Agenda packet — Concord City Council, January 7, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

From: John Eannetta <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 1:10 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: development

Hello, I oppose the development of Concord Naval Weapons Station due to the fact that there's already too many people living in this area. I live near the north Concord Bart station and there's no way in hell the roads around here can handle more traffic that this would create. Why is it so easy for people to build more houses but not do anything to maintain any existing infrastructure? Port Chicago Highway is crumbling away hard after the recent rains and there probably isn't anything planned to do something about it.

Page 119 of 478 ends

From: Joan Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 9:48 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station

To all city council members, do your job right for Concord and the community. DROP SEENO NOW! Hasn't he already reeked enough havoc for our city?

From long time Concord property owners,

Doug and Joan Young
3587 Skylark Drive
Concord, CA 94520

Page 120 of 478 ends

From: Ray Dias <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 6:57 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: drop Seeno now

this is a no brainer. Drop Seeno now. In fact lets not do anything with the area and just clean it up. We have enough people living here now. Why do we have to build more houses and commercial business? If developed we would require more schools ,police facilities , fire stations, and an increase in water usage, power usages along with a huge development to sewage facilities.

Stop this madness.

Ray Dias

Page 121 of 478 ends

From: Lynn Deckert <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 6:03 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: drop Seeno Now

As someone living 45 years in a Seeno home, I can tell you they are poorly built. He is a greedy uncaring contractor--
Lynn

Page 122 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Larrowe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 4:23 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

Do not voie to allow seen to develop the weapons station

Page 123 of 478 ends

From: WML1943 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 2:46 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Save Mount Diablo

Dear Sirs/Madams:

The purpose of this email is to request that the Concord City Council Drop the Discovery/SeenoCompanies/CCIG from any development of the property formerly belonging to the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

I have lived in the Diablo Valley since 1950 and have watched the questionable and, at times, illegal practices of the Seeno Family members and their businesses. I strongly urge you to adopt the Area Plan previously considered by the City Council.

Respectfully,

W.M. Lynch
2142 Gill Drive
Concord, CA

S
ent with Proton Mail s ecure email.

Page 124 of 478 ends

From: Cheryl Wong-Ng <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2023 3:43 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno

I am NOT in favor of allowing Seeno and cohorts to take on a project at the Concord Naval Weapons Station. PLEASE drop them from consideration.

Cheryl Wong-Ng
2975 Lane Dr.

Concord, CA 94518

Page 125 of 478 ends

From: paula o <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2023 9:41 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please Drop Seeno as Master Developer

Dear Concord City Council, It%2��s tim e. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners as the Master Developer for the Concord reuse project. This project could be the largest developm ent in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region. The consequences of this decision are too im portant to allow com panies with such a long, poor record (shady practices, governm ent investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environm ental laws, bullying,
threats, lawsuits against key partners on this project) to be involved. Last year in August when Seeno and their partners were tentatively chosen, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you NOT to choose them as the Master Developer. Concord
residents were ignored. And just this year, the com pany%2��s own representatives tried to elim inate the city%2��s leverage on the project, and even adm itted they couldn%2��t make the project work. They shouldn%2��t have been chosen in the first place, they
can%2��t deliver, and Concord residents deserve all the com m unity benefits associated with this project that were prom ised to them in the years and decades leading up to today. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners so a trustworthy, capable entity can take
the lead and create som ething that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster. Regards, Paula Oesterling Concord Resident

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 126 of 478 ends

From: R Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 2:38 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Project

Councilmembers,

As a long time resident and registered voter living within the City of Concord, I am writing in opposition to Concord First Partners (aka Seeno/Discovery Builders and their partners) being selected by the Concord City Council to be the Master Developer for the former Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Project. DROP SEENO NOW!

R. W. Hansen

Sent from Mail f
or Windows

Page 127 of 478 ends

From: Les Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 12:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DUMP SENO

I emphatically do not want Seno/Discovery Builders or any iteration thereof to have any involvement concerning the CNWS project!

H
e’s poison for our city.

L. Stevens
1340 Vermont Ave
Concord 94521

Page 128 of 478 ends

From: AnneMarie Hodgkinson <amfhodgkin@hotma il.com>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 1:56 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

To much corruption with these people over the years—lies and fraud to get their way. Our open land will slowly absorb up if this type of developer is allowed to continue. Inch by inch…give them an inch they’ll take a foot and so on down the line.

DROP SEENO NOW

Sent from Mail f or Windows

Page 129 of 478 ends

From: Carolyn Horvath <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 12:35 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now!

It isn't a good decision to contract work for a huge development project with a company who has a reputation and past history for poor business practices, fraud, damage to the environment, and other violations.

There must be a company that has a better reputation to use for the development of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station.

Carolyn Horvath 925-827-2881
3445 Chugach Place, Concord, CA 94518

Page 130 of 478 ends

From: nanci329 <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 12:06 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject:

DROP SEENO NOW!!!!!

Sent from my G alax y

Page 131 of 478 ends

From: Karen Erickson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 11:18 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

City council members:

Please rescind your decision to have Seeno develop the naval weapons site. They are the WRONG developer for this area. They are concerned only with profit, not with Concord. They have a history of fraud, cover-ups and intimidation and their return to the council to change the terms of the contract within a year just begins the way they have no regard for their promises.

Change the developer NOW!

Concerned Concord citizen

Page 132 of 478 ends

From: Sandy Parbury <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 10:57 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW!

Dear City Council Members - I'm asking you to please Drop Seeno Now!! This developer has history of fraud and cover ups. This is not the developer to go forward with for this major project. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sandy Parbury
Sandra Parbury Interiors
2055 Sierra Road 120
Concord, Ca. 94518
925-818-6635 cell

Page 133 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Joyce Shappee <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 7:32 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno

Please reconsider using Seeno as the developers of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. I don’t agree with their proposal.

Joyce Shappee
2955 Corte Miguel
Concord 94518

S
ent from my iPad

Page 134 of 478 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 4:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno

I would like you to know that I am extremely upset that you would select any company that has anything to do with Seeno companies. Hopefully you will reverse your decision to let Seeno have any part of developing the CNWS property.

Respectfully Niles Larson 5519 Nebraska Dr ([email protected])

Page 135 of 478 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 4:03 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station Redevelopment

Dear Council members,

I am a long time resident of Concord and have long enjoyed the small town atmosphere and the open spaces that surround the city. When the CNWS was deeded to the City, I was sad that the area would be developed, but was happy that the City had set aside so much of the area as open space. Now, I am reading with alarm the the outrageous demands of the Concord First Partners to put in substantially more homes and retail space than was requested and taking up more valuable open space than intended in the planning process or authorized through the CEQA process. This is clearly a money grab and cannot be allowed. This request must be denied for the good of Concord and the surrounding areas and for the environment. The council should remove Seeno the Concord First Partners from the project, without hesitation or any further compensation, and hire a reputable developer to install the project as designed. Based on multiple new reports and legal proceedings, these entities clearly cannot be trusted to do what the City wants or to do so in an environmentally sound manner. They must be removed from the project and the City should refuse to do business with them.

Respectfully,

Lawrence M. Wise Jr.
849 Grenola Drive
Concord, CA 94518

Page 136 of 478 ends

From: David Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 3:00 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now!

DROP SEENO NOW!

David Denny
1625 McCarl Lane
Concord Ca. 94519

Page 137 of 478 ends

From: Rex Bothell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 2:28 PM
To: Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno as Master Developer in Concord

I have included you both as Ms. Barone is currently out of the office for the Christmas Holiday.

