor, and enhanced outreach to local contractors at Town Center II. The Council rejected the proposed DDA due to the inability of AvalonBay Communities and certain trade labor groups to produce a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). The Council then directed staff to develop and issue an RFP to identify a new developer.
Long Range Property Management Plan
The former RDA dissolved on February 1, 2012. As mandated by ABx1 26 and AB 1484, the statutes governing the dissolution of RDAs, the City of Concord as the
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
May 24, 2022
Successor Agency created the 2014 Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP) to govern the disposition of RDA-owned properties. The LRPMP designated the parcels associated with Town Center II and Oak Street Project as inventory to be transferred to the City for future development, specifically mixed-use or transit-oriented development.
AB 1486
On January 1, 2020, AB 1486 took effect, amending the SLA and requiring that cities declare certain city-owned properties that are unnecessary for agency use as “surplus land” and dispose of them through issuance of an NOA to affordable housing developers. As a result, the City of Concord cannot move forward with an RFP for Town Center II as initially directed by City Council, unless an NOA does not result in an agreement.
Housing and Economic Development (HED) Committee Direction On April 11, 2022, the HED Committee directed staff to bring forward to City Council a resolution declaring the parcels associated with Town Center II and Oak Street Project as surplus land and authorizing the City Manager to issue NOAs for the projects, in order to begin the process for disposition as required by the SLA. The Committee also directed staff to conduct a traffic analysis on the abandonment of a certain portion of Mt.
Diablo Street, which divides Oak Street Project into two parcels, in order to create a more cohesive project. In the event an NOA does not result in an agreement with an affordable housing developer, the Committee directed staff to bring a draft RFP that is open to all uses permitted by the Concord Municipal Code forward to City Council for consideration.
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) submitted a letter to the HED Committee on April 11, 2022 requesting that the City revise its definition of affordable housing as mentioned in the staff report sent to the HED Committee to specify lower income households at 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). In this letter, EBHO also requested that it be specified that per the SLA affordable housing developers providing the deepest levels of affordability in response to an NOA must be prioritized, and that if housing is built in response to an RFP, then 15 percent of units must be restricted 55 years or 45 years for rental units or ownership units respectively. The SLA contains provisions addressing priority that the City must give to responding entities, depending on whether those entities offer certain affordability levels (see Government Code Sections 54227 and 54222.5, Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5), as well as certain requirements regarding affordability covenants (Government Code Sections 54222.5, 54233, 65915).
Analysis
Surplus Land Act Process
Per the SLA, the City must declare the properties associated with Town Center II and
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
May 24, 2022
Oak Street Project as “surplus land” to begin the process for disposition.1 After declaration, the City Manager would make a determination on when to issue the NOAs for each property. The City must allow affordable housing developers 60 days to respond to an NOA before entering an at least 90-day good faith negotiation period with a responding entity. If multiple developers respond, the City must give priority to entities that would develop at least 25 percent of units at a cost affordable to lower-income households (80% Area Median Income or below), or to those that offer the deepest levels of affordability. At the end of the good faith negotiations, staff would provide an update on the negotiations to City Council and seek direction on how to move forward. If good faith negotiation does not result in an agreement, City Council may direct staff to issue an RFP.
If the SLA process does not result in an agreement for one or both of the sites, City Council could direct staff to issue an RFP. In such an event, the HED Committee directed staff to bring a draft RFP that is open to all uses permitted by the Concord Municipal Code forward to City Council for consideration. If an RFP resulted in a housing project with more than ten units, then 15 percent of the housing units must be sold or rented as affordable housing, and deed-restricted affordable housing for lower- income households, lasting 55 years in the case of rental units or 45 years in the case of ownership units2
Surplus Land Determination
”Surplus land” means “land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency’s use.” Government Code Section 54221(b)(1). The parcels associated with Town Center II and Oak Street Project are vacant land that the LRPMP designated for future development rather than for the City’s use, and remain unnecessary for the City’s use. Therefore, these parcels are considered “surplus land.”
Leasing Interest and Timeline
The City has received inquiries from various entities to temporarily license the properties associated with Town Center II and Oak Street Project for private activities.
In the case of Town Center II, the Concord Historical Society has requested use of 1765 Galindo Street for several special events in spring of 2022 and ABC Tree Farms would like to host a pumpkin patch and Christmas tree lot from September – December 2022.
On the parcels associated with Oak Street Project, RCD, RMG, and Avesta (housing developers with projects on Galindo Street) have inquired about using the site for 1 Town Center II consisting of one Property, and Oak Street Project consisting of two Properties, are each referred to herein as a “Project” and collectively as the “Projects.” City desires to issue a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for each Project in accordance with the SLA.
2 The SLA and HCD’s SLA Guidelines define “affordable housing,” “affordable housing cost,” and “affordable rent.”
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
May 24, 2022
construction staging, which, based on current projections could keep the parcels occupied through2023.
Per the SLAs, property disposition must take at least five months (60 days for entities to provide a notice of interest in response the NOA and at least 90 days for good faith negotiations). Government Code Sections 54222(e), 54223(a). Many factors could prolong the process, including a longer negotiation period or the issuance of a formal RFP in the event good faith NOA negotiations did not result in an agreement.
Due to limited staffing capacity and given the need for developers along Galindo Street to utilize Oak Street Project as a staging area for upcoming affordable housing developments until January 2023, staff anticipates issuing the NOA for Town Center II in calendar year 2022 and issuing the NOA for Oak Street Project in calendar year 2023. The later NOA issuance date for the Oak Street Project provides time for the traffic analysis of Mt. Diablo Street as it pertains to abandoning the portion of the roadway that divides the Oak Street Project into two parcels, as recommended by the HED Committee. The City Manager will not issue the NOA for Oak Street Project until after the traffic analysis is complete. Staff will return to City Council for direction on the abandonment of a certain portion of Mt. Diablo Street if supported by the findings of the traffic analysis, and before the NOA for Oak Street Project is issued.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact with declaring surplus land and issuing NOAs other than staff time. In the event the properties are developed, the City will receive fees and its share of property tax based on the developments constructed. Net proceeds would be distributed to affected taxing entities, as required by State law.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), the declaration of surplus land does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c), or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Even if the resolution did constitute a project under CEQA, the resolution falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment…” Therefore, the proposed resolution does not warrant further environmental review.
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.a
May 24, 2022
Attachments
1. Map of Town Center II
2. Map of Oak Street Project
3. Resolution for Surplus Lands Declaration
Map of Town Center II
3 acres
Parcel Exhibit 126-143-012, 1765 Galindo Street
Renaissance Square Apartments
313 Units
Park Central Apartments
240 Units
Attachment 1
Map of Oak Street Project
3.16 acres
Swift Plaza Office Campus
Downtown Concord
BART Station
1.06 acres
Concord Police Department
Attachment 2
Res. No. 22-XX 1
Attachment 3
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Declaring Three Parcels Owned by the
City of Concord to be Surplus Land Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(A) and Taking
Related Actions
Resolution No. 22-XX
/
WHEREAS, the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), Government Code Sections 54220-54232, establishes a process that local agencies such as the City of Concord (“City”) must follow to dispose of surplus land, which includes declaring the land is surplus, providing written notice to certain entities and negotiating in good faith with an interested entity that was entitled to such notice; and WHEREAS, the SLA defines “surplus land” as “[…] land owned in fee simple by any local agency for which the local agency’s governing body takes formal action in a regular public meeting declaring that the land is surplus and is not necessary for the agency's use” (Government Code Section 54221(b)(1)); and
WHEREAS, the City owns the subject properties (“Properties”), identified by the following assessor’s parcel numbers and approximate locations:
Town Center II
o APN: 126-143-012, 1765 Galindo Street (3.10 acres bounded by Concord Boulevard, Galindo Street, and Clayton Road)
Oak Street Project
o APN: 126-122-024 (3.16 acres bounded by Oak Street, Mount Diablo Street, and Galindo Street)
o APN: 126-112-026 (1.06 acres bounded by Oak Street and Mount Diablo Street) WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the Properties, determined that the Properties are not necessary for City use and recommend that the Properties be declared surplus land and disposed of pursuant to the SLA for the reasons described in the accompanying staff report dated May 24, 2022; and
Res. No. 22-XX 2
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to declare that the Properties are surplus land, are not necessary for the City’s use and may be disposed of in accordance with the SLA; and WHEREAS, Town Center II consisting of one Property, and Oak Street Project consisting of two Properties, are each referred to herein as a “Project” and collectively as the “Projects.” City desires to issue a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for each Project in accordance with the SLA.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this resolution.
The accompanying staff report dated May 24, 2022 is incorporated herein and also a substantive part of this Resolution. Such recitals and staff report constitute findings for the purpose of this Resolution.
Section 2. The City Council hereby declares the Properties as surplus land not necessary for the City’s use. The bases for this declaration are set forth in the recitals and staff report dated May 24, 2022, including that the Properties belonged to the former Redevelopment Agency prior to dissolution in 2012 and are designated as appropriate for future development in the 2014 Long Range Management Plan, and that the City of Concord does not have a plan to retain the Properties for the City’s use.
Section 3. The City Manager or designee(s) are hereby authorized to take actions deemed necessary or desirable to effectuate the purposes of this resolution, in order to comply with the SLA, including preparing and transmitting NOAs for each of the Projects to the entities entitled to such notice, as and to the extent required by the SLA, negotiating in good faith in accordance with and subject to the requirements of the SLA with any entities that timely submit a written notice of interest to in response to the City’s NOA..
Section 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), the declaration of surplus land does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c), or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a
Res. No. 22-XX 3
direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the resolution did constitute a project under CEQA, the resolution falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment…” Therefore, the proposed resolution does not warrant further environmental review.
Section 5. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord on May 24, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on May 24, 2022.
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney
From: Alex Werth <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:15 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Suvansin, Marie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Subject: EBHO Comment Re: Item 4a - Surplus Land Declaration Good a
fternoon,
I'
m writing to submit the attached letter commenting on the declaration of the Town Center II and Oak Street sites as "surplus land," per the State Surplus Land Act (Item 4a). EBHO is grateful to staff and the members of the HED Committee for reviewing and responding to our previous letter dated April 11th, 2022, in particular regarding the definition of affordable units as serving households at or below 80% of area median income. However, there are still a few areas of the staff report that could be clarified in order to better align with the SLA.
Tha
nk you for your consideration of this item,
Alex
--
Alex Werth | Policy Manager
East Bay Housing Organizations
413-222-8880 (cell) | [email protected]
538 9th St. Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 4.a
May 24, 2022
May 24th, 2022
Re: Compliance with the State Surplus Land Act for the Town Center II and Oak Street Sites – Item 4a
Dear Members of the Concord City Council,
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) is excited to see the City of Concord moving forward, once again, with the disposition of the Town Center II and Oak Street redevelopment sites. As a longtime proponent of using public land for public good, and as a cosponsor of AB 1486 (Ting), EBHO and our members have a strong interest in ensuring that Concord follows the disposition procedures and affordability protocols outlined in the Surplus Land Act (SLA). We are pleased to see that staff have updated the language around income and affordability requirements, as we requested in our letter to the Housing and Economic Development Committee, dated April 11th, 2022. We are also pleased that staff is now focusing exclusively on the issuance of a compliant Notice of Availability (NOA), rather than both a NOA and a more general RFP, which would give the impression that the City of Concord was actively anticipating disposing of the land for mixed-income development before giving affordable housing sponsors an opportunity to bid, as required by State law.
However, there remain two issues from our original letter that we feel the current staff report is still yet to address.
1. The NOA Process Is Limited to Projects That Are at Least 25% Affordable. On p. 4, the staff report states: “If multiple developers respond [to the NOA], the City must give priority to entities that would develop at least 25 percent of units at a cost affordable to lower-income households (80% Area Median Income or below), or to those that offer the deepest levels of affordability.” This statement is misleading because it makes it sound as though the City must only prioritize projects that are at least 25% affordable in the event that “multiple developers respond” to the NOA. In fact, a proposal must be at least 25% affordable in order to be considered through the NOA process, even if it is the only one.
In other words, 25% affordability is the minimum threshold required to participate in the NOA process in the first place.
2. The SLA Specifies a Two-Step Prioritization Process for Tie-Breakers. Indeed, it is possible, and desirable, that the NOA will result in more than one proposal that meets the 25% minimum affordability threshold. In that case, while the City is allowed to enter into good-faith negotiations with more than one sponsor, it is also required to give priority to whichever project would provide the greatest number of affordable units. In the event that more than one project would result in the same number of affordable units, then the City
is required to give priority to the project with the deepest level of affordability. See SLA Guidelines, pp. 18-9. This two-step prioritization process is not accurately reflected in the statement from p. 4 quoted in the previous section.
Finally, we would like to note that, in addition to adhering to the SLA, there are other things that the City can do to ensure that these parcels are used to provide the deeply affordable homes that thousands of residents need. Specifically, Government Code section 54226 states that a locality may sell or lease surplus land below fair market value. We thus encourage the City to show that it truly prioritizes using these sites for affordable development by both accurately following the disposition process outlined in the SLA and offering to discount the sale price to a local mission- driven affordable housing provider.
Using public land for public good, in compliance with the SLA, is a key tool to make Concord a place that families of all incomes can continue to call home from one generation to the next. We look forward to continuing to work with you to realize this vision and promise.
Sincerely,
Alex Werth
Policy Manager
East Bay Housing Organizations
May 23, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mayor Dominic Aliano
Vice Mayor Laura Hoffmeister
Councilmember Edi Birsan
Councilmember Timothy McGallian
Councilmember Carlyn Obringer
Re: May 24, 2022 Concord City Council Meeting, Item 4a – City disposition of Town Center II and Oak Street Project Properties
Dear Honorable Concord City Councilmembers:
We are pleased that the City of Concord is acknowledging that the City must comply with the required procedures under the Surplus Land Act (SLA) when taking action to dispose of the Town Center II and Oak Street Project properties, starting with declaring these properties as “surplus land.”
The SLA is a critical tool to increase affordable housing which brings about significant benefits in health, education, and economic mobility. Concord is home to over 6,300 low- income renter households.1 These families would benefit greatly from increasing the supply of affordable housing, especially in areas near transit – like the Town Center II and Oak Street Project properties.
After the City has held the required public meeting to declare the properties as surplus land, the SLA requires the City to first provide a written notice of the parcels’ availability “for the purpose of developing low-and moderate-income housing” before taking other action to dispose of the parcels.2 The Notice of Availability (NOA) must be sent to interested housing sponsors identified by the expression-of-interest list maintained by HCD and local public entities within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located.3
The City appears to be contemplating this next step, as demonstrated by Section 3 of the resolution, which states, “The City Manager or designee(s) are hereby authorized to take actions deemed necessary or desirable to effectuate the purposes of this resolution, in order to comply with the SLA, including preparing and transmitting NOAs for each of the Projects to the entities entitled to such notice, as and to the extent required by the SLA, negotiating in
1 Ángel Mendiola Ross, Bay Area Equity Atlas, Where are Renters with Low Incomes Living in the Bay Area? (February 23, 2022).
2 Gov. Code § 54222(a).
3 Id.
good faith in accordance with and subject to the requirements of the SLA with any entities that timely submit a written notice of interest to in response to the City’s NOA.” Finally, we want to draw your attention to Government Code section 54226, which empowers a local agency to sell or lease surplus land at less than fair market value. The City may make a policy decision to sell or lease the Town Center II and Oak Street Project properties at below fair market value to facilitate the development of affordable housing.
Prioritizing public land for affordable housing in compliance with the SLA is essential for Concord residents who are at risk of displacement. We look forward to working with you to ensure the letter and spirit of the law is followed.
Very truly yours,
Suzanne Dershowitz, Staff Attorney
Public Advocates Inc.
Declaration of Surplus Land
MARIE SUVANSIN , ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
CONCORD CITY COUNCIL
MAY 24, 2022
1
Disposition of Former Redevelopment
Agency (RDA) Properties
Town Center II
◦ 3-a cre property
◦ 1765 Galindo Street
Oak Street Project
◦ 4.2-a cre property
◦ 2 parcels separated by Mt. Diablo Street
2
3 Town Center II
Concord Blvd.
4 Oak Street Project
Long-Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP)
LRPMP designation of Town Center II and Oak Street Project:
◦ Inventory for future development
◦ Mixed- use and transit-oriented development
5
Surplus Land Act - AB1486
AB1486 requires that the City:
1. Declare surplus land.
2. Issue a Notice of Availability (NOA) to affordable housing developers. a
. Allow 60 days for responses.
b. Prioritize responses that are at least 25% affordable to lower income households (80% of Area Median Income) or deepest level of affordability.
3. Allow 90 d ays for good faith negotiations.
4. City Council may direct staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) only if neg
otiations fail.
a. Require responses that are at least 15% affordable to lower income households.
6
7 Park Central Apartments
240 Units
Renaissance Square Apartments
313 Units
3 acres
Town Center II
Town Center II History
April 2019: City Council rejected Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with AvalonBay
August 2019: HED directed staff to revise RFP to include Project Labor Agreement (PLA)
January 2020: AB1486 took effect
8
9 Swift Plaza Office Campus
Downtown Concord
BART Station
3.16 acres
1.06 acres
Concord Police Department
Potential abandonment
of Mt. Diablo St. by
vacation
Oak Street Project
Oak Street Project History
1998: City entered DDA with John F. Kennedy University for campus development. University withdrew.
2019: City entered Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Hall Equities for soccer stadium w/ supporting mixed uses. Hall Equities withdrew.
10
Interim Use Requests
Town Center II
• Spring 2022: R equest from Concord Historical Society • Fall/Winter 2022: R equest from ABC Tree Farms
Oak Street Project
• Through 2023: Staging requests from housing developers on Galindo St. 11
Surplus Land Determination
Surplus Land Determination for Town Center II and Oak Street Project:
◦ Land owned by City of Concord in fee simple
◦ Parcels are vacant
◦ Designated by LRPMP for future development rather than City use 12
Disposition: Potential Next Steps
Potential Next Steps:
◦ City Council makes surplus land declaration and authorizes City Ma
nager to issue NOAs
◦ City Manager issues NOA for Town Center II
◦ Staff conducts street vacation analysis for Oak Street Project ◦ Staff returns to City Council for street vacation
◦ City Manager issues NOA for Oak Street Project
13
Recommended Action
Concord City Council may consider the following:
◦ Adopt a resolution declaring the properties associated with Town C
enter II and Oak Street Project as surplus land and authorizing the City Manager to issue NOAs for the sites.
14
Questions?
15
Staff Report
Date: May 24, 2022
To: City Council/City Council Sitting as the Local Reuse Authority From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Guy Bjerke, Director – Economic Development & Base Reuse [email protected]
(925) 671-3076
Subject: Considering a requested First Amendment and timeline extension to the Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate (ENA) between the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) and Concord First Partners, LLC regarding the disposition and development of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) and
either: (1) denying the request, or (2) granting an ENA extension until June 29, 2022, and directing staff to negotiate an ENA amendment for Council consideration on June 28,
2022.
CEQA: Not a project/exempt under Public Resources Code
Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.
Report in Brief
Concord First Partners, LLC (CFP) is seeking an amendment to the existing Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate (ENA) dated October 26, 2021.
Under the existing ENA, the LRA and CFP agreed to a negotiating process consisting of Term Sheet development within 180 days (extended to May 25, 2022), followed by the development of a Specific Plan/completion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) consistent with the accepted Term Sheet within the next 24 months (approximately May 2024). Together, those three documents – DDA, Specific Plan, and EIR – would set forth the scope and timing of CNWS property development, delivery of community benefits, and related financial issues.
4.b4.b4.b4.b4.b4.b4.b4.b4.b4.b
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
CFP’s proposed amendment would change that negotiation process and timeline by:
(1) providing an additional 90 days (i.e. August 23, 2022) in which to complete a Term Sheet, (2) negotiating an early-stage “outline” DDA1 before land use planning and environmental review moves forward, (3) granting CFP an enforceable right in the CNWS property in the early-stage “outline” DDA, (4) requiring that the LRA reimburse CFP for certain expended costs should the City Council fail to approve the future EIR and Specific Plan, and (5) extending the timeframe for drafting the Specific Plan and EIR from 24 months to 36 months (i.e. approximately August 2025).
Recommended Action
Review CFP’s proposed amendment to the ENA, provide CFP with up to 10 minutes to present their requests, and take public comment.
Staff recommends denial of CFP’s proposed amendment to the ENA, as not being in the best interests of the LRA, and more specifically for the reasons outlined in the Analysis section below.
Unless extended by Council, the current ENA expires on May 25, 2022 (the day after the Council’s consideration of this item).
CFP’s proposed amendment to the ENA was provided to the LRA on May 10, 2022.
Given the short timeframe between receipt thereof and publication of this staff report, and because staff has not yet received Council direction on the proposed amendment, staff has not been able to negotiate with CFP as to the ENA’s provisions and specific language. Should Council support considering an ENA amendment, staff recommends following Alternative 2 (grant the ENA extension until June 29, 2022 and direct staff to negotiate the ENA amendment to be brought back before Council on June 28, 2022; this is discussed in more detail in the Alternatives section of this report) so that CFP’s requested amendment language can be revised for clarity, to mitigate both parties’ risk, and better protect community goals.
Background
The City Council-approved Request for Master Developer Qualifications (RFQ) issued by the LRA on April 16, 2021 contained a form ENA at “Appendix G – Template Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate” which set forth the negotiation process and timeline.
Under the LRA’s template form of ENA, the selected master developer was to receive exclusive rights to negotiate with the LRA during the approximately two year negotiating period with no guarantees regarding the outcome of those negotiations. Under the LRA’s form of ENA the selected master developer would not have any enforceable property interest in the CNWS property unless and until the master developer obtained 1 LRA staff is referring to the DDA requested in CFP’s proposed amendment as the early-stage, “outline” DDA because, as proposed, it is to be considered earlier and contain fewer specifics than the DDA called for in the existing ENA.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
City Council approval of a new Specific Plan, EIR, and accompanying DDA. This is the same process that Lennar agreed to in 2016 when they were selected as the Master Developer for Phase 1 of the CNWS project.
Under RFQ Section 5.2.6, to “expedite negotiations with the selected Master Developer” respondents were asked to “provide either a statement that the terms of the Form of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) found in Appendix G are acceptable as drafted, or a list of material changes the Respondent would expect to be made before signing the ENA.” Respondents were offered the opportunity to submit requested changes confidentially.
In their Statement of Qualifications submitted on June 18, 2021, CFP stated:
“The format of the Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate is acceptable (emphasis added). However, we understand that Discovery/Seeno will be required to pay project costs on a go forward basis and that those costs must be agreed upon by the Discovery/Seeno and the LRA. We understand a separate reimbursement agreement is to be negotiated. We also understand that the LRA is looking to be reimbursed for certain costs incurred to date. It is our understanding that how those incurrent costs will be paid is subject to further discussion and agreement and that the LRA is not looking for a payment at this time.” – page 39 of the CFP Statement of Qualifications
Based, in part, upon CFP’s stated position, the City Council, sitting as the LRA, selected CFP as the Master Developer for the Community Reuse Project at its August 21, 2021 public meeting. The Council directed staff to negotiate the ENA with them and return it for Council consideration.
During those discussions with staff about the specific terms of the ENA, CFP expressed their key concern was that, should the LRA and CFP somehow part ways, CFP would have taken on significant unsecured financial risk or faced a shift in political perspectives. CFP to date has proposed two key approaches to mitigating that risk.
First, CFP suggested securing an early “purchase agreement” or “option agreement” to bridge the approximately 2 year period between Term Sheet approval and consideration of a Specific Plan, EIR, and comprehensive DDA for approval. CFP asked for reimbursement of certain expended costs if the ultimate Master Developer was not CFP.
Staff has indicated to CFP that their concerns are understood and that staff is amenable to exploring mitigation approaches that are mutually beneficial to both the LRA and CFP as long-term partners in the CNWS property development project. However, staff has also shared with CFP that it is unclear whether the LRA has the legal ability to grant CFP such a property interest, or how doing so would affect the Navy’s property disposition plans.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
To address CFP’s request for cost reimbursement were they to have a specific plan and CEQA document approved but not be successful having a DDA approved, staff included an additional item to the “Preliminary Stage Negotiation Matters” in Exhibit B of the proposed ENA. That ENA was subsequently approved by the City Council on October 26, 2022. The revised last bullet of Exhibit B reads:
“Any other issues that the Parties mutually agree to negotiate, including terms under which Developer would potentially be compensated for amounts expended on a specific plan and EIR if City Council were to approve those two items but then reject the proposed DDA as negotiated by City and Developer’s negotiating teams.”
ENA Agreement (Negotiation Process) Diagram (Full page version – see Attachment 1) Work then shifted to the negotiation and creation of a Term Sheet and supporting conceptual documents with the 180-day timeframe required under the ENA (subject to certain extensions)2.
The purpose of the Term Sheet is to address what the ENA at Exhibit B calls “Preliminary Stage Negotiations Matters” such as development phasing, aspects of the Specific Plan content, terms of property transfer, and various financial obligations and arrangements. CFP is diligently working to create a conceptual land-use plan that 2 That timeframe was administratively extended until May 25, 2022, pursuant to ENA Section 3.3.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
provides a basis for a conceptual pro forma (financial plan); with both documents supporting provisions to be included in the Term Sheet. This work and negotiations regarding the Term Sheet between CFP and the LRA are still in progress.