First, thank you both for your time and consideration.

Know that I am speaking to each of you as a 35 year multi-home and property owner in the City of Concord. Plenty of time to have been witness to various of the Seeno groups "doing their kind of business".

Based on that, I implore you PLEASE drop Seeno and it's Partners as the Master Developer for the Concord reuse project. This project could be the largest development in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region. The consequences of this decision are too important to allow companies with such a long, poor record of performance to be involved, in any way.

Last year in August when Seeno and it's Partners were tentatively chosen, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked the members of the Concord City Council to not choose them as the Master Developer. Concord residents were ignored.

This year, Seeno's own representatives tried to eliminate the City of Concord's leverage on the project, and even admitted they couldn’t make the project work.

They shouldn’t have been chosen in the first place, they can’t deliver, and Concord residents deserve all the community benefits associated with this project that were promised to them in the years and decades leading up to today. SUPPORT your constituency, make the right decision!

PLEASE drop Seeno and it's Partners so a trustworthy, capable entity can take the lead and create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Seeno and it's Partners can not be trusted to "do a good job".

Most Sincerely;

Rex Bothell
925.381.8091

Page 138 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: bjorg wasserfall <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 1:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno

Drop Seeno now.

Bad for Concord, plus.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 139 of 478 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 12:17 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please Drop Seeno as Master Developer

Sent from the all new AOL app for Android

Page 140 of 478 ends

From: Mark Looney <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 10:59 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: No Seeno

Dear Concord City Council,
Please drop Seeno and their partners as the Master Developer for the Concord reuse project. This project could be the largest development in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region. The consequences of this decision are too important to allow companies with such a long, poor record (shady practices, government investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environmental laws, bullying, threats, lawsuits against key partners on this project) to be involved. Last year in August when Seeno and their partners were tentatively chosen, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you not to choose them as the Master Developer. Concord residents were ignored. And just this year, the company’s own representatives tried to eliminate the city’s leverage on the project, and even admitted they couldn’t make the project work. They shouldn’t have been chosen in the first place, they can’t deliver, and Concord residents deserve all the community benefits associated with this project that were promised to them in the years and decades leading up to today. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners so a trustworthy, capable entity can take the lead and create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Regards,
[Your Name]
Concord Resident

Regards,
[Your Name]
Concord Resident
Dear Concord City Council,
Please drop Seeno and their partners as the Master Developer for the Concord reuse project. This project could be the largest development in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region. The consequences of this decision are too important to allow companies with such a long, poor record (shady practices, government investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environmental laws, bullying, threats, lawsuits against key partners on this project) to be involved. Last year in August when Seeno and their

Page 141 of 478 ends

partners were tentatively chosen, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you not to choose them as the Master Developer. Concord residents were ignored. And just this year, the company’s own representatives tried to eliminate the city’s leverage on the project, and even admitted they couldn’t make the project work. They shouldn’t have been chosen in the first place, they can’t deliver, and Concord residents deserve all the community benefits associated with this project that were promised to them in the years and decades leading up to today. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners so a trustworthy, capable entity can take the lead and create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Regards,
Mark Looney
Concord Resident
Dear Concord City Council,
Please drop Seeno and their partners as the Master Developer for the Concord reuse project. This project could be the largest development in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region. The consequences of this decision are too important to allow companies with such a long, poor record (shady practices, government investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environmental laws, bullying, threats, lawsuits against key partners on this project) to be involved. Last year in August when Seeno and their partners were tentatively chosen, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you not to choose them as the Master Developer. Concord residents were ignored. And just this year, the company’s own representatives tried to eliminate the city’s leverage on the project, and even admitted they couldn’t make the project work. They shouldn’t have been chosen in the first place, they can’t deliver, and Concord residents deserve all the community benefits associated with this project that were promised to them in the years and decades leading up to today. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners so a trustworthy, capable entity can take the lead and create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Regards,
Kathleen Parker
Concord Resident

Page 142 of 478 ends

From: Ann Dixon <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 10:28 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Faria Project

DROP SEENO NOW!!! Doesn't their past record speak volumes to you?

Page 143 of 478 ends

From: Scott Tipton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 7:02 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW

Please DROP SEENO NOW!

Scott Tipton
1211 Pinecrest Dr.

Concord, CA 94521

Page 144 of 478 ends

From: Lois Gilmour <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 8:28 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno NOW!

Please listen to this request to drop Seeno now!
Lois Gilmour

Page 145 of 478 ends

From: Dennis Weidenbach <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 6:04 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station

I wish to express my grave concern over your choice of Senno Corp. to develope the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. I have lived in Concord for 50 years and I've heard nothing but bad about the Senno business practices and numerous legal battles over the years for their dishonest activities. Any older adult who knows the Senno family business knows they are dishonest and can't be trusted. Please remove them from any involvement in the future development of the former naval base. Any council member who voted "Aye" on Senno needs their finances looked at for possible bribe money. It is my belief that Senno is evolved in systematic abuse of public trust.

NO TO SENNO!!

Page 146 of 478 ends

From: Angela Watson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Citizen Input: Oppose Seeno as Developer for Concord Naval Weapons station reuse project

Hello Concord City Council Members,

I am a Concord resident and would like to submit my request to the city council to drop Seeno as the developer for the Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse project.

I do not believe the scope of their proposal is in the best interests of the city and land use preservation. Likewise, their values do not match the values of my adopted home city of Concord.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Angela Watson
1461 Carleton Dr.

Concord CA 94518

Page 147 of 478 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 3:57 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: dump seeno

DROP SEENO NOW!

Page 148 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 3:44 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: dump seeno

DROP SEENO NOW!

Page 149 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Marianne Tannehill <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 2:58 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DROP SEENO. NOW!!

Sent from my iPhone

Page 150 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Anna Steiner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 2:02 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject:

City Council members:

Please, please,please DROP SEENO NOW! I am almost 89 and may not be around much longer but I speak for those who will. Mr. Aliano, Mr. Birsan and Mr. McGallian do not give Seeno more power! Please reconsider. And thank you Ms. Hoffmeister and Ms. Obringer for voting Nay. Hooray for Nay!

Anna Garcia Steiner
3336 Woodhaven Lane
Concord

pho
[email protected]

Page 151 of 478 ends

From: Jessica Arbildo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 11:53 AM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno/Concord First Partners

Dear members of the governing board of the City of Concord,

I have lived in Concord since 1985, when it was a small town and kids would be allowed to play outside with minimal supervision and going to the grocery store at night was safe. Things have changed a lot since 1985, and keeping the historical integrity of the Naval Weapons Station intact is important and critical. My family was negatively impacted by the developer Seeno, as my uncle did extensive landscaping work for him and had to send repeated invoices before Seeno finally paid in full.

The concept of the affordable housing units and parks, etc. of the Naval Weapons Station is a great idea, but we're already getting a lot of affordable housing units in the center of the city, and there are so many parks in this city that it's hard to choose which one to go to. Instead of adding 16,000 new homes, the area should be a historical preserve to honor the black soldiers that lost their lives there, the atomic bombs that were stored there, and the local Indian tribes that inhabited that area before anyone else was around.