In February 2022, in discussions about a draft Term Sheet, the CFP representatives reiterated the desire for a property interest, this time in the form of a “purchase agreement” or “option agreement.” CFP explained they could not undertake work beyond a Term Sheet without such an agreement as they were not in a position to expend the significant sums required to prepare a Specific Plan and EIR without financial recourse via an enforceable right to the CNWS property and/or a reimbursement arrangement. LRA staff responded that it had no direction from the City Council to negotiate such an agreement and, to resolve the matter, indicated the question would be put on the Council’s March 22, 2022, agenda for resolution. In early March, CFP withdrew their request for a separate agreement and indicated they would suggest an alternative approach.
At the end of March, CFP presented the work they had done on the conceptual documents to LRA staff. CFP indicated difficulties in developing a project land use concept that met Area Plan requirements, City Council priorities, and community expectations as outlined in the RFQ3, that also provided a reasonable rate of Developer return on investment. Based on that work and the need for further discussions, the City Manager extended the Preliminary Stage of the ENA for 30 days, from April 25 to May 25, 2022.
LRA expectations, community benefits, land uses, infrastructure phasing and other Term Sheet related matters were discussed by the LRA and CFP during April but did not result in a draft Term Sheet.
On April 21, 2022, City/LRA staff and CFP representatives held a teleconference with the Navy during which CFP submitted a question regarding CFP’s desire for a “binding agreement” (Attachment 3) before proceeding with Specific Plan or EIR work. CFP’s question appeared to address a general agreement between the City/LRA and CFP, which has consistently been our mutual goal, but did not clearly address CFP’s goal of securing an enforceable right in the CNWS property. The Navy carefully stated that they have no “legal standing” to object to such an agreement, but that they do have concerns with any agreement that might add or create delays or complications to the transfer of the land to the LRA, or anyone else.
3 RFQ Section 3 – Master Developer Responsibilities, contains, among other things, Section 3.4 Community Facilities and Improvements (page 18) and Section 3.15 Affordable Housing (page 23). A copy of Section 3 is Attachment 2, and the complete RFQ can be found at this link: Request for Master Developer Qualifications or http://concordreuseproject.org/DocumentCenter/View/2185/RFQ-2021-4-16-Final
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
On April 27, 2022, CFP sent the LRA a letter indicating their inability, so far, to design a project that meets RFQ expectations (see footnote 2) and provides a reasonable Developer return on investment. The letter, among other things, requested that an amendment to the ENA be put on the LRA’s agenda for May 24, 2022. See Attachment
4. The text of CFP’s amendment to the ENA began as their alternative approach, proposed in the middle of March, but has evolved over several versions into this requested amendment to the ENA provided to LRA staff on May 10, 2022. See Attachment 5.
Analysis
Under the existing ENA, the LRA and CFP agreed to a negotiating process consisting of Term Sheet development within 180 days, followed by the development of a Specific Plan/completion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) consistent with the accepted Term Sheet within the next 24 months. Together, those three documents – DDA, Specific Plan, and EIR – would set forth the scope and timing of CNWS property development, delivery of community benefits, and related financial issues.
CFP’s proposed amendment would alter the negotiation process and timeline specified in the RFQ and existing ENA. The ENA amendment would commit the LRA to negotiate an early-stage “outline” DDA and, if adopted by the LRA, would grant CFP a legally enforceable right to purchase the CNWS property before work on the Specific Plan and EIR is started.
Adopting the proposed amendment creates the expectation that an early-stage “outline” DDA with enforceable property rights will be the likely outcome, putting the LRA at risk in the event the parties cannot reach agreement. This means failure to ultimately grant CFP enforceable property rights could trigger an assertion by CFP that the LRA did not act reasonably which could result in the CNWS property being tied up in litigation for a significant period of time. 4
Were CFP to secure an enforceable property interest, CFP could potentially attempt to leverage its property interest by litigating to prevent the LRA from seeking future third party developers (whereas the LRA was able to move forward when the Lennar ENA expired). As local partners, that is not a result that is desirable to either the LRA or CFP, both of whom have a shared goal of seeing the LRA’s vision of a world class CNWS property development realized.
4 Navy staff has indicated they would likely not be willing to put an EDC process on hold for several years if related litigation occurred.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
Staff does not recommend that the LRA insulate CFP from financial risk via conveying an interest in property it does not currently own, the LRA can attempt to address CFP’s political concerns. As discussed in the background section earlier in this report, LRA staff has proposed that the Council consider the DDA, Specific Plan, and EIR in one combined action so that the full scope of the City/CFP relationship would be affirmed or denied at one time.
The proposed amendment to the ENA has the following key provisions:
1. Extends the Preliminary Stage for ninety (90) days to complete the Term Sheet. (August 2022)
2. Starts the DDA Stage – Phase 1 for ninety (90) days to negotiate an early-stage “outline” DDA that provides CFP an enforceable right to purchase the CNWS property with the terms and conditions for post-closing use and development obligations to be deferred to a later stage statutory development agreement (DA) that would be considered for approval by City Council concurrently with Specific Plan and EIR. (August 2022)
3. Requires the Council to consider both Term Sheet and the early-stage DDA within ninety (90) days.
4. Authorizes the City Manager to extend the DDA Stage – Phase 1 for up to ninety (90) additional days. (November 2022)
5. Establishes and extends a second phase of negotiations from 24 months to 36 months to allow for preparation of a Specific Plan, EIR, and negotiation and drafting of the proposed DA to include business terms that are currently contemplated to be included in a later stage DDA. (August – November 2025)
6. If the City Council does not approve the Term Sheet and early-stage “outline” DDA within the DDA Stage – Phase 1 timeframe, the ENA would terminate.
7. Establishes a timeline for CFP to enter into a Deposit and Reimbursement Agreement under which CFP must pay LRA Project Costs. Parties to complete and execute that Deposit and Reimbursement Agreement by July 31, 2022 (i.e. prior to City Council consideration of the Term Sheet and early-stage “outline” DDA).
8. LRA may terminate 5 the early-stage “outline” DDA if CFP fails to diligently process Project Approvals6 or seek Entitlement Milestones7, or fails to use its commercially reasonable efforts to satisfy Closing Conditions8. 5 Termination would not eliminate risks associated with the enforceable property interest. 6 Project Approvals - Any Specific Plan or other land use plan, entitlements, permits, or approvals for the Project, subject to CEQA at a Project level analysis – See Section 5 of the October 26, 2021, ENA. 7 Entitlement Milestones - See Exhibit A to the proposed amendment 8 Closing Conditions - See Recital C in the proposed amendment – preparation and processing of complete applications for Project Approvals, Entitlement Milestones, Council approval of Project Approvals including a
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
9. Provides that if LRA fails to approve the Project Approvals (Specific Plan, EIR and DA) by the end of the ENA term, the LRA must reimburse CFP for any Third Party Materials9 that are used by a subsequent developer of the Base.
Staff’s primary concerns with the proposed amendment are: (1) shifting the DDA to the beginning of the negotiation process, which would give CFP an enforceable right to the CNWS property prior to work on the Specific Plan or EIR, and (2) creating an LRA obligation to reimburse CFP for certain costs expended should the LRA ultimately fail to approve the Specific Plan and/or EIR. Each of these concerns is discussed in more detail below.
Adopting an early-stage “outline” DDA Incorporating an Enforceable Property Right There are fundamental and procedural differences between a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and a Development Agreement (DA) and reasons why the existing ENA brings both documents for consideration at the end of the process – together with the Specific Plan and EIR.
A DDA is an agreement which a local agency may enter into in a “proprietary” capacity (i.e. as a landowner) and provides the terms and conditions of a property sale by a public agency to a private developer. Because the local agency is acting as a landowner, it has considerable latitude with respect to the terms and conditions under which it agrees to dispose of property to a developer. Typically, and as provided in the RFQ, those terms include price and terms of payment, schedules for phasing of land take-down and development, and Developer commitments to provide community benefits as project development occurs. Price and terms of payment – and likely other key deal points – would likely need to be based on the scope of planned development.
To the extent the DDA contains project development specifics, accompanying environmental review (CEQA) would occur concurrently. Often, such environmental review affects project development (e.g. by requiring mitigation measures and/or project alternatives be implemented to reduce impacts) and costs.
A DA is an agreement authorized under California Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. It is essentially a contract between a local jurisdiction (here, the City) and a developer detailing the standards and conditions – such as rules, regulations, and official policies on permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications – that will govern development of the property. A DA provides assurances to the developer that the development standards and conditions that apply to the project will not change during the term of the agreement. DAs also permit a local agency to negotiate public benefits beyond those Development Agreement, execution of an Navy/City Conveyance Agreement consistent with the DDA; any other requirements found in the Term Sheet.
9 Third Party Materials – All documents, reports, and other work product generated by third parties for Developer with respect to the Project.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
allowed under existing rules and regulations. Because DAs are considered ordinances, they can only be adopted after a public hearing process, which can take up to two months (first reading, second reading, then 30 days until effectiveness); that process must also be followed for DA amendments. DAs are considered “projects” under CEQA and require environmental review at the time of adoption.
Under the existing ENA, both the DDA and DA are to be negotiated and drafted substantially consistent with the Area Plan, and in parallel with the Specific Plan and EIR because the drafting and consideration of those documents will require a greater level of expert analysis, transparency, public input, and will identify issues that may not have been considered in a preliminary document like a Term Sheet. If a DDA, even an early-stage “outline” version that only addresses key components, is approved at the Term Sheet stage, then it could inhibit the iterative process of developing a Specific Plan and EIR and constrain the LRA’s ability to negotiate community benefits. If issues are later identified through the land use planning and/or environmental review process that should have been reflected in the DDA or go beyond Term Sheet provisions, then it is very likely to create conflict between the LRA and CFP. The LRA will be at a disadvantage in resolving any such conflicts if CFP already has a DDA with an enforceable property right in the CNWS.
Another reason both the DDA and DA are considered concurrent with the Specific Plan and EIR, is the requirement to provide environmental review of the documents before their adoption. Under the existing ENA, the Term Sheet is a preliminary document designed to serve as a basis for the drafting of the Specific Plan, EIR, and DDA/DA documents. The Term Sheet would not commit the City/LRA to a definite land use plan or project; so, as the details of the Specific Plan, DDA and DA are developed, there will be sufficient flexibility to comply with CEQA requirements and the opportunity to modify the project via mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid environmental impacts as needed. Adopting a DDA early in the process with the Term Sheet (as called for in CFP’s proposed ENA amendment) turns this process on its head and may trigger the need for environmental review at this early stage or leave the project vulnerable to litigation.
The proposed amendment also requires that the LRA’s Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) agreement with the U.S. Navy contain terms and conditions consistent with the early-stage “outline” DDA. This will be difficult to accomplish as the Navy has previously expressed a desire to see a near final version of the project’s pro- forma (financial plan) based on the final consideration drafts of the Specific Plan and EIR. It is at that point, well after the early-stage “outline” DDA as requested by CFP, that the Navy expects to enter into an agreement reflecting the payment(s) the LRA will make to the Navy regarding property transfer.
The Navy has carefully expressed no legal objection to a “binding agreement.” However, Navy staff informed LRA team that the early-stage “outline” DDA model has
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
not been used by any other base closure community. The Navy has also expressed concern with any provisions or changes to process that could cause delays to, or interfere with, the Navy’s ultimate conveyance of the property.
Reimbursement of Costs
CFP estimates spending approximately $15 million in preparing the Specific Plan, EIR and covering City/LRA staff and consultant costs. The proposed ENA amendment would require the LRA to reimburse CFP’s Third Party Material costs if, after a denial of their Specific Plan and EIR, a new developer or the city uses the materials in a future development.10
Such a reimbursement provision will be complicated to administer. The Area Plan and basic project infrastructure plans, adopted in 2012, were developed by using public funds and serve as the conceptual blueprint for development of the CNWS property. As a result, most if not all project plans will necessarily be derivative of those publicly paid for materials. Lennar and its consultants relied on those materials when refining project infrastructure and design (2017-2019) and Lennar’s materials are available for CFP to reference. As a result, it will be a complex exercise to identify whether and to what extent CFP plans are derivative of these earlier documents. Further, it would be difficult to allocate dollar values to “original” CFP efforts, or discern whether future use of Third Party Materials would trigger CFP reimbursement. For these reasons, the proposed reimbursement requirement could lead to litigation and impede the City’s ability to move forward toward redevelopment.
Alternatives
Staff provides the following alternative actions for City Council consideration:
1. Deny the requested ENA amendment (staff recommendation) and:
a. Confirm the existing negotiation process and timeline, but commit the LRA to considering all elements of the project – EIR, Specific Plan, DDA, DA and other matters – in one action to prevent the possibility that land-use matters are approved without the approval of a DDA or DA. b. Ask CFP representatives if they wish to continue under the existing ENA. c. Extend the existing ENA for 90 days to finish the Term Sheet.