Not every piece of California needs to be developed, as over-developing will lead to overcrowding, more traffic, more crime, and even higher home prices. Concord used to be about families, it used to be about neighbors visiting each other's homes and children growing up together. Now the housing prices are so high that family homes are being snapped up by investors with money-driven mindsets. The house next door to mine, (3321 Concord Blvd, Concord 94519) was purchased by a money-driven developer whose plan to demolish the structure and create a new multi-family unit was stalled because of the complexity of obtaining permits. Now this developer has a transient man living there helping clean the yard until his plans get approved by the City of Concord. I have two children under the age of 6, I don't want a large multi-unit housing complex or transitional neighbors next door.

Please allow the negotiating agreement with Concord First Partners expire on January 31st, 2023 and keep the Naval Weapons Station as a historical preserve that my children and the next generation can walk through, play in, and learn from. New housing developments in this area will take away the character of the City of Concord and make it look like every other over- developed city in California.

Regards
Jessica Arbildo
Design, Write, Sell, Repeat...

C: 925.368.3244
E: j [email protected]

Page 152 of 478 ends

From: Blanco Spacek <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2022 8:56 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno (finally)
Dear Concord City Council,

If a real estate developer tells you they can't make money on a 12,000+ home development in California, that's a fresh warning sign about the reliability of the developer. And if they come back in the next breath and tell you they'd need AN ADDITIONAL 3,300 HOMES TO MAKE MONEY ON THE DEAL, RUN FROM THAT DEVELOPER! Concord First Partners (actually SEENO) is already showing the city of Concor d our future: endless contract squirming, budget overruns, labor union betrayals, ecological violations, confounding litigation, and much worse. CFP's (Seeno's) outrageous track record is a glaring warning of what will befall our city if we continue with t hem. As city council members and city managers, it is your DUTY to stop this dangerous charade and get CFP's hooks out of our town.

Sincerely,

Blanco Spacek

Page 153 of 478 ends

From: Dennis Kaump <denniskaump@gma il.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2023 7:38 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW!

DROP SEENO NOW!

Page 154 of 478 ends

From: karen st. julien <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 11:22 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now!

Dear City Council members,

I received a newsletter from Save Mount Diablo and agree with their assessment that "Concord First Partners" is the wrong choice as Master Developer for the CNWS Area Plan. Therefore, I am requesting that you DROP SEENO NOW!

Karen St. Julien

Page 155 of 478 ends

From: Rosemarie Parris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 9:25 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station First Partners

As a Concord resident for more than 40 years and an advocate for preserving our beloved city, I urge all council members to drop Seeno and its partners as Master Developers for the CNWS.

We, my neighbors have followed the decisions made on this monumental project since 2007 when we witnessed Council Member Michael Chavez succumb to a heart attack while speaking to the community attendees about the CNWS.

Seeno Discovery Sales has a long history of bank fraud, environmental violations and has been accused of extortion, theft and threats.

We all lived through the Lennar debacle and certainly do not want to repeat that horrible decision. Seeno and Discovery Builders will be a disaster for Concord.

CONCORD residents first -- Drop Seeno and Partners now.

P.S. I cannot attend the January 7th community meeting due a scheduled appointment

Rosemarie Parris
3230 Maria Ct
Concord CA 94518
r
[email protected]
phone 925-685-9017

Page 156 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 7:40 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Weapons Station Development

I strongly urge the Council to reject the term sheet submitted by the Seeno group. There are so many reasons to reject this group as the master developer it’s difficult to enumerate them.

None of the group has any experience of completing a project of this magnitude. The Seeno Company itself has compiled a terrible record of illegal activities and poor quality projects over the years throughout Northern California as well as their legal problems with the state of Nevada with their casino activities. Dealing with this group would result in decades of legal problems to make sure that laws and codes were complied with. This group wants to add over three thousand more homes in the same area as previous plans called for. This is just a plan to increase their profits rather than do what is best for the City of Concord. If anything should be increased, it should be community or educational facilities which would provide continuing financial and social benefits to the city and the community. Added homes will only add to the terrible effect this project will have on the existing infrastructure in the city and neighboring highways. I implore the Council to think about the existing community that has elected them. I have lived in Concord since 1946 and graduated from Mt Diablo High School in 1951. I worked in Pittsbug for over 42 years and have seen firsthand what Seeno has done in that area.

Gordon Monroe

Sent from my iPhone

Page 157 of 478 ends

From: cintya frederick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 5:15 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please Drop Seeno as Master Developer

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 158 of 478 ends

From: George Istvan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 3:18 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Weapons Station project developer

Dear Sir/Madam, 2 Jan 23
Please do NOT, repeat -- do NOT choose Seeno as master developer for the Naval Weapons Station reuse project.

Sincerely,
George Istvan, Concord, CA 94519, 925-687-8913.

Page 159 of 478 ends

From: svitlana220 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: SEENO

DROP SEENO NOW! Thank you.

S ent from my T-Mobile 4G LT E Device

Page 160 of 478 ends

From: Ron Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2023 4:50 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Dev

Please do not use Seeno for the project!

Their business practices are well known, they treat their hard working contractors horribly.

Open it back up, let's not be like Pittsburg!!

Ron Johnson
Concord resident since 1999

Page 161 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Cecilia Sosnowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2023 11:13 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord naval weapons

Please drop Seeno now. Thank you.

Cecilia Sosnowski

Sent from my iPhone

Page 162 of 478 ends

From: sharon sandhu <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 7:56 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DROP SEEN NOW!

If there is a petition on line to sign for the "DROP SEENO NOW!" I want my name on it. Sharon Sandhu (Dec 31, 2022)

Page 163 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 2:09 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW!

DROP SEENO NOW!

Sent from my iPhone

Page 164 of 478 ends

From: Tim Slomer <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 11:10 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station Development project

To all the city's board members,
Drop Seeno Now!
It's clear that Seeno is a corrupt and greedy developer! They are not doing what is in the citizens of Concord's best interest! Please revoke this selection.

How about looking for an honest developer, even if it takes going out of the area or out of the state!

A concerned citizen,
Tim Slomer
1348 Montana Dr
Concord, CA 94521

Page 165 of 478 ends

From: Mark Furlong <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 2:57 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW

Seeno has proven time and again that it is not a trustworthy business partner. Their actions have shown that THEIR interests are all they care about, and will not work with, but against, the wishes of the people of Concord. Drop Seeno now.

Mark J. Furlong
Concord Resident for over 30 years.

Page 166 of 478 ends

From: Diane Vancini <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 1:20 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now!

I’m an advocate of preserving natural habitats and supporting eco-friendly companies and builders. Seeno is over reaching in trying to expand unneeded and unwanted development and their past practices have been fraught with deception and adverse impacts to the environment.

We need to truly find and eco friendly design and builder for this precious area. We have an opportunity to do something beautiful and sustainable. Let’s be trailblazers by securing a beat in class eco friendly design and builder.

Page 167 of 478 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 12:19 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject:

DROP SEENO NOW!!!!

Page 168 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: nharamaki <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 11:21 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station

Please drop Seeno as the developer for this project!!
They are too risky. Their past history is horrible.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPad

Page 169 of 478 ends

From: Rick and Marlene <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 11:12 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno

From what I read in your brochure "Drop Seeno Now", it sure sounds like you guys picked the wrong company for this project. Are there not any other viable companies? Rick McDowell

Page 170 of 478 ends

From: Marty <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 8:40 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: cncd naval weapons station & seeno project

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
I am a long time resident of concord & thru the hears have heard little good of seeno projects but much negative. I vote DROP SEENO NOW! I'm sure there are plenty of other reputable contractors in the area that can handle the project - give them a chance

Sincerely
Marty Genzler
1080 San Miguel Rd #161, Concord, CA

Page 171 of 478 ends

From: Brad Blevins <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 4:33 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

Drop Seeno Now.