2. Direct staff to negotiate an ENA amendment and:
10 The ENA with previous master developer, Lennar, did not provide for reimbursement, so that when Lennar’s ENA expired in March 2020, they were only refunded the unexpended balance of their deposit account, but were not reimbursed for any costs incurred by them in pursuit of the Specific Plan, EIR or DDA; or for third party materials.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
a. Provide direction to staff on elements to be further negotiated in the proposed ENA amendment:
i. Should the amendment incorporate an enforceable property interest for CFP as part of an early-stage “outline” DDA? ii. Should the amendment include a reimbursement provision? b. Direct staff to negotiate the language of the ENA amendment to achieve the Council’s direction while addressing clarity and defensibility of the amendment and have staff return to City Council for consideration of the negotiated ENA amendment at the June 28, 2022, meeting. c. Extend the existing ENA until June 29, 2022.
Financial Impact
Staff cannot provide details on the financial impact of the CFP proposed ENA amendment. As discussed in the analysis section of this report, staff believes it creates significant financial risks to the LRA and opportunities for future litigation. If such were to occur, or were the LRA required to pay CFP for their Third Party Materials, the impact would be in the millions. Based on CFP’s estimates of their costs for the Specific Plan and EIR, it could total as much as $15 million.
Environmental Determination
Consideration of an amendment to the Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate does not commit the City to a definite course of action with respect to the subject property, and this activity does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065 and/or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 150609(c)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. Even if this activity is a project for CEQA analysis, if falls within the “Common Sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section15061(b)(3) where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The City previously prepared an EIR and addendum for the Reuse Plan and Area Plan, respectively. Appropriate CEQA analysis will occur in connection with formal negotiations for the physical development of the CNWS property.
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted. The staff report and attachments will be available to the City Council/LRA and the public on May 17, 2022. Notification of this meeting and the availability of documents will be sent out to the Reuse Project’s interested parties list on May 17, 2022.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
Attachments
1. ENA Agreement (Negotiation Process) Diagram
2. RFQ Section 3
3. CFP’s Question to the U.S. Navy
4. Letter from Concord First Partners, LLC to Guy Bjerke, Director of Economic Development and Base Reuse (April 27, 2022)
5. Proposed First Amendment to the Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate (May 10, 2022)
Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Concord First Partners ENA Land-use
Plan
Pro-
forma
$$
Term
Sheet
EIR
Specific
Plan
Pro-
forma
$$
DDA/DA
October 2021
180 Days
April 2022
May 2024
24 Months
Clears
Conceptual
Mitigation $
Benefits $
Costs $
Term Sheet and Conceptual documents
provide guidance to the drafting of the
SP , EIR, and DDA/DA, which will
document community benefits.
City/Navy
Payment $
Developer
Profit $
Navy wants to see near final version of
the Pro-forma before agreeing to the
terms of any EDC Agreement.
EDC
Agreement
w/Navy
Legend
ENA – Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Land-use Plan – Uses, sq. ft., units, density
Pro-forma – Financial Plan
Term Sheet – Preliminary Deal Points
EIR – Environmental Impact Report
Specific Plan – Zoning, Design, Infrastructure
DDA – Disposition & Development Agreement
DA – Development Agreement
EDC – Economic Development Conveyance
= City Council/LRA Decisions
March 24, 2022
Attachment 1
City of Concord Concord Naval Weapons Station
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Request for Master Developer Qualifications
| | Page 17
via regional thoroughfares such as Willow Pass Road, Bailey Road, and State Highways 4 and 242 and Interstate 680. Concord is one of only eight cities in the Bay Area with more than one BART station – in addition to the North Concord station immediately adjacent to the Development Footprint, the Concord station in downtown Concord is accessible to the Development Footprint, particularly the southern portion. It is also worth noting that BART is planning for a second transbay rail crossing between Oakland and San Francisco that will increase BART’s transbay capacity (Link21 Campaign
). This wealth of transit supports the
CRP Area Plan’s development vision with a strong emphasis on transit-oriented development.
Military History: At one point, the CNWS was the United States Navy’s primary ammunition port on the Pacific Coast. The Navy’s presence began in 1942, after the United States entered World War II and at that time the naval presence was only comprised of the Tidal Area, which is outside the boundaries of the CNWS.
In 1944 an ammunition detonation destroyed the Tidal Area’s pier and the ships docked there and in so doing killed 320 people, including 200 African American sailors; this was the largest stateside disaster of the war. As a result of the disaster, the Navy purchased the 5,200 acres that would become the Inland Area referred to herein as the CNWS. In addition to the facilities necessary to store explosives and supplies, the Navy also built enlisted and officer military housing, a rail system, and small airfield within the Inland Area.
During the Cold War, the CNWS served as a weapons storage facility and during the Vietnam War it provided support for military efforts in Southeast Asia. While still active for military uses, smaller portions of the site were used for forest research and other environmental research activities. Due to changes in post-Cold War military strategy, the Navy vacated the Inland Area of the CNWS in 1997 and in 2005 the Department of Defense announced that it planned to close the entire Inland Area.
3 Master Developer Responsibilities
This section outlines the LRA’s expectations for the Master Developer’s work in the Development Footprint. Information about financial responsibilities is in Section 3.7.
3.1 Remediation
As explained in Appendix C, Remediation, the Master Developer is not responsible for completing environmental remediation work. Those activities are the responsibility of the U.S. Government. The Master Developer will be responsible for collaborating with the LRA to understand the remediation activities and their potential impacts/risks on development in the form of land use controls or other restrictions on development activities.
Attachment 2
City of Concord Concord Naval Weapons Station
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Request for Master Developer Qualifications
| |
3.2 Property Acquisition
The Master Developer will be expected to participate in two aspects of property acquisition – (a) LRA acquisition of the Development Footprint from the Navy, and (b) Master Developer acquisition of Development Footprint property from the LRA. Both acquisitions will be phased. The negotiation process for LRA acquisition from the Navy is described in Section 2.3. For acquisition from the LRA, the Master Developer will be expected to negotiate terms including price and payment terms, phasing, potential leasing and land take down schedules, all to be set forth in a comprehensive Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).
The Master Developer’s terms documented in the DDA will include performance requirements associated with the phasing of land take-down and development; the Master Developer will need to demonstrate compliance with those requirements to proceed with work on the Project and access the full Development Footprint over time.
3.3 Specific Plan, Design, and Entitlements
The Master Developer will be responsible for conducting market and financial feasibility research and analysis and preparing a Specific Plan consistent with State law. The Specific Plan will be based on the standards and guidelines contained in the CRP Area Plan. The LRA intends to collaborate with the selected Master Developer to establish an approach to completing the process expeditiously.
The Master Developer will be responsible for procuring all land use and regulatory approvals and permits, including any required subsequent or supplemental EIR necessary for implementation of the Project. Entitlement procedures will be a subject of negotiation with the selected Master Developer, but the City is open to expedited procedures consistent with a project of this scale and complexity.
If plans are not consistent with the CRP Area Plan and other parts of the General Plan, the Master Developer will be responsible for preparation and environmental review of a CRP Area Plan amendment and assume risk for changes in the plan.
In addition to the potential risks associated with processing such an amendment locally, the Master Developer should make themselves aware of the risks associated with significant changes to the CRP Area Plan because it serves as the basis for the Navy’s NEPA review of the federal land transfer action, as described in Section 2.2.
3.4 Community Facilities and Improvements
The Master Developer will work with the LRA to establish an acceptable approach to the following community facilities and improvements and documenting those in the Specific Plan or related master plans:
City of Concord Concord Naval Weapons Station
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Request for Master Developer Qualifications
| |
• K-12 schools – Working closely with the Mount Diablo Unified School District. Important issues include location, type and design of schools, which are constrained by existing oil pipelines and current enrollment patterns, phasing, and opportunities for joint development with the CRP Area Plan’s Campus District. The 2010 Reuse Plan EIR estimated the project would need four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. See Appendix D for further details on K-12 schools. • Community centers – Up to two community centers in the Development Footprint, including a library facility, to be operated by the City or jointly with other public agency(ies).
• Veteran’s hall – Land set aside for a Veteran’s facility, accessible to the public in the Development Footprint; Veterans groups to fund construction and operations.
• Tournament Sports Complex – This facility is intended to be sited on land set aside within the Development Footprint (approximately 75 acres according to the CRP Area Plan), with the City leading planning and seeking financing/partners for its implementation, consistent with the Tournament Sports Complex Concept Plan and Feasibility Report .
• Campus District – This would be land set aside within the Development Footprint (approximately 120 acres according to the CRP Area Plan) but separate from the Project. The City will take the lead in planning and seeking an appropriate partner for its implementation, consistent with the findings of the Blue Ribbon Committee
.
• Parks – Greenways, citywide parks, and neighborhood green frame plus district open spaces as described in the CRP Area Plan, in locations to be determined through the Project Specific Plan. Key issue for planning will be to identify how all types of park facilities will be maintained. • Fire stations – Working closely with the Contra Costa Fire District on location and financing of fire stations. The City has engaged in discussions with the Fire District, which anticipates the need for two fire stations to support full buildout of the Development Footprint. The expectation, to be confirmed, is that one station would be located on the County PBC property and the other would be located in the southern part of the Development Footprint.
• Off-site improvements – Including street intersections, other infrastructure, resource mitigation requirements, and regional improvements as a fair share, proportional to the impacts of the Project.
• On-site improvements – Including oversized infrastructure to support later phases of development. This includes the widening of Willow Pass Road and demolition of the Kinne Blvd. bridge at the appropriate time.
City of Concord Concord Naval Weapons Station
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Request for Master Developer Qualifications
| |
• Diablo Creek Golf Course/Evora Road – Significant infrastructure is expected to route through the golf course. Additionally, the CRP Area Plan transportation network includes an extension of Evora Road through the southern portion of the existing golf course, connecting to Port Chicago Highway. The infrastructure and road extension work will impact the golf course and require restoration of the golf course following completion.
• Transit service – The CRP Area Plan envisions a transit-rich community, including frequent transit within the Development Footprint and connecting to BART as well as other destinations. That level of transit service is beyond the level generally provided by County Connection, so an approach to delivering such service consistently will need to be established as part of the Project.
• Commercial land ownership by the City – Set aside up to 16 acres of commercial property to remain in City ownership as a potential future revenue source.
3.5 Community Engagement
The Master Developer must commit to working cooperatively with adjacent property owners, neighborhoods, labor organizations and other local and regional stakeholders in coordination with the LRA as applicable. This includes conducting strategic community meetings, providing meaningful and culturally competent opportunities for community involvement in the overall planning process, creating and maintaining channels for public information, and working with elected and appointed officials and the media.
3.6 Project Financing
The Master Developer will be responsible for devising a financing structure and obtaining financing for all infrastructure upgrades and all elements of vertical development proposed to be undertaken directly by the Master Developer. The Master Developer will be responsible for financing the cost of the Project, including predevelopment and entitlement costs such as design, planning, engineering, legal, environmental and related consulting and professional expenses, as well as development costs such as demolition, grading, site preparation, installation and construction of back-bone infrastructure, including utilities and off-site improvements. The Project must be at least fiscally neutral (and preferably net positive) to the City. This includes demonstrating, for example, that any proposed Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), Community Facilities District (CFD), or similar financing mechanisms will have a neutral impact on the City’s General Fund for both construction and ongoing maintenance.
City of Concord Concord Naval Weapons Station
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Request for Master Developer Qualifications
| |
3.7 Financial and In-Kind Contributions
In addition to development, the Master Developer will be responsible for funding or ensuring the Project can fund both past (sunk) costs and those moving forward related to the following:
• Natural resource permitting – payment for on- and off-site mitigation, including costs associated with procuring site-wide natural resource permits, as described in Appendix E.
• Cultural resource permitting – payment for on-site mitigation, including costs associated with procuring site-wide cultural resource permits, as described in Appendix E.
• LRA operations – payment for the LRA’s operating costs. • Pollution Legal Liability (PLL) insurance – the Master Developer will need to acquire such insurance and name the City as an additional insured party.
The LRA’s costs in these areas up to this point are approximately $15M. The approach to reimbursing the LRA for past expenditures will be a subject of negotiation with the selected Master Developer.
3.8 Project Phasing
The Master Developer will be responsible for working with the LRA to develop an approach to Project phasing that is responsive to the LRA’s needs and the constraints associated with environmental remediation, among other issues, as described in Appendix C. The approach to phasing, including performance requirements, will be documented in the DDA, as discussed in Section 3.2.
3.9 Project Development Schedule
The Master Developer will be responsible for developing detailed schedules for Project planning, design, financing, construction, and maintenance activities. This includes the coordination of all agencies, consultants, architects, engineers, contractors, sub-developers (if applicable), and property management functions.
3.10 Project Construction
The Master Developer will be responsible for the construction and coordination of all necessary off-site and selected on-site improvements, community facilities, including streetscapes, parks, utilities and roads and on-site landscaping and hard- scaping. To the extent the Master Developer intends to undertake vertical construction of certain private improvements, the Master Developer will be responsible for those building cores and shells, fixtures and equipment. The
City of Concord Concord Naval Weapons Station
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Request for Master Developer Qualifications
| |
Master Developer will also be responsible for packaging selected subdivisions, land parcels and/or building pads in the event of development by third party sub- developers or builders, who will be required to comply with all applicable development regulations.
3.11 Construction Labor
The Master Developer will be required to comply with all applicable Concord First policy commitments. For this commitment, local means Concord first, and then Contra Costa County. The City’s Concord First policy commitment for the Project’s construction workforce includes the following:
1. 40% local hire
2. Payment of prevailing wages on all construction to ensure that project build out does not drive down area wage standards
3. Utilization of apprentices from State of California certified joint labor management programs
4. Program to recruit, train, and employ military veterans through the Helmets to Hardhats program or equivalent program
A project labor agreement with the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council which covers vertical and horizontal construction and the items listed above would be presumed to meet this commitment. Such an agreement is not required for submittal of a responsive SOQ, but all Respondents must demonstrate an ability to meet the City’s Concord First construction workforce policy commitment by including a written Concord First construction workforce plan and showing how that plan will be effective in achieving the items listed above. In addition, Respondents shall explain how they intend to maximize development opportunities for local firms and purchases of construction materials from local businesses.
3.12 Participation by Small and Local Businesses
The Master Developer is encouraged to team with qualified small businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises and create opportunities for Concord-based employers, resident workers, and developers who may participate in vertical construction and business opportunities within the Project.
3.13 Interim Property Maintenance and Operations
As property is transferred or leased to the LRA by the Navy prior to implementation of the Project, the Master Developer will assume responsibility for maintenance and coordination of security with the Concord Police Department. The LRA and Master Developer will collaborate on establishing
City of Concord Concord Naval Weapons Station
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Request for Master Developer Qualifications
| |
appropriate interim activities, including potentially extending the current use of the Development Footprint by GoMentum Station for connected and automated vehicle technology testing. Any interim uses will need to be, at a minimum, fiscally neutral to the LRA.
3.14 Sustainability
The Master Developer will develop flexible and innovative infrastructure that meets or exceeds the CRP Area Plan’s climate action goals (detailed in Area Plan
Book Three) and can evolve with technology and market demand. State of California regulations have advanced significantly since the CRP Area Plan was adopted in 2012 – where those regulations exceed the requirements set out in Book Three, the LRA expects the Master Developer to demonstrate a strong commitment to sustainability reflecting current best practices.
3.15 Affordable Housing
While the City has determined that the SLA is preempted by BRAC at least with respect to Economic Development Conveyances (See Section 1.5), the City nevertheless desires to ensure that the Development Footprint and Project are consistent with the “exempt surplus land” definition under SLA section 54221(f)(1)(F)(ii). Accordingly, the Master Developer will be expected to deed restrict and contribute development ready pads to support development of affordable housing with at least 25 percent of the residential units affordable to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, with an affordable sales price or an affordable rent, as defined in Sections 50052.5 or 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for a minimum of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing.
The resolution adopted by Concord City Council sitting as the LRA on January 24, 2012, calls for a total of 3,020 units affordable to lower income households, or about 25% of the Project’s overall number of units. The resolution is reflective of the broad support and consensus of local and regional housing advocates to accommodate a diverse range of affordability levels and demographics. The resolution is flexible in terms of how this commitment can be achieved. It indicates most affordable units should be in dense (25+ units per acre), stand- alone projects built by non-profit affordable housing developers. Other units may be provided as “inclusionary” units within larger market-rate developments. The City does not have a set proportion of units that must be rental versus ownership housing or in stand-alone affordable projects versus inclusionary units. If self-help housing, such as that provided by Habitat for Humanity, is developed, those units would count toward the total.
Of the total number of affordable units, up to 260 units of multifamily transitional housing (but not fewer than 130 units) for homeless persons will be developed on the land set aside through the Legally Binding Agreement described in Section
City of Concord Concord Naval Weapons Station
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Request for Master Developer Qualifications
| |
2.3.3 above. Homeless housing and affordable housing commitments will be phased in over the life of what is expected to be up to a 30-year Project, as a portion of each development phase. Construction of affordable housing does not have to start (with issuance of building permits) until 200 units of market rate housing have been constructed.
3.16 Coordination with Other Public Agencies
The Master Developer will need to work with the LRA and regional agencies to implement the CRP Area Plan, establish appropriate site zoning, and coordinate infrastructure development. The Master Developer will need to closely coordinate with the LRA and State/federal resource management agencies to support City-led efforts to complete and implement natural and cultural resource permitting, as described in Appendix E.
3.17 Potential Incentives
Without the former State system of redevelopment, the LRA is highly constrained in its ability to provide any financial incentives to support implementation of the Project. Nevertheless, the LRA is willing to consider and/or pursue, in collaboration with the Master Developer, other forms of local, State and/or federal financial assistance that may further the CRP Area Plan goals and objectives. 4 RFQ Clarifications
Respondents who submit an SOQ must make themselves fully informed regarding all circumstances, information, laws and any other matters that might in any way affect the Respondent’s roles and responsibilities in the Project. Any failure to become fully knowledgeable of all matters that might, in any way, affect the Project will be at the Respondent’s sole risk. The LRA assumes no responsibility for any actions taken by Respondents on the basis of information provided in this RFQ or through any other sources.
Any requests for questions or clarifications must be submitted via the LRA’s administrative contact Israel Mora ([email protected] ), by May 14.
There will be a mandatory (for Lead Developers) Pre-Response Conference held via Zoom on May 4 at 10am. A representative of each Lead Developer must attend. Respondents must e-mail the City’s Local Reuse Authority administrative contact (Israel Mora) at [email protected] to receive a link by 3pm on May 3, 2021, including their full name, job title, company name, and indication of whether they are considering a Lead Developer role or not. A Zoom link will be emailed to those that sign up.
4891-0538-6004.2
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION AND/OR WORK PRODUCT
4/6/2022
CITY/CONCORD FIRST PARTNERS (CFP)
QUESTION TO THE NAVY
CFP Understanding: Concord First Partners (“CFP”), as the City of Concord (“City”) competitively selected candidate master developer for that portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (“CNWS”) under consideration for transfer to the City pursuant to an EDC (the “Property”) understands that Concord First Partners, LLC:
(i) has no direct relationship with the Navy,
(ii) is not a party to the EDC now being negotiated by and between the Navy and the City, and (iii) has no interest in the Property or any portion of the former CNWS.
Question: CFP seeks at this point in time only to learn whether the Navy has any objection to CFP and the City entering into a binding agreement that defines their business and contractual relationship subject to (i) the City and the Navy successfully negotiating and completing an EDC Agreement for the Property, and (ii) CFP procuring from the City entitlement approvals subject to the City’s discretion.
Attachment 3
April 27, 2022
VIA Email and U.S. Mail
Guy Bjerke – Director – Economic Development and Base Reuse City of Concord Local Reuse Authority
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Mr. Bjerke,
The purpose of this letter is to convey CFP’s thoughts on where things stand with the CNWS project to date. The principals of CFP remain closely attuned to the work being completed by CFP (as facilitated by Jeb Elmore) and the LRA. CFP is pleased with the framework land plan put together by the team, as well as the community and stakeholder engagement at this early stage in the process. We are proud to be moving things along much more quickly than in past efforts.
CFP and its consultants have worked tirelessly on the project financial analysis that was completed and submitted to the City over the past few months. We took a realistic and pragmatic approach to assessing this project and the many obligations tied to the land, all of which are essential to negotiate a term sheet and to proceed with the entitlement and eventual development of this property. But, as previously conveyed to you and the LRA, the financial analysis has revealed that the culmination of massive infrastructure costs, strictly assigned land uses outlined in the Reuse Plan, and the substantial environmental mitigation requirements, all cause the project to be impracticable (from an investment standpoint) when considering a project that includes important community benefits such as a PLA and the affordable housing obligations.
We have re-examined our assumptions over and over. We are applying actual construction costs based upon our knowledge of the area. We continue to stress test and consider and offer creative and aggressive assumptions and ideas in order to demonstrate what we believe would be a realistic investment return. The conclusion is that the project, as we have analyzed it in its current form, does not work for any responsible development entity.
At this juncture, CFP’s concern is that your response to the above is, in short, “The analysis and documents submitted are not acceptable. CFP needs to redo the analysis and present something to the DocuSign Envelope ID: 563DF609-03FB-4608-A153-ABDB042AA5EB
LRA that shows an acceptable investment return and also demonstrate what contributions CFP is going to make to the City. Once the revised submittal and analysis is completed, the term sheet can be negotiated”. This request is very concerning to CFP because it is abandoning the core concept of financial feasibility while asking our partnership to essentially solve over a decade’s worth of presented challenges in 6+- months by using assumptions or assessments that may not be accurate or possible, which we simply cannot and will not do and we assume the LRA doesn’t want us to do either. We all want a true understanding of the project feasibility.
Our partnership was fully aware that this project is challenging when we submitted our response to the RFQ. Given its collective experience on similar base reuse projects, and projects within Concord and surrounding areas, CFP knew the challenges probably better than most. Now that we have had the opportunity to more closely analyze the assumptions and corresponding numbers, we now have a better understanding why previous developer groups walked away and why the response to the latest RFQ was limited to only 3 proposals. The good news for the LRA is that the CFP’s partners are experienced problem solvers. Furthermore, we are not publicly held companies beholden to shareholders and Wall Street, who’s objective, personnel, vision, focus and leadership can change on a dime. CFP is Main Street, and is here, committed, focused and ready to expend resources and partner with the LRA to make this long-awaited project a reality. The LRA is working with the owners and senior leadership of CFP and its partners.
In order to achieve a successful outcome, CFP and the LRA need to start solving things together. We don’t have an obvious and easy solution that is going to miraculously show a sensible investment return while also guaranteeing certain land uses and millions upon millions in desired contributions and exactions. What we do have though is arguably the best planning, civil, environmental, financial and legal consultants in the business ready to continue to work on this project with the LRA to strategically and methodically analyze, and where appropriate, adjust the plan and requirements in order for this to make sense as much as possible for all entities. CFP is committed to funding the critical work that needs to be done to get to a point where this can make sense. Every entity is not going to get everything they want, as such is not possible. However, with hard work, negotiation and compromise through our “one vision, one project, one team” vision, CFP knows a world class project can be envisioned, planned and developed over time.
There are many tools in the toolbox that we need to start exploring, using and collaborating with the LRA to implement:
1. Infrastructure Funding Programs – e.g. IBANK, HCD, state/federal grants, BBB grants, etc.
2. Innovation/transitional/flexible zoning – areas of the project could have a near term use that would transform over time.
3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) – there are many ways to provide affordable housing that address RHNA numbers CFP believes there are innovative ways to achieve the 25% affordable and meet RHNA requirements
4. Private/public partnerships
5. Inventive housing finance options – AFL-CIO HIT, pension funds, tax credits, etc.
6. Specialized Financing Programs/Districts – Tax-Increment Financing, Facility Districts, Assessment Districts
CFP feels that we are not entirely on the same page with the LRA at this point. That should not be the case as it is not in the best interests of the community. The only path to success will be through a partnership where CFP and the LRA solve things together to unlock the enormous potential of this land. CFP has the financial wherewithal, intestinal fortitude, knowledge, resources, and track record that DocuSign Envelope ID: 563DF609-03FB-4608-A153-ABDB042AA5EB
should make the LRA, the Navy and the community confident that together, as a partner, we can create a project that works for all parties and truly benefits the community.
Our partnership has said from the outset that we are going to be honest, straightforward and transparent with you and the City; and that is what Jeb Elmore has done in every meeting and every submittal that has been made. Again, based on the above, CFP needs time to further massage the plan and address how we can best meet the desires of the LRA and the community and then start making the tough decisions and necessary modifications. We believe that with an earnest commitment from you and the LRA to partner with us, and keep an open mind, we will accomplish entitlement and development of this land in a way that maximizes the LRA’s vision and benefits to the community.