Brad Blevins
944 Ridge Dr.

Concord 94518

Page 172 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 4:08 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno/ Discovery Builders

Members of Concord city council,

DROP SEENO NOW. This company has proven, over many years, to be untruthful and unprofessional. A dear friend of ours purchased a Seeno home in Clayton years ago which had major foundation problems.

Such was the case with every one of the homes Seeno had built in that neighborhood. The only way these folks were able to get into proper housing was to file a class action law suit. Seeno lost in court and had to make compensation.

Why would the city of Concord go into contract with a company that has this kind of reputation?

Find a better way, even if it takes longer to accomplish the goals.

Sincerely,
James and Betty Marrs

Sent from my iPhone

Page 173 of 478 ends

From: Karen O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

Drop Seeno from the Concord Naval Weapons Station Project.

Stop making deals with crooks who disgrace lands.

Karen Oliver 40+year Concord Resident and Neighbor of the Weapons Station.

Page 174 of 478 ends

From: Timothy Burgess <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 2:30 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Timothy Burgess <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord City Council 29Dec22 Re: Drop Seeno

Council Members:

Count us as yet two more citizens of Concord who are resolutely against having any dealings whatsoever with Seeno. Seeno has a well documented history of corruption. There is a sizable group of citizens of our city who are passionate in their objections to doing business with Seeno. There is no such group of citizens who are even tepidly in favor of working with Seeno. So, why the yes votes on this? Is corruption a factor here as well? Don't be surprised if many Concordians assume this to be the case. Please, let us move forward with honest partners. Drop Seeno now.

Thank you for your time.

Timothy & Mariko Burgess
3547 Windmill Way
Concord CA 9 4518
Tel : 925-674-0076
[email protected]

Page 175 of 478 ends

From: David Baer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno

Council Members:

Count us as yet two more citizens of Concord who are resolutely against having any dealings whatsoever with Seeno. Seeno has a well documented history of corruption. There is a sizable group of citizens of our city who are passionate in their objections to doing business with Seeno. There is no such group of citizens who are even tepidly in favor of working with Seeno. So, why the yes votes on this? I corruption a factor here as well? Don't be surprised if many Concordians assume this to be the case. Please, let us move forward with honest partners. Drop Seeno now.

Thank you for your time.

David Baer, Catherine Fasciato
Windmill Way, Concord 94518

S
ent using Zoho Mail

Page 176 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Robbie Klingstedt <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Naval weapons Station

DROP SEENO NOW!

Sent from my iPad

Page 177 of 478 ends

From: Rick Sydel <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 11:39 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno

Dear Council members,

In 2012, after years of meetings and planning, you have chosen a development team riddled with legal and environmental violations that now wants to change what was agreed upon ten years ago. This should be a red flag to all council members, yet only the two women on the council could see the inappropriateness of selecting Seeno and his partners. Do the right thing, get back to the plan as agreed upon and find more suitable and honorable developers.

Thank you.

Rick Sydel

Page 178 of 478 ends

From: Luis <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 10:32 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop SEENO Now

I am a Concord resident and I want you to drop Seeno now.

Luis Ojeda

Get Outlook for iOS

Page 179 of 478 ends

From: Tina Loitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 9:21 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

Good morning, please drop Seeno Now. I don't think their goals are in alignment with the best interest of Concord and Bay Point.

Thank you Tina Loitz

Page 180 of 478 ends

From: Ryan Coll <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 10:20 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno Development Project
Hello,
I am a long-time Concord resident (over 10 years now) and I recently became aware of the development project for the former Concord Naval Weapons Station by Concord First Partners.

I am writing because I was sent a flyer detailing complaints by the reticent NIMBYs of "Save Mount Diablo" that these developers would be constructing more housing than they expected; it's as if the Bay Area is suffering some sort of housing crisis!

The flyer suggested I email the city council, so I wanted to take the time to assure you that this project is precisely what this city needs and that asinine complaints about traffic pale in comparison to eye-watering rents and growing homelessness. Please do not let these activist thugs delay this project.

Sincerely,
Ryan Coll

Page 181 of 478 ends

From: JIM KOHL <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 8:23 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Project

Dear Council,
Please put Concord first and Drop Seeno now.

Respectfully ,
James E. Kohl JR.

Concord Resident

Page 182 of 478 ends

From: Tyler Fong <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 4:18 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Reconsider by dropping Seeno/Discovery Builders

Dear Concord City Council,
Please reconsider Seeno/Discovery Builders by dropping them for the Concord Navel Weapons Station reuse project. Their interest is for profit whether it is in the best interest or not for the residents of Concord. They thrive because of the tax paying residents and money savings from illegal tax and environmental violations. My tax dollars would be better spent on different projects.

Tyler Fong, Concord resident since 1991

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPad

Page 183 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Florence Viveros <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 3:54 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: See I

Hello,

Please drop Seeno Now. We don’t want this builder developing the Concord Naval Weapons. We need quality and not a disaster that his company will bring.

Thank You,

Flo Viveros
Concord Resident in Dana Estates

Sent from my iPhone

Page 184 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Sims <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 3:18 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW PLEASE
Importance: High

They are crooks

Page 185 of 478 ends

From: Don Moura <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 2:35 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: No Seeno

DROP SEENO NOW

Page 186 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Shepherd <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 1:43 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: 1/7/2023 Concord City Council meeting

DROP SEENO NOW!!!!!!

Sent from my iPhone

Page 187 of 478 ends

From: Jules Scheibner Murillo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 8:19 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: I oppose Seeno

I do not support moving forward with Seeno partnering with Concord for the Development at the Naval Weapons stations land. We cannot forget the unethical business Seeno had conducted in 2015. Bank Fraud, hence orchestrating Mortgage Fraud Scheme. We also cannot forget the Whitmoore incident in Reno and Seeno's Mobster mentality.

As a Real Estate Agent locally for the past 20+ years, I personally don't feel comfortable selling Seeno's homes due to numerous bad practices.

Thank you in advance. And much respect to you all. Happy Holidays.

Page 188 of 478 ends

From: Betty Schulze <dlschulze@hotma il.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 3:28 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: The Seeno Companies

Dear Council Members:

Based upon what I have read of the Discovery/Seeno Companies/Lewis/CCIG organization, I am deeply troubled that a majority of you have selected them as the Master Developer for the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. The track record of this organization seems to make them the wrong choice. There must be a better choice, and I urge you to find such.

This is perhaps the last major development for Concord. It should be a legacy project, not one that leaves residents with a bad attitude toward local government for decades.

Sincerely, Dave Schulze, 5467 Roundtree Place, # H, Concord, CA. 94521

S
ent from Mail f or Windows

Page 189 of 478 ends

From: Kathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 10:46 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Master Developer CNWS

Sent from Mail f
or Windows

From: Kathy
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 10:39 AM
To: [email protected]; O bringer, Carlyn; [email protected]; dominic.aliano@c ityofconcord.org; Birsan, Edi; Bjerke, Guy; c ityclerk@citycounc il.org
Subject: Master Developer CNWS

S
ent from Mail f or Windows

To: Concord City Council members

From: Kathy Gleason, CNWS Neighborhood Alliance

I am contacting Concord City Council members to share points of interest and ask questions on behalf of members of the CNWS Neighborhood Alliance regarding the choice of Seeno/Concord First as Master Developers of the CNWS. I hope Council members are aware that the majority of their constituents feel this is not the right developer for the project. We strongly feel the city should not move forward with the choice of Seeno/Concord First as Master Developer of the CNWS.