Right now, our focused request for the May 24th, 2022 hearing is to see if the City Council will agree to the proposed amendment to the ENA that incorporates the ability for CFP to acquire land in a phased manner, only in the event the City ultimately, and at its full discretion, approves the Specific Plan and CEQA. CFP needs this amendment approved by the City Council in order to continue to proceed past May 24th, 2022 to justify the expenditure of the millions of dollars necessary to analyze and process a Specific Plan and to conduct CEQA review. CFP and the City recently confirmed together with the Navy that there is nothing illegal or improper with this approach. We also understand that the Navy is growing impatient and we understand the LRA is as well. CFP has been meeting with elected Regional, State and Federal officials and they are all excited about this project moving forward and have expressed their desire to help and ensure things proceed as expeditiously as possible. If the amendment to the ENA is approved on May 24, 2022, CFP will do anything and everything in our power to move the processing of this project along so that the LRA may finalize the EDC with the Navy.
In the interim let’s continue to work together with LRA staff to refine the land plan, refine the financial analysis and problem solve. We believe one of the biggest things to focus on is how we can get funding (State, Federal, etc.) to help with the massive up front infrastructure costs. This week we are modeling some financial assumptions that we will provide to the LRA that will help the economic viability of the project in the event we are successful together in procuring outside non-private funding to assist in getting this project off the ground.
Thank you Guy and we look forward to working together as a partner with the LRA.
_______________________
Albert Seeno III - Principal
Concord First Partners, LLC
_______________________
Richard Lewis- Principal
Concord First Partners, LLC
_______________________
Phil Tagami - Principal
Concord First Partners, LLC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 563DF609-03FB-4608-A153-ABDB042AA5EB
Cc: Mayor Aliano and Members of the City Council
Valerie Barone – City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 563DF609-03FB-4608-A153-ABDB042AA5EB
May 10, 2022
1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT TO NEGOTIATE
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT TO NEGOTIATE (“Amendment”), dated for reference purposes as of May_____, 2022, and is entered into by and between the CITY OF CONCORD, a California municipal corporation in its capacity as local reuse authority for the Concord Naval Weapons Station ( “City”), and CONCORD FIRST PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”) and amends that certain Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate between City and Developer dated October 26, 2021 (the “Agreement”). Unless otherwise defined in this Amendment, all capitalized terms shall have the same meaning given those terms in the Agreement.
RECITALS
A. City and Developer have been working in good faith to complete their negotiation of a mutually acceptable Term Sheet to present to the City Council (“Council”) for consideration and potential approval during the Preliminary Stage. The initial 180-day period of the Preliminary Stage, including a thirty (30) day extension provided by the City Manager per Section 3.3 of this Agreement, expires May 25, 2022. The Preliminary Stage shall be extended until the date which is ninety (90) days after Council’s approval of this Amendment to complete negotiation of the Term Sheet as set forth in this Amendment.
B. Developer is now requesting that the DDA Stage commence upon Council’s approval of this Amendment, that the Term Sheet and DDA be presented to the Council for approval together, and that the DDA be extended for a total period of thirty -six (36) months and segmented into two (2) phases as set forth in this Amendment.
C. Phase 1 of the DDA Stage shall be the initial three (3) months of the DDA Stage , commencing upon the Council’s approval of this Amendment. During Phase 1, City and Developer will (i) complete their negotiation of the Term Sheet and negotiate the DDA, (ii) present the Term Sheet and DDA to Council for approval, and after Council approval, execute the DDA.
The DDA s hall provide Developer with the right to purchase the Development Footprint in phases (the “Developer Purchase Right”), provided that certain pre -closing conditions are timely satisfied (the “ Closing Conditions ”) which will include (i) Developer’s preparation and processing of complete applications for Project Approvals and its performance and satisfaction of certain pre-closing Project Approval milestones as generally identified in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “ Entitlement Milestones ”), (ii) Council approval , in its sole discretion, of the Project Approvals (including all CEQA approvals and a vested rights development agreement (the “ Development Agreement ”)) pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 to 65869.5, (iii) the execution by City and Navy of an agreement which provides for the City’s acquisition of the Development Footprint on terms and conditions which are consistent with the Developer Purchase Right (the “Navy/City Conveyance Agreement ”) and (iv) any other pre-closing requirements set forth in the Term Sheet.
Attachment 5
May 10, 2022
2 D. Phase 2 of the DDA Stage shall be the remaining thirty -three (33) months of the DDA Stage during which period Developer shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to satisfy, and cooperate with City and the Navy to satisfy , all of the Closing Conditions. Without limiting the foregoing, the Parties intend that all re quirements and obligations of Developer that are to be performed after each phased purchase of the Development Footprint will be included in the Development Agreement instead of the DDA.
E. City acknowledges that Developer requires the DDA be executed within the initial three (3) months of the DDA Stage to provide Developer with an enforceable right to purchase the Development Footprint in phases before Developer incurs the significant costs, estimated to be in excess of $15,000,000, which are necessary to prepare, process, and obtain Council approval of the Project Approvals and the Navy/City Conveyance Agreement and to satisfy all of the other Closing Conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Developer hereby mutually agree to amend the Agreement as follows:
1. Preliminary Stage. The Preliminary Stage is extended from May 25, 2022, until the date which is ninety (90) days after Council’s approval of this Amendment.
2. DDA Stage. Section 3.2(a) of the Agreement is amended (i) to extend the term of the DDA Stage to thirty -six (36) months , (ii) to commence the DDA Stage upon Council’s approval of this Amendment , and (iii) to delete all requirements that the Parties reach final agreement on the Term Sheet and that Council approve the Term Sheet before commencement of the DDA Stage.
Section 3.2 of the Agreement is further amended by adding the following thereto:
“(c) City staff and Developer shall use their best efforts to (i) negotiate and reach agreement on the final form of the Term Sheet, (ii) negotiate and reach agreement on the DDA, with terms and conditions materially and substantially consistent with the approved Term Sheet, and (iii) submit the Term Sheet and DDA to the Council for approval, in its sole discretion, all within three (3) months after Council approval of this Amendment (the “DDA Stage -Phase 1”). The DDA shall only include terms and conditions reasonably necessary to provide Developer with the Developer Purchase Right and shall include the Closing Conditions and all requirements of Developer and City related thereto in the Term Sheet. The City Manager shall have the right to extend the term of the DDA Stage -Phase 1 for up to an additional ninety (90) days without the need for further Council approval.
All terms and cond itions related to the post -closing use and development of the Development Footprint by Developer and City shall be contained in the Development Agreement not the DDA. If Council approval of the DDA does not occur before expiration of the DDA Stage -Phase 1, then unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties, the Agreement shall terminate and the terms of Section 13 of this Agreement shall apply. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
May 10, 2022
3 Agreement, u ntil Council approval of the DDA, all costs incurred by the City under this Section 3.2(c) shall be City DDA Costs funded by Developer in accordance with Section 6 of this Agreement. The Developer shall not be required to commence any work on, or pay any costs of, the Project Approvals or other costs required to satisfy the Closing Conditions, including any City CNWS Project Costs, until the Council approves and executes the DDA.
After Council approval and execution of the DDA, and during the remaining thirty-three (33) months of the DDA Stage (the “ DDA Stage -Phase 2 ”), Developer shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to satisfy, and to cooperate with City and the Navy to satisfy, all of the Closing Conditions in accordance with the DDA and the Term Sheet . If Developer fails to diligently proc ess the Project Approvals and/or diligently seek to satisfy the Entitlement Milestones, or otherwise fails to use its commercially reasonable efforts to cause the Closing Conditions to be satisfied, then City may terminate the DDA if this default is not cured by Developer in accordance with Section 9.1 of the Agreement. If the Council approves and executes the DDA within the DDA Stage -Phase 1 but then fails to approve the Project Approvals (including the Development Agreement) by expiration of the DDA Stage-Phase 2, the City may terminate the DDA; provided if City, following such denial of the Project Approvals and termination of the DDA for reasons other than a Developer default under the DDA , later uses any of the Third Party Materials , funded by Developer , in connection with any future development or proposed development of the Development Footprint or other portion of the CRP Area as permitted in Section 10 of the Agreement by another developer or developers, then Developer shall receive a reimbursement of the costs paid by Developer for the Third Party Materials (the “ Developer Reimbursement”). The Developer Reimbursement shall be due and payable to Developer by City within thirty (30) days after the commencement by City or any third p arty (other than the Navy) of any construction on the Development Footprint.
All of the terms and conditions of this Agreement that are applicable to the DDA Stage-Phase 2 shall be incorporated into the DDA and made a part thereof and this Agreement shall terminate upon execution of the DDA.”
3. Miscellaneous. This First Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts. If so executed, each of such counterparts is to be deemed an original for all purposes, and all such counterparts shall, collectively, constitute one agreement. Except as amended hereby, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict, the express provisions of this First Amendment shall control and govern as to any inconsistency or contradiction between the provisions of this First Amendment and the provisions of the Agreement.
[All Signatures on Next Page
May 10, 2022
4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this A mendment as of the date first above written.
CITY: DEVELOPER:
CITY OF CONCORD,
a California municipal corporation
CONCORD FIRST PARTNERS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: By:
Name: Valerie Barone Name:
Title: City Manager Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Susanne Brown, City
Attorney
By:
Name:
Title:
May 10, 2022
5 EXHIBIT A
ENTITLEMENT MILESTONES
Deposit and Reimbursement Agreement (“DRA”): Complete and execute by July 31, 2022.
DRA to provide for the payment of City's internal, third party and consultant costs in connection with the review and processing of Developer's Specific Plan, Development Agreement, CEQA compliance, interim lease agreements, land use entitlement and permit applications, including applications for federal, state and other regulatory agencies, and the LRA project management costs to complete the transfer process from the Navy and associated activities.
Term Sheet: Complete and execute, after Council approval, within ninety (90) days after Council’s approval of the ENA Amendment
DDA: Complete and execute , after Council approval, within ninety (90) days after Council’s approval of the ENA Amendment
The DDA shall include terms and conditions necessary for (i) the purchase and sale of the Development Footprint, (ii) the preparation and processing of complete applications for Project Approvals, (iii) completion by Developer and/or City of all pre-closing Entitlement Milestones, and (iv) the satisfaction of all other Closing Conditions.
Specific Plan: Complete draft specific plan and submit to City Staff by January 31, 2023.
Project EIR: Developer to cause the initiation of, and funding of, a Draft EIR, by July 2023.
Development Agreement (Stage 2): Commence negotiations July 2023,
Development Agreement to include all Developer post -closing obligations for development of the Development Footprint and meet the requirements of Article 2.5 of Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7, Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code to grant Developer the vested right to develop the Development Footprint in accordance with the Entitlements approved by the City.
Community Outreach Meetings: Commence July 2022, held quarterly.
Project Review Meetings w/ City: Commence June 2022, held bi-monthly.
From: jimwolpman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 10:07 AM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b council meeting 5/24/22
If
experience teaches anything, it’s DON’T TRUST THE SEENOS Ji
m & Barbara Wolpman
Walnut Creek
Se
nt from my iPad
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 4.b
May 24, 2022
From: Kathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 9:47 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Dominic Aliano <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <Edi.Birsan@cityofconc ord.org>; McGallian, Tim <Tim.McGallian@c ityofconcord.org>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Concord City Council <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org>
Subject: Seeno CNWS 5/24/22 Council meeting
To: Concord City Council Members, Guy Bjerke, City Clerk and Concord City Staff
It’s time to listen to your constituents, the residents of Concord.
From day one on this project, it’s clear to residents there has been another agenda. From decisions on a larger footprint and more development railroaded thru in previous years, to out of city union workers, out of county and even out of state retired union workers flooding meetings with comments, residents wishes have been ignored.
Lennar made it clear that with a PLA (including multiple unions added after they agreed to a lesser amount of unions in their original negotiations) this project was not financially feasible.
Residents were shocked to learn that City Council would even consider, then choose Seeno! Since this project began in 2005 residents involved in planning were told on several occasions that the Seeno Company would never be involved – they could never afford this massive project financially, nor could they achieve the “world class” outcome residents sought.
$14 million has already been spent on this project. For the record, your Concord constituents are asking you AGAIN “Do not set up Concord taxpayers with a developer that cannot afford this project, resulting in more taxes and lawsuits that current and future residents will be asked to pay!” Do not extend negotiations with the Seeno Company! Work with an experienced national developer such as Brookfield.
Please include this email in the minutes of the 5/24/22 City Council meeting.
Kathy Gleason
Co-founder
CNWS Neighborhood Alliance
Sent from Mail f
or Windows
From: Robyn Scherr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 9:36 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 5/24/22 council meeting, item 4b
Dear Mayor, city council members, and city staff,
I’ve read CFP’s letter to the council, and it’s clear to me that the Seeno group is attempting to reneg on the assurances they provided to the council and our community.
Those assurances were the stated reason that the council voted to grand CFP an ENA, and if those community benefits and basic agreements on how the development is meant to proceed aren’t honored, that’s a breach of trust that can’t be fixed. CFP should be made very aware of that.
I encourage the council to direct city staff to negotiate amendments to the ENA that ensure our community receives the benefits that CFP assured all of us they could and would provide.