We understand that the Trade Unions have played a large role in decisions on this project in the past. We ask City Council members to make this decision in the best interest of ALL Concord residents, not the Trade Unions or the Concord residents the Trade Unions have asked to pressure you.

Points of interest and questions:

• At a previous City Council meeting Council Member Hoffmeister asked the city to postpone this process until after the holidays, when residents are busy. Why were meetings scheduled during the
holidays?

• The Term Sheet indicates 3,323 more homes proposed than the Lennar Plan 15,595/12,272, This does not include the up to 800 homes proposed for the old Coast Guard site.

Concord residents have fought over the years to bring the number of homes down to a reasonable number. How many acres of parks and open space were decreased with homes added?

Page 190 of 478 ends

• Why was Lennar limited to the first 500 acres (Phase 1) while Seeno/Concord First is proposing the entire 2,275 acres in the Term Sheet (Phases 1-5)? I listened to Guy’s explanation when the question was asked at the December 3 workshop. Any developer should be limited to Phase 1 of this development to ensure the city is getting the “world class” development we are all striving for.

• Will the developer chosen be required to disclose to buyers the fault line that runs thru the CNWS?

• More housing equals less parks/open space. Fewer community benefits. This term sheet does not allow the community benefits proposed by Lennar. A PLA (listed as a community benefit) is not a community benefit for all Concord residents.

• Lennar agreed to work with East Bay Regional parks, funding some improvements and historical attractions within the park. How can we expect a developer that has sued EBRP to help create a world class Regional Park for the community?

• Freeways and major thoroughfares are already overcrowded with traffic congestion, noise and air pollution. How will this addition of even more homes proposed than the 2008 Plan (that Concord residents worked on) or the Lennar Plan homes affect quality of life for Concord residents? Have traffic, air and noise pollution studies been conducted since the beginning of this project?

• The last two elections sent a clear message from Concord residents who do not want any association with the Seeno/Concord First development team. In the City Council race, Laura Nakamura won well over Tim McGallian, and in the recent Board of Supervisors election Concord City Council persons who either voted for Seeno/Concord First or voted to move ahead with this developer lost. Residents want a trustworthy, reputable team that has the ability and can afford to deliver the “World Class” project residents have worked for since 2005. Since the beginning of this project in 2005, CNWS Neighborhood Alliance members have been told several times by the first project Director and by some City Council members that the Seeno Company would never be chosen for this project.

• Who will end up paying for the projected $1.2 billion (current dollars) in infrastructure expenses? Taxpayers? Home buyers? Seeno/Concord First initially stated they could make the project work, then came back to say it would not “pencil out”. How many more times during this multi-year project will this developer commit, then admit “it will not pencil out”?

• Environmentally, Concord residents cannot trust a developer with a long history of violations and fines.

Page 191 of 478 ends

From: JOSEPH TONDA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 9:44 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Stop Seeno selection

Please do not select Seeno as the master developer for the Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse project!
Joseph Tonda
A 50 year plus Concord resident.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 192 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Ty <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 7:52 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

Please reconsider letting Seeno Companies participate in this project with Concord.

Seeno has no demonstrated right to have this project.

Thank you.
45 year resident.

Page 193 of 478 ends

From: Vladimir P lakhti <viplakhti@gma il.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 6:54 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: SEENO

DROP SEENO NOW!

THANK YOU

Page 194 of 478 ends

From: b. solari <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 5:55 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Concord Weapons Station Reuse Project

To all members of the Concord City Council:

As a resident of Concord since 1975, I have seen the city grow and improve upon it during expansion periods, most of which have been beneficial. Now before the Council is the need for making a decision for a "Master Developer" as it relates to the Concord Weapons Station Reuse Project on Saturday, 01/07/2023. I am requesting at this meeting that the Council NOT approve "Concord First Partners" aka as "Seeno/Discovery Builders" and their related partners as the "Master Developer".

Thank you.

Robert L. Solari
1841 Sandalwood Dr.

Concord, CA 94519

Page 195 of 478 ends

From: Susan Guest <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Questions for Concord City Council regarding CNWS Term Sheet for January 7, 2023 Meeting

Dear Council Members,

As a longtime resident of the City of Concord, I have grave concerns with the selection of Seeno/Discovery Builders as the master developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. If past behavior predicts future behavior, I would strongly urge you to reconsider who you have selected.

I know you have heard all that is wrong with Seeno. I can find little that is right.

My biggest concern is that you approach this development as predecessors have approached other developments in Concord, and acquiesce to the developer no matter what the residents want.

I would like to remind you of two developments that are very fresh in my mind. Crystal Ranch and Montecito. Both developments would have been considerably larger, if residents had not spoken out.

Listen to your residents. Unlike the developers who come to Concord and see a snapshot, the residents see this city everyday. Sometimes for decades. We know what has worked and what hasn’t. We know the traffic patterns. We know what is lacking. We know what works. We know what makes Concord great.

If you ultimately decided to have this marriage with Seeno, please assure that there is LOTS of oversight. With a business that is unwilling to be open and forthright, the city must be overzealous to assure nefarious actions do not occur.

I have read the terms sheet. I find it vague in many areas, but perhaps that is the nature of this document. Below are the questions I have.

Questions for Concord City Council regarding CNWS Term Sheet

1. Would be helpful to see acres in each phase that is associated with dwellings, as other items have associated acreage.

2. Are bike paths to be incorporated in the street or path infrastructure? And will there be planned connectivity to schools, library, retail, BART? Will the City have any input?

3. Appears that the number of dwellings for the entire project has increased by approximately 4,000 dwellings. Where is the acreage for these additional dwellings coming from?

4. Would be helpful to see a comparison of the CNWS project plan that the city and citizens developed to what is now being proposed.

Page 196 of 478 ends

5. With increased number of dwellings and increase commercial footage, what is the plan to handle the increased traffic?

6. Many different types of housing are proposed. How is the City and developer proposing to prevent pockets of poverty? Preventing high crime areas?

7. Will the City retain rights to approve or disapprove construction specifics, so that what is constructed is not significantly different than the rest of Concord? Attempt to blend this new development with the rest of Concord.

8. There is lots of vacant commercial space in Concord. How will the City assure that current commercial space fills or is re-zoned for different use to prevent urban blight in the older parts of Concord?

9. Will the City have influence over the building specifics of dwellings, such as solar and water conservation modalities?

10. Will the City retain the rights to approve or disapprove the specific plants and trees used by the developer in landscaping? Using plants and tree indigenous to the area? Using drought resistant plants and trees?

11. How will the City assure that there is no favoritism and/or nepotism in any of the dealings with the developer, 3rd party vertical developer, award of contracts,and award of dwellings?

12. How often will those who are overseeing the master developer and their 3rd party vertical developers receive progress reports? What will be included? Will those reports be made public?

13. Define what “cleaned to appropriate residential standards” means? What is this based on? Who and how often is this monitored?

14. Looking at Exhibit A, there appears to be less open space. Can we have a comparison of open space from prior plans to this plan?

15. Why are there no parks or green ways in Phase 2?

Thank you for listening. I greatly appreciate your service.

Sincerely,
Sue Guest
Resident of Concord
4483 Buckthorn Court
Concord

Page 197 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 3:21 PM
To: Cityinfo <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno Now

Concord deserves a much better builder than Seeno for Naval Weapons Center. Let’s do a better job so we can be proud of results.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 198 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Weapons Station Development

Please reject the Seeno Group as developers of this important project. None of this group has ever done a project of this magnitude. The Seeno Companies have established a terrible record over the years in their business dealings. Their legal, ecology and quality shortfalls are well known by anyone who has been in this area for any length of time.

You as our elected representatives, must protect your city from ruining a great opportunity like this by giving it to known opportunitists who have established by their own actions a poor business record.

Gordon Monroe

Sent from my iPhone

Page 199 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Gail Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:54 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW!

Having lived in the area for over forty years, I’ve been well aware of the despicable deeds of Seeno and his partners for decades. There are so many honorable folks who stand ready to participate in the further development of spaces within the shadow of our beloved mountain. Please drop Seeno, once and for all!! Then, rethink this and give the contract to someone else. This would definitely be the right thing to do…

Gail Ward
former Lafayette resident,
current happy homeowner in Concord

Page 200 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Helen Fullarton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 12:28 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Station

Please, DROP SEENO NOW!

Sent from my iPad

Page 201 of 478 ends

From: Phing Thong <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 4:56 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

Please do not work with Seeno for the Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse project.

Seeno is not a good for Concord.

Sincerely

Phing Thong
Resident of Concord

Page 202 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: David Gilbert <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 6:38 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno
Please drop Seeno/Discovery Builders as Master Developer for he Naval Weapons Station project.

Seeno has a long documented history of fraud, intimidation, cover-ups, and environmental violations.

It is hard to imagine a worse developer.

Yours,

David Gilbert
4024 Salem St.

C
oncord resident since 1979

Page 203 of 478 ends

From: P hillip & Elizabeth Kich <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 9:28 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Drop Seeno

Concord City Council,

I understand that on January 7th, you will reconsider Seeno as the Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse project. Please drop Seeno now. They have a long history of greedy behavior and do not have our city in their best interest.

Additionally, I have an question: With water restrictions and/or requests for reduced water use becoming a regular occurrence, how can we possibly afford to develop the Weapons Station, adding thousands of houses, and commercial and retail businesses? How will the added pressure on our water supply be handled? Will we be required to reduce our water use even further? Maybe it would be best to leave this undeveloped until new sources of water are developed (desalination?).

Thanks.

P hillip Kich

Page 204 of 478 ends

From: Michael McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 9:50 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Cc: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]> Subject: Concord First Partners Term Sheet feedback: January 7 City Council meeting

Concord City Council members and City Staff;

I reviewed the term sheet from Concord First Partners and observed a few differences from the Lennar approach. The CFP first phase is not the high density area of North Concord around BART. They plan to build a lower density area that will be easier to complete, will generate less neighborhood objections, and will be less capital intensive. Makes good sense to me. If CFP builds a nice community in phase one fairly quickly it will give the whole project positive momentum. Success breeds more success.

The footprint for phase 1 is missing something though: It is missing a village center! If CFP is going to build a bunch of homes but no village center, they will be missing the opportunity to showcase the essence of the "clustered village" design. Can they expand the footprint of phase 1 to the south far enough to include that village center? That would be a huge win for the project.

I am happy we are continuing with the Clustered Villages plan and not going back to square one.

However there is one element in the Clustered Villages plan that I think needs to change: We do not need to build any new elementary schools to accommodate the new CNWS population. I am concerned MDUSD will be closing existing neighborhood schools in the next few years due to low and declining enrollment. Why on earth would we build new elementary schools? Our existing Concord schools desperately need these new students! Better to save the school construction money for other community benefits and help the existing Concord schools by increasing their enrollment.

One of the important goals of the reuse plan is to unify old and new Concord. We need to move up the timing of construction of the roads that will allow access to CNWS (West Street, Denkinger, Bailey Road, and Salvio) so people living in north and east Concord can easily visit their new neighbors, and vice versa. Without these connector roads in place early, the burden of traffic on Willow Pass Road will be overwhelming.

Finally the most significant problem I see with the term sheet: CFP proposing a 40 year development window. That is a rate of construction of only about 375 units per year. If this development team can’t complete all phases of this project in 15-20 years from the time the first foundation is poured, maybe we do need to find a new team or additional partners to speed up the construction of this desperately needed housing.

Thanks for considering my input and thanks for all you do for our city!

Mike McDermott
Cell: 925-451-1072
[email protected]

Page 205 of 478 ends

From: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:51 AM
To: Leslie Baxter <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Ortega, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Mora, Israel <[email protected]>; Ryan, Joan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Flawed Proposed Term Sheet for Concord Naval Weapons Site

*This email is being shared with all Councilmembers*

Ms. Baxter:

Thank you for your question about the scope of Developer’s permitted transfer rights as outlined in Section 21 of the DDA/DA term sheet.

In response to your question, the term sheet makes clear that City has selected Concord First Partners, LLC (CFP) and its three constituent members (i.e. Lewis Concord Member, Discovery Builders, and CCIG) as the preferred master developer with whom City will negotiate proposed comprehensive agreements for redevelopment of the Concord Naval Weapons Station property.

As typical in these types of land development transactions, we do contemplate that CFP may desire to form one or more master developer affiliated entities over the course of the project to take on a particular phase or sub-phase of the project or for related financing purposes. CFP might form a new entity, for among other reasons, to obtain tax efficiencies or involve non-developer third party equity partners to provide equity financing to the project. Non-developer equity partners might include private equity groups, pension funds, insurance companies and the like. That said, City and CFP teams’ shared expectation is that any new entity would have to be controlled by the same entities and in roughly the same manner as the current CFP ownership structure.

At the time City selected CFP, the CFP LLC entity was and continues to be owned 45% by Lewis Concord , 45% by Discovery Builders and 10% by CCIG. . In order to qualify as an “Affiliate” of CFP, we would expect for Discovery and Lewis to each own a substantial, but less than a 50%, equity stake. Under the current ownership structure, CFP’s major business decisions must be made by supermajority (4/5) vote which means Lewis and Discovery must effectively act by mutual agreement in order the achieve the 4/5 or 80% approval vote. In order to qualify as an entity that “controls, is controlled by or under common control with” CFP, any new transferee Affiliate entity would similarly have to be jointly controlled by, at minimum, Discovery and Lewis. Any transfer to a new entity in which Lewis or Discovery owns a majority stake and therefore can make decisions unilaterally w ithout the consent of the other would constitute a “change in control” requiring City Council approval. In other words a transfer to a new entity in which Discovery owns more than 50% of the shares or member or partnership interests would be prohibited unless approved by the City Council as that would constitute a change in control of the master developer. The term sheet admittedly outlines this and other topics at a relatively high level; these key business points will be fleshed out in much greater detail in a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and statutory vested rights Development Agreement (DA).

As reflected in the term sheet, we anticipate the DDA and Development Agreement will provide some flexibility for Lew is, Discovery and CCIG to reduce their ownership stakes below 45%/45%/10%, respectively, in order to allow non-developer capital partners to make equity investments in the

Page 206 of 478 ends

project. The extent to which Lewis , Discovery and CCGI will be allowed to dilute their respective ownership percentages is a detail that will have to be further negotiated and fleshed out in the DDA and DA. Regardless, and notwithstanding the introduction of those non-developer capital partners, we would expect Discovery and Lewis to continue to have joint decision making authority over major development decisions in order to qualify as a permitted Affiliate transfer.