If CFP doesn’t intend to honor those commitments, they shouldn’t move forward with any part of the project. You’ll remember that the other two developers vying for the project agreed to all of those same benefits and terms (including project labor agreements, open space, and affordable housing); what our community expects is reasonable and completely doable.
Since CFP’s letter is so far from what they promised, I ask that council oversee city staff in these negotiations for an amended ENA.
I look forward to this project moving forward with a development partner that keeps their word, and I hope CFP can be brought to their senses. This community deserves better than the shenanigans they’re pulling.
Thank you,
Robyn Scherr
Concord
From: Rand Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 8:37 AM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Concord City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22
Dear Ms. Obringer Et al.,
Last year, Concord community members cautioned the City Council that any Seeno-related company as Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would be a costly and detrimental mistake. Now, ten months later, Concord First Partners (a Seeno-related company) is proving that point. They are requesting changes to the basic terms; they are asking for financial reimbursement if the deal fails; they are requesting property rights to the land before any agreements are made.
These requests and their past practices should be the only grounds you need to reject Seeno as a development partner: they are uncooperative, unethical, and litigious.
The people of Concord need to keep all the commitments and public benefits that were mapped out prior to the Seeno decision. Don’t break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated the commitments and benefits over the past 15 years.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested changes on May 24th.
Simply put: If Seeno can’t build the plan that the community developed and that the Concord City Council adopted, they shouldn’t be the Master Developer.
The people of Concord need all the things the development project has to offer. No deal is better than a bad deal. Let Seeno walk away. Ask them to walk away.
Sincerely,
Rand Smith
Concord Resident
District 2
From: allan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Cityinfo <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno…
It sure looks like things are “going South…”
… and I can’t help but think: “You we’re warned.”
Like the scorpion told the frog…
--
allan
[email protected]
Sent from an ÆtheroTron.
From: Marianne baldetti <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 3:04:51 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]> ; Concord City Council <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <cit [email protected] >
Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Say NO to Seeno
Dear
Council Member Birsan,
Last year at the City Council meeting, you wrongfully expressed no concern nor asked any probing questions about the Seeno proposed development of the Naval Weapons Station. Basically, you rubber- stamped the deal. No surprise when Seeno is such a powerful developer and campaign contributor.
But you still have the opportunity to redeem your record by opposing the current proposed changes to the development plan agreed upon by the City of Concord after 15 years of negotiations.
I urge you to have a backbone and just say NO to Seeno and his powerful political and legal henchmen.
This vast parcel of land needs to be developed in a conscientious manner to benefit ourselves and generations to come. Be a part of that; do not allow the same environmentally adverse and subpar workmanship Seeno has demonstrated time and again in other communities throughout the Bay Area.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested adverse changes on May 24th.
No deal is better than a bad deal.
Sincerely,
Marianne Simoni
Concord Resident
(District 4))
From: Hein, Claudia <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 4:26 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord City Council Meeting May 24, 2022 Agenda Item 4b - Considering Amendment and Extension to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Concord City Council members and staff,
The process for producing the reuse plan for the Concord Naval Weapons Station has been a model for community involvement for a very long time. As members of the two Community Advisory Committees and attendees of many of the workshops held during the planning process, we were witness to the engagement of the community and the focus on making Concord a better place to live, work, and play. The overarching project goals, that were agreed to by the community and the city council, need to be upheld and should not be compromised by developers that have only their own short-sighted interests in mind. The city of Concord needs a trustworthy and reliable partner to the many stakeholders and the community at large. The request to extend the deadline and amend the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement shows that the current chosen master developers are not trustworthy and are not good partners. They make a lot of promises but are not able to follow through and if they don't get their way they sue. We should not prematurely grant the developers the right or option to the CNWS property. This is a critically important and transformational project for our city and the region. Show that you have the interests of the community, you say you represent, in mind and deny the extension and amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement!
--
Scott and Claudia Hein
Concord residents since 1988
Members of Community Advisory Committees
From: Marianne baldetti <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 3:08 PM
To: McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>; Concord City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Say NO to Seeno
Dear Council Member McGallian,
Last year at the City Council meeting, you wrongfully expressed no concern nor asked any probing questions about the Seeno proposed development of the Naval Weapons Station. Basically, you rubber- stamped the deal. No surprise when Seeno is such a powerful developer and campaign contributor.
But you still have the opportunity to redeem your record by opposing the current proposed changes to the development plan agreed upon by the City of Concord after 15 years of negotiations.
I urge you to have a backbone and just say NO to Seeno and his powerful political and legal henchmen.
This vast parcel of land needs to be developed in a conscientious manner to benefit ourselves and generations to come. Be a part of that; do not allow the same environmentally adverse and subpar workmanship Seeno has demonstrated time and again in other communities throughout the Bay Area.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested adverse changes on May 24th.
No deal is better than a bad deal.
Sincerely,
Marianne Simoni
Concord Resident
(District 4))
From: Tina Segrove <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 11:38 AM
To: McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Cc: Concord City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Say NO to Seeno
Last year, Concord community members cautioned the City Council that any Seeno- related company as Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would be a costly and detrimental mistake. Now, ten months later, Concord First Partners (a Seeno-related company) is proving us right. They are requesting changes to the basic terms; they are asking for financial reimbursement if the deal fails; they are requesting property rights to the land before any agreements are made. They know they cannot deliver on the project as outlined.
These requests and their past practices should be the only grounds you need to reject Seeno as a development partner: they are uncooperative, unethical, and litigious.
We need to keep all the commitments and public benefits that were mapped out prior to the Seeno decision. Don’t break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated the commitments and benefits over the past 15 years.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested changes on May 24th.
Simply put: If Seeno can’t build the plan that the community developed and that the Concord City Council adopted, they shouldn’t be the Master Developer.
We need all the things the development project has to offer, especially affordable housing. But no deal is better than a bad deal. Let Seeno walk away. Ask them to walk away. Don’t repeat the mistake that three of you made last summer.
Please know my vote follows this issue.
Tina Segrove
Concord Resident, District 5
From: Theresa Coppa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Say NO to Seeno
Last year, Concord community members cautioned the City Council that any Seeno- related company as Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would be a costly and detrimental mistake. Now, ten months later, Concord First Partners (a Seeno-related company) is proving us right. They are requesting changes to the basic terms; they are asking for financial reimbursement if the deal fails; they are requesting property rights to the land before any agreements are made. They know they cannot deliver on the project as outlined.
These requests and their past practices should be the only grounds you need to reject Seeno as a development partner: they are uncooperative, unethical, and litigious.
We need to keep all the commitments and public benefits that were mapped out prior to the Seeno decision. Don’t break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated the commitments and benefits over the past 15 years.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested changes on May 24th.
Simply put: If Seeno can’t build the plan that the community developed and that the Concord City Council adopted, they shouldn’t be the Master Developer.
We need all the things the development project has to offer, especially affordable housing. But no deal is better than a bad deal. Let Seeno walk away. Ask them to walk away. Don’t repeat the mistake that three of you made last summer.
Sincerely,
Theresa Coppa
Concord Resident
District 2
--
Theresa
From: dmarq2 <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 8:37 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno
I would like the council to know that I do not support Seeno's Proposed changes, amendments and demands and ask the council members to vote no on Seeno requests. They are not the people Concord wants to deal with for thr CNWS.
Sincerely,
Dave Marquardson
Concord, Ca.
S ent from my V erizon, S amsung G alaxy smartphone
From: Susan Balestrieri <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 7:28 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Naval weapons station development. No to Seeno
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Susan Balestrieri <[email protected]>
Date : May 22, 2022 at 6:54:33 AM PDT
To: tim.mcgallian@c ityofconcord.org
Subject: Naval we apons station development. No to Seeno Vote no to Seeno as Master Developer of Concord Naval Weapons Station. Too expensive and S
eeno has proven to be working against the interests of Concord. Not to mention given climate change where are you going to find water for anymore homes in Concord!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Angela Kong <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 12:48 AM
To: McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Say NO to Seeno
Last year, Concord community members cautioned the City Council that any Seeno- related company as Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would be a costly and detrimental mistake. Now, ten months later, Concord First Partners (a Seeno-related company) is proving us right. They are requesting changes to the basic terms; they are asking for financial reimbursement if the deal fails; they are requesting property rights to the land before any agreements are made. They know they cannot deliver on the project as outlined.
These requests and their past practices should be the only grounds you need to reject Seeno as a development partner: they are uncooperative, unethical, and litigious.
We need to keep all the commitments and public benefits that were mapped out prior to the Seeno decision. Don’t break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated the commitments and benefits over the past 15 years.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested changes on May 24th.
Simply put: If Seeno can’t build the plan that the community developed and that the Concord City Council adopted, they shouldn’t be the Master Developer.
We need all the things the development project has to offer, especially affordable housing. But no deal is better than a bad deal. Let Seeno walk away. Ask them to walk away. Don’t repeat the mistake that three of you made last summer.
Sincerely,
Angela Kong
Concord Resident
District 5
From: Perry Hendricks <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 8:39 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 4b
I am writing in order to provide comment on Agenda Item 4b ( A request to Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate). The City councils needs to deny this request. The Concord First Partners LLC would gain additional leverage over the City with no benefit to the community.
The sole purpose of this request is for the developer to gain autonomy in order to maximize profits without providing real benefit to the community in which they are impacting. Seeno Builders have attempted to hide this name through alternative corporations and have shown themselves as not being good stewards. I request the Council look at the big picture and not just the funding. When developers are able to seize additional power the City and community are at their mercy no matter what discussions they may have prior to an agreement being made. The CIty and Council need to vote against this proposal.
--
Perry Hendricks
[email protected]
From: David Slaby <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 12:08 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: No to Seeno
RE: Agenta item 4b.
Given the abominable environmental record of Seeno related companies and other shady dealings, I respectfully request that Seeno be removed as Master Developer from the Naval Weapons Station project.
Sincerely.
David Slaby
Concord, CA. 94521
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 2:54 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda item 4b on the Council's May 24, 2022 calendar
Dear Council members,
Regarding Agenda item 4b on the Council’s May 24, 2022 calendar, extend the time under the ENA to negotiate with Concord First Partners, LLC (“CFP”). Do NOT amend the ENA to grant CFP any enforceable right in the CNWS property.
Given the Council’s requirements for the project (e.g., only union labor, 25% affordable housing), the Council should have included developers in the process of setting those requirements. P articularly in these challenging economic times, a project must pencil out, or it will not be built.
Yours very truly,
Robert J. Hooy
Concord, CA 94521
From: Megan Madahar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 3:28 PM
To: McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Concord City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Say NO to Seeno
Council Member Tim McGallian,
Don’t repeat the mistake that you, Dominic Aliano and Edi Birsan made last summer. Concord community members cautioned the City Council that any Seeno- related company as Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would be a costly and detrimental mistake. Now, ten months later, Concord First Partners (a Seeno-related company) is proving us right. They are requesting changes to the basic terms; they are asking for financial reimbursement if the deal fails; they are requesting property rights to the land before any agreements are made. They know they cannot deliver on the project as outlined.
These requests and their past practices should be the only grounds you need to reject Seeno as a development partner: they are uncooperative, unethical, and litigious.
We need to keep all the commitments and public benefits that were mapped out prior to the Seeno decision. Don’t break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated the commitments and benefits over the past 15 years.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested changes on May 24th.
Simply put: If Seeno can’t build the plan that the community developed and that the Concord City Council adopted, they shouldn’t be the Master Developer.
We need all the things the development project has to offer, especially affordable housing. But no deal is better than a bad deal. Let Seeno walk away. Ask them to walk away.
For more information about why this is a very bad parnership please read the following from Floyd McCluhan with Save Mount Diablo, The Seeno Way— Why the
Seenos Are Bad Community Partners - Save Mount Diablo.
Sincerely,
Megan Madahar
Concord Resident
District 5
From: Andrea Proctor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 Say NO to Seeno
Last year, Concord community members cautioned the City Council that any Seeno- related company as Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would be a costly and detrimental mistake. Now, ten months later, Concord First Partners (a Seeno-related company) is proving us right. They are requesting changes to the basic terms; they are asking for financial reimbursement if the deal fails; they are requesting property rights to the land before any agreements are made. They know they cannot deliver on the project as outlined.
These requests and their past practices should be the only grounds you need to reject Seeno as a development partner: they are uncooperative, unethical, and litigious and have repeatedly shown this to be true.
Concord needs to keep all the commitments and public benefits that were mapped out prior to the Seeno decision. Don’t break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated the commitments and benefits over the past 15 years. Why involve the community in an effort to get out input and then ignore us?
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested changes on May 24th.
Simply put: If Seeno can’t build the plan that the community developed and that the Concord City Council adopted, they shouldn’t be the Master Developer.