Thank you again for taking the time to comment on the draft term sheet. We look forward to your participation in the upcoming meeting on January 7th.

Guy Bje rk e
Director, Economic Development & Base Reuse
City of Concord
[email protected]
(925) 671-3076

From: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Leslie Baxter <[email protected]> ; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <J ustin.Ezell@c ityofc oncord.org> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Flawed Proposed Term Sheet for Concord Naval Weapons Site

Ms. Baxter-

Thank you for your email and concern about the transfer provision of the Term Sheet. I think I misunderstood your question (I assume it was you) at last Thursday night’s presentation. I am reviewing your concern with our consulting team and have asked CFP to review it as well. I expect to have a response for you ahead of the January 7 meeting – so you can further raise the issue, if necessary, then.

Best regards.

Guy Bjerke
Director, Economic Development & Base Reuse
City of Concord
(925) 671-3076

From: Leslie Baxter <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 3:40 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]> , [email protected] <[email protected]>, Brown, Susanne <S [email protected]> Cc: Local@bayare anewsgroup.com < [email protected]> Subject: Flawed Proposed Term Sheet for Concord Naval Weapons Site Dear City of Concord Staff,

I write to urge staff to rescind its recommendation that the draft Term Sheet be adopted by the City Council in its current form. Section 21.a. of the draft Term Sheet provides that CFP, LLC, the “Developer shall be permitted to transfer all or any portion of its rights and corresponding obligations under the DDA and DA from time to time to a transferee who, directly or indirectly, controls, is

Page 207 of 478 ends

controlled by, or is under common control with Developer…without, in any such case, the approval of the City….” This amounts to a “get out of the contract free” clause, whereby any or all of the three member entities comprising CFP may exit its obligations and liabilities for the entire project, leaving the City contractually bound to an unknown, unvetted and potentially unqualified Master Developer.

At the community meeting on the Term Sheet on December 15, the representative from propose Master Developer CFP confirmed that this is exactly what Section 21.a. means, and that CFP would have the right to transfer its rights as Master Developer to a Seeno-owned entity, among others, without City consent. Thus, any internal checks and balances CFP might have as a tripartite LLC are negated, because CFP can opt out of its obligations to the City and escape any consequences of any wrongful acts that one of its members or their sub-entities might commit in the course of the Project. The City should reject Section 21.a. and related sections of the proposed Term Sheet. The rights and responsibilities of the Master Developer should be borne by the Master Developer and its members, without qualification. Any transfer of the Master Developer role should be subject to a thorough review by the City, and should be at the City’s express discretion, to ensure that an accountable, responsible and economically robust developer is guiding this important project. Other sections of the Term Sheet, DDA and DA pertaining to the assignment and assumption of master development rights should be carefully scrutinized and written, so that CFP remains obligated to the City to perform its duties as Master Developer to the greatest extent possible.

These changes are essential because the current draft language leaves the City powerless to control who will be the Master Developer of the most significant development project the City has ever tackled.

Best regards,

Leslie Baxter
987 Oasis Drive
Concord 94518

Page 208 of 478 ends

From: Elizabeth Schmidt <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 10:26 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Development of Concord Naval Weapons Station property

Hello
I am a Concord resident and I am asking that you reconsider continuing the development partnership with Concord First Properties. Seeno has a history of dishonest behavior and aggressive legal actions related to its business dealings. And it is currently embroiled in lawsuits within its ranks. Does Concord want to be in a partnership with such a company for the next 40 years?

If Concord is willing to consider significantly increasing the number of new housing units as Concord First Properties is asking for, then that new development scenario should be presented to all developers for competitive bidding.

I hope you will take this into consideration going into the meeting this Saturday.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Schmidt
925-324-1653
Sent from my iPhone

Page 209 of 478 ends

From: William Guthreau <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:53 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Seeno and the CNW Project

Dear City Representitive:

My wife and I do not want the Seeno Organization working on the Weapons Station Project. There have been so many problems with them from lack of care for the environment to downright corruption.

Drop Seeno as the builder of choice for the Weapons Station Project.

Best regards,
Bill Guthreau 925-207-2439
Shirley Guthreau 925-788-9832

Page 210 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Ellen Peterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 12:49 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Hearing on 1/7/23: Seenos

Dear City Council,
I cannot attend the January 7 meeting because of illness, so I am writing you.

I have watched the Seenos and their various actions for at least a few decades.

They have shown a stunning lack of concern for the environment, and have been sanctioned millions of dollars for intentionally killing red legged frogs, an endangered species, and trying to hide their actions.

The lengthy report on the actions of the Seeno company by the SFChronicle should be required reading by the Concord City Council.

The poor reputation of the Seeno company should matter to the City Council because if the Seeno company is given what it currently asks for, it is the City Council who will have to carefully monitor the Seeno company, and the citizens of Concord who will be negatively impacted by any failures of the Seenos and their company. The citizens of Concord and those who care about the environment deserve better.

Thank you,
Ellen Peterson

Sent from my iPhone

Page 211 of 478 ends

From: allan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 12:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

C
ouncil, et al:

It has been apparent for decades that the nature and character of the Seeno “Empire” are not representative of responsible business practices, good citizenship, trustworthiness, dependability, and simple honesty.

Examples are legion, several directly involving the City of Concord.

To even consider a 40 year contract with such entities seems beyond the pale and one wonders, given their character and past behavior, what would motivate OUR City Council to entertain such a relationship.

As a long time resident of Concord, I urge and dare I say demand you cease negotiations and any relationship with anything connected to any Seeno entity.

--
Allan Woods
[email protected]
Sent from an ÆtheroTron.

Page 212 of 478 ends

From: Tina Segrove <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 12:07 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Concord Naval Weapons Stations/Concord First Partners Term Sheet

Dear Concord City Council Members,

I'm writing today in opposition of the term sheet proposal presented by California First Partners. It is incomplete, lacks transparency and does not meet the requirements for affordable housing. I think it's absurd they are presenting accessory dwelling units as affordable housing. Specifically;
• The Term Sheet should be amended to include more affordable units and affordable homes in earlier phases.
• The total number of units should not exceed the Area Plan without significant community engagement.

• JADUs should not be included as affordable housing.
• If Seeno and its partners are unwilling to honor the 2012 Area plan that includes 25% affordable housing, the Term Sheet should not be approved, and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

Furthermore, I stand with Concord Communities Alliance in requesting the following:
• To assure the reputation and integrity of this development we want to expand section 11c ( page 37 of 61 ) to i nclude any developer that has been suspended, disbarred, or prohibited from contracting with any jurisdiction, as well as limit any developer with a repeated history of environmental violations and litigations against municipalities.

• We need assurance that this “world -class” development is built by ethical, responsible developers.
• If Seeno and its partners cannot comply with these requirements, the Term Sheet should not be approved, and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

If City leaders are serious about putting Concord first, you will not approve this term sheet as presented.

Sincerely,

Tina Segrove
5506 Lowry Court
Concord CA 94521

Page 213 of 478 ends

From: Brenda Shaffer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 10:48 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Put Concord First

DROP SEENO NOW! I have heard way too many bad stories regarding Seeno.. I don't believe they are the right people for the job. They're crooks in my opinion.

A concerned resident since 1970
Brenda Shaffer

Page 214 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Etzel <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 11:21 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno now!