We need all the things the development project has to offer, especially affordable housing. But no deal is better than a bad deal. Let Seeno walk away. Ask them to walk away. Don’t repeat the mistake that three of you made last summer.
Sincerely,
Andrea Proctor
Concord Resident
District 5
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 5:53 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: CNWS Issue
Dear City Clerk,
At your council meeting of May 24, 2022 do not give the Seeno organization or any of its affiliates an extension for the Concord Naval Weapons Station development. Their handling of this will cost the city and its taxpayers millions of dollars in cost changes as they have already shown.
Vote no!!!
Regards,
Michael Boele
Mary Boele
Concord, CA 94521
-----Original Message-----
From: nancats <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 5:31 PM
To: [email protected]; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Say no to Seeno!
Please say no to Seeno! We need a developer that will work with the city and the public! The Seeno companies were not even included in the original choices! We worked hard to come up with plan and it needs to be respected.
Thank you.
Nancy Sasser
concord
District 1
Sent from my iPad
From: [email protected] <bwalley44@gma il.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 7:08 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station Development and the Seeno Companies
Council Member Birsan,
At the upcoming City Council meeting, please reject Seeno’s latest proposal and let the ENA lapse. The City of Concord and the residents of Concord do not need this type of a partner in the development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. If allowed to proceed, they will be nothing but trouble, just as they have been in the past. Please let us cut our losses and get a new developer.
If we truly wish to have 25% of the new homes be affordable, we can not afford to limit development to only union labor. Please do what is best for Concord’s residents and the expected new Weapons Station homeowners by not excluding non-union labor.
Thank you.
Bryan Walley
From: East Bay for Everyone <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 10:17 PM
To: Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Jeremy Levine <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose Concord First ENA extension
Hi,
East Bay for Everyone is a network of people fighting for the future of housing, transportation, tenant rights and long term planning in the East Bay. Inclusive Lafayette has similar aims and is focused on the Lamorinda area.
We both oppose the ENA extension, and hope you will vote no tomorrow night. Please see our letter, which I hope you will include in the comment packet tomorrow:
https://eastbayforeveryone.org/wp-c ontent/uploads/2022/05/2022-05- 23-conc ord-nava l-stat ion-
renegotiation.pdf
Thanks very much,
Kevin Burke
From: allan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:09 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Cityinfo <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Seeno…
Thank you.
I would like to point out an ironic parallel…
We all knew what Trump was BEFORE the election and saw him while in office - yet there are STILL those who would select him again.
We KNOW what the Seeno organization is like..
We have seen what they do time and again…
For the Love of God and the sake of our community’s future, DUMP THEM !
No good will come from any association with them.
How much more evidence do you need to see ?!
Allan Woods
Concord, CA
--
allan
[email protected]
Sent from an ÆtheroTron.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kathryn Major <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 09:15:46 AM PDT
Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 -Say NO to Seeno
Dear Mr. McGallian;
I am writing to urge you to please drop Seeno as the Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. This decision has caused angst among anyone I've talked to during the past year and was such an error in judgement by the three council members that voted for this debacle. As of this writing to you, their new terms are proving what a mistake it was. We all know their bad record around the county as well as the many lawsuits that result from their work -not just in developing.
Please, please say NO MORE to Seeno!!
Sincerely,
Kathryn Major
Concord, 94521
From: Woody Karp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:26 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b
Please take to heart the staff recommendation to deny the request for an amendment to the ENA made by Concord First Partners. The cost to the City of Concord is just too great as it would be potentially exposed millions of dollars in reimbursement claims and years of litigation if the CFP unilaterally deems that the project is financially infeasible.
The City of Concord put great faith in CFP's commitment to deliver the project as envisioned and clearly delineated in the RFP. CFP represented in public hearing - repeatedly- that it understood and would adhere to the terms of the RFP. The conditions today are fundamentally the same as they were then, so the terms should be too. The City Council should make sure that the people of Concord truly come first- Please hold CFP to their word.
From: Katherine Luttjohann <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 11:47 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord First request. Agenda item 4B
To Concord Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council members
Every one of you need to understand that if you continue to ignore the wishes of Concord residents in regard to Seeno and the Concord Naval Weapons station development, we will remember you on election day and vote against you in every race in which you run, forever. You should not have selected Concord First as the Master Developer when they refused to disclose financials. Laura and Carlyn should not have changed their No vote to a Yes vote. Even if you are running for an office in a City District in which I am not allowed to vote, I will be supporting your opponent in every way I can.
Vote No to an extension and any concessions requested by Concord First.
Sincerely,
Katherine Dano-Luttjohann
Concord resident
From: Jill Grant <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 11:45 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Agenta item 4b.
Please remove Seeno as Master Developer from the Naval Weapons Station project. This is a company known for corruption and degradation of the environment Please find another developer who will respect the mitigation measures in the CEQA documents.
Sincerely.
J.M. Grant
From: Chris Crecelius <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:41 PM
To: McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Chris Crecelius <[email protected]> Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Say NO NO NO to Seeno
Last year, Concord community members cautioned the City Council that any Seeno- related company as Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would be a costly and detrimental mistake.
Now, ten months later, Concord First Partners (a Seeno-related company) is proving us right. They are requesting changes to the basic terms they initially agreed to!! They are asking for financial reimbursement if the deal fails; they are requesting property rights to the land before any agreements are made. They know they cannot deliver on the project as outlined.
These requests and their past practices should be the only grounds you need to reject Seeno as a development partner: they are uncooperative, unethical, and litigious.
We need to keep all the commitments and public benefits that were mapped out prior to the Seeno decision. Don’t break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated the commitments and benefits over the past 15 years.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested changes on May 24th.
Simply put: If Seeno can’t build the plan that the community developed and that the Concord City Council adopted, they shouldn’t be the Master Developer.
We need all the things the development project has to offer, especially affordable housing. But no deal is better than a bad deal. Let Seeno walk away. Ask them to walk away.
Sincerely,
Christine and Robert Crecelius
Concord Resident
District 5
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:46 PM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Reject the amendment
I am writing to urge you to follow the recommendation of city staff and reject CFP's proposed amendment. CFP's requests are perfect examples of why they should never have been selected in the first place. Seeno has a history of unethical and dishonest business practices. You cannot agree to make the city financially responsible for Seeno's failure or blindly grant them rights to the property.
If Seeno can't follow through with the plan as it has been developed and adopted, then they should not be the Master Developer. Please reject the proposed amendment.
Sincerely,
Pamela Mitchell
Concord Resident, District 1
From: elizabeth bronson <pad4lizfnp@gma il.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 1:05 PM
To: McGallian, Tim <Tim.McGallian@c ityofconc ord.org>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: item 4b , May 24, 2002 city council meeting
May 23,2022
Dear Councilmember McGallian,
I sincerely hope you will vote no to Seeno groups outrageous requests regarding the Concord Naval Weapons Station. I was deeply disappointed that you voted them to be the group to work with Concord on this redevelopment despite the strong public opinion against them. I hope you will now see how very entitled they are and realize they are not what Concord citizens want or need to make Concord more affordable, more inclusive, a city that treats workers with respect and works with labor unions for fair work practices, and a city that values and respects the environment.
I urge you to reject the proposal they have presented and let the ENA lapse.
Thank you.
Very Sincerely ,
Elizabeth Bronson
Concord Ambassador Board Member
District Five
From: Linda McChesney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 1:54 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b Council Meeting 5/24/22 - Say NO to Seeno
Last year, Concord community members cautioned the City Council that any Seeno-related company as Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would be a costly and detrimental mistake. Now, ten months later, Concord First Partners (a Seeno-related company) is proving us right. They are requesting changes to the basic terms; they are asking for financial reimbursement if the deal fails; they are requesting property rights to the land before any agreements are made. They know they cannot deliver on the project as outlined.
These requests and their past practices should be the only grounds you need to reject Seeno as a development partner: they are uncooperative, unethical, and litigious.
We need to keep all the commitments and public benefits that were mapped out prior to the Seeno decision. Don’t break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated the commitments and benefits over the past 15 years.
Please reject Seeno’s proposal and their requested changes on May 24th.
Simply put: If Seeno can’t build the plan that the community developed and that the Concord City Council adopted, they shouldn’t be the Master Develop er.
We need all the things the development project has to offer, especially affordable housing. But no deal is better than a bad deal. Let Seeno walk away. Ask them to walk away. Don’t repeat the mistake that three of you made last summer.
Sincerely,
Richard McChesney
Concord Resident
District 1
-----Original Message-----
From: mary kobayashi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 5:16 AM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Concord First Partners
Dear Mayor Aliano and Council Members:
Tonight is a historic night in which we citizens of Concord are hopeful you stand your ground by accepting staff’s report of denying further agreements with Concord First Partners.
Please don’t surrender your leverage. We know you see a bright future for Concord.
Sincerely,
Eizo and Mary Kobayashi
Concord, CA. 94521
From: Jody <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 3:25 PM
To: Concord City Council <citycouncil@cityofc oncord.org> Subject: NO SEENO
You see that Seeno now starts the demands – even before the Environmental report. This is typical of Seeno and they will create more little guppies to nibble Concord to death. As a previous realtor, I’ve seen what they do to neighborhoods.
PLEASE, I just can’t see that happening to Concord. They are shady people who build cookie-cutter, outdated styles of housing, run over time deadlines, make up a thousand excuses that “it wasn’t our fault” and sue, sue, sue to get what they want – Concord’s equivalent of Trump! Get smart; don’t let these thugs put one over on Concord.
I don’t know where your other Council members are getting their info; they seem so gung-hoh for Seeno. Seems like Seeno has charmed them with _ _ _ (?)
NO SEENO on the Weapons Station project.
Thanks,
Jody
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 6:28 AM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno and the concord led partners exclusive negotiating deal
This was a terrible deal to begin with.
No one one concord wants this.
Check the social media pages .. or actually ask a resident.
You say you haven’t heard from any residents concerning seeno.
That is very hard to believe.
The people of concord are watching you to see if you will do what the constituency requests and requires of you, our elected representatives.
Say no to seeno. Exclusive rights to the seeno led group Concord led partners? No. Just no.
This reeks of dishonesty, self interest and possible corruption.
Please say no. Distance yourselves from this.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: john crosby <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 4:35 PM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS)
I was hoping that Concord First Partners (Seeno) would not be allowed to have any part of the development of the CNWS.
When I talk to neighbors we are very concerned with the Seeno reputation of shoddy workmanship. If you talk to people in Pittsburg who live in Seeno homes and listen to long list of complaints. This should cause you to have serious concerns. Other problems of population density impact on water and sewer systems, and of course traffic don’t seem to be adequately addressed.
The impact on Concords infrastructure at a time of limited water resources, Seems that the Concord City Council is being blackmailed into choosing between bad choices.
I know citizens of Concord don’t want the process to start over, but my neighbors seem to be waiting to see which bad choice you guys select.
Please consider Concord residents who will be impacted by your choice.
John Crosby
Sent from my iPad
From: Mark Looney <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 7:51 AM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Say no to Seeno
NO SEENO!!!
DON'T TRUST SEENO.
Sincerely, Mark Looney and Kathleen Parker
concerned long tim e residents of Concord
From: Heather Converse <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 10:35 PM
To: Concord City Council <[email protected]> Subject: SAY NO TO SEENO
Please reject the Seeno Proposal and let the ENA lapse, May 24,2022.
Thank You.
Heather Converse
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 9:34 AM
To: Beirne, Trish <Trish.Beirne@cityofconc ord.org>; Concord City Council <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Kotzebue, Margaret <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Here you go again: Is Concord About to Lose Another Developer? Importance : High
Concord City Councilmembers:
You continue to garner news regarding the CNWS.
At some point your desire to placate the demands of big labor donors has to be seen as the ruinous concession that it is, right?
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/21/power-play-over-property-r ights-could-sink-huge- concord-housing-deve lopment/
Madness.
Eric Christen
Executive Director
Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction
www.opencompca.com
Three phone calls were received in support of not extending the ENA.
1. Kathy Rogers
2. Matt
3. Anonymous
From: Alex Navarro <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:18 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: McGallian, Tim <Tim.McGallian@c ityofconc ord.org>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4b
Hello Councilmembers,
As a Concord resident in District 3 and Community Organizer for Monument Impact, I strongly urge you to follow your staff’s recommendation and deny Concord First Partner’s request for an amendment to the ENA.
The staff report clearly states that the master developer is required to provide a plan to ensure that 25% of the homes built are affordable to households that make less than 80% of area median income. So far, the developers have yet to provide any sensible plans regarding how they will make this a top priority, even though our organization and our community partners have repeatedly asked for it.
It is my hope that the Council will show some backbone against the developers and stand firm on the terms that the developers agreed to do in the first place but has failed to complete.
Thank you.
Alex Navarro
Monument Impact