Please put the city of Concord and Concord residents like me first by dropping Seeno and “Concord First Partners” from further consideration as master developers in the development of the city’s portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. They have not demonstrated a mutually beneficial approach to development.

I would much rather see the city make the time to seek out other developers and restart the process than let Seeno and “Concord First Partners” dictate the terms and process to their favor at the detriment to Concord and the environment.

Scott Etzel
3692 Northridge Drive (district 4)
Concord, CA 94518
925.827.9576

S
ent from my iPhone

Page 215 of 478 ends

From: Jessica <jessicakelmon@hotma il.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 11:39 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: SEENO IS AT IT AGAIN. SHOW UP SAT, Jan 7th, 9AM, at 2727 Parkside Circle

Good morning!

I hope you are staying warm, safe, and dry. If the storm this week highlights anything, it's our need to provide shelter for unhoused people -- and that means more affordable housing. The summary below makes a lot of sense to me, and I'm wondering why Seeno has a exclusive window for negotiations, why the # of units would go up without an increase in affordable housing units, and why our community is working exclusively with a developer with so many negatives (sues the city and hurts the environment both stand out as red flags, and the obfuscation of what constitutes affordable with the JADUs is a serious yellow flag, if not red).

If we're going to develop new housing, it NEEDS to be affordable. We have teachers, child care workers, and social workers who need to live in the community they so dedicatedly serve. I don't think 25% is sufficient, we should be working toward 100%. Can't you find developers who specialize in low-income and affordable housing? I'm sure it's disheartening to start from scratch after so much hard work, but from reading below, it sounds like that would be the best course of action. Please reach out to developers who specialize in low-income and affordable housing and start fresh.

Sincerely,

Jessica Kelmon
Concord homeowner
Person with a heart who doesn't want people to be homeless

From: Concord Communities Alliance <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 11:18 AM
To: Jessica <jessicakelmon@hotma il.com>
Subject: SEENO IS AT IT AGAIN. SHOW UP SAT, Jan 7th, 9AM, at 2727 Parkside Circle

U r gent : C ou nc i l dec i des on C o nco r d F i r st Pa r t ne r s ' ( ak a See no ) Te r m Sh eet . T he y nee d t o hea r f r o m y ou ! View this email in your browser

Page 216 of 478 ends

SEENO IS AT IT AGAIN. SHOW UP SATURDAY, Jan. 7th
at 9AM, Concord Senior Center, 2727 Parkside Circle.

The majority of Concord residents voiced concerns about Concord First Partners (a.k.a Seeno) as the Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station because of SEENO’s history of environmental violations, poor quality developments, lack of customer service, FBI raids, and disrespect of Native Tribes (Miwok). Concord City Council ignored the voices of their constituents and entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. The Term Sheet resulting from that negotiation period lacks full financials, transparency, and a commitment to the 2012 Area Plan. The Term Sheet will be discussed on Saturday, and our Council needs to hear from you, THIS IS WHY:

The Financial Summary in the T erm Sheet is insufficient and does not reflect the verbal commitment to “transparency .”
• The half-page explanation (Exhibit B, page 58 of 61) doe s not provide enough information for Concord residents to evaluate and understand the financing, economics and risk to taxpayers.
• No contribution to the project by Concord First Partners (CFP) is shown - ALL planned sources and amounts should be clear, particularly for the initial backbone infrastructure • Anticipated funds to all stakeholders should be explicit - not just CFP, but the City, Labor, affordable housing, community benefits, etc., and the uses of tax supported Public Financing should be clearly disclosed.
• OUR ASKS:
o Make available the full feasibility analysis.
o CFP to meet its commitment to full financial transparency. o If Seeno and its partners are unwilling to provide this information, the Term Sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

The Term Sheet proposal DOES NOT meet the 2012 Area Plan requirement of 25% affordable housing. This should disqualify CFP (a.k.a Seeno) from further consideration unless and until amended.

Page 217 of 478 ends

• The 2012 plan allotted for 12,000 homes with 25% b eing affordable units. The Seeno Term Sheet increases the units to 15,595, substantially reducing open space and does not increase the total number of affordable units.
o The addition of over 3,000 units was negotiated without public input behind closed doors between Concord First Partners and city staff. o CFP was privileged to receive an extremely lengthy ENA period, yet no community input for such changes was requested or utilized. o Only 5 weeks during the holiday season was given for full review of the proposed Term Sheet.
• Despite the number of proposed units increasing, the affordable units, including those for homelessness, remain at only 3,020 ( Exhibit A-5, Page. 57 of 61 ) o CFP includes Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) as “affordable ” although deed restrictions are unenforceable. JADUs are not an affordable housing solution if you cannot require the homeowner to rent them out. o Many of the planned affordable units will not be constructed for upwards of a decade.
o Phase 5 has no high density affordable housing.
• OUR ASKS:
o The Term Sheet should be amended to include more affordable units and affordable homes in earlier phases.
o The total number of units should not exceed the Area Plan without significant community engagement.
o JADUs should not be included as affordable housing.
o If Seeno and its partners are unwilling to hono r the 2012 Area plan that includes 25% affordable housing, the Term Sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

CFP’s principals have a history of initiating litigation against their civic partners in development projects. This causes delays creating hardships for our labor partners and those needing affordable housing.
• OUR ASKS
o To assure the reputation and integrity of this development we want to expand section 11c ( page 37 of 61) to include any developer that has been suspended, disbarred, or prohibited from contracting with any jurisdiction, as w ell as limit any developer with a repeated history of environmental violations and litigations against munic ipalit ies.
o We need assurance that this “world -class” development is built by ethical, responsible developers.
o If Seeno and its partners cannot comply with these requirements, the Term Sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

In Summary: CFP’s T erm Sheet violates the expectations of the Concord community as to the process and development of the CNWS property.

Page 218 of 478 ends

What can you do?
Show up and speak during public comment this Saturday, Jan. 7th, at 9:00AM at 2727 Parkside Circle, near Baldwin Park.

Email the City Council now at [email protected] a nd CC:
[email protected].

Vie w Agenda

TERM SHEET & EXHIBITS

Click LINK TO WATCH LIVE on Saturday, January 7th or watch archived videos.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you watch live, you can’t call in to ask questions. Call in information is not provided in the agenda. Please attend in person if you are able to.

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WORK, DONATE or
BECOME A CCA Member.

Donate

Page 219 of 478 ends

Monthly Supporter

Ye arly Supporter

Help us to grow our political power by building a membership base. Donations and dues allow CCA to create a steady operating budget so we can use tools to organize, grow our work, and activate our community. Here are two ways to help:

1. Anyone: Donate to help us activate the community through education and em pow er m ent.

2. Concord Residents: A monthly membership fee of $5 per month allows us to host monthly community me e tings

3. Concord Residents: A yearly membership fee of $55 per year allows us to educate, prepare and support individuals wanting to run for office.

No one is turned away due to experiencing financial hardship; dues are often sponsored by another member. If you would like to request sponsorship, email concord.communities.allia nce@gma il.com to ask for a membership dues waiver.

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:

Concord Communities Alliance
PO Box 607
Concord, CA 94522- 0607

Add us t o your address book

Update your email preferences or unsubscribe. We hope you w on’t, be our ally.

Page 220 of 478 ends

From: Kathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 11:49 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Dominic Aliano <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <Edi.Birsan@cityofconc ord.org>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Jan 7 Seeno meeting

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Borenstein article 1/5/23

This alone should be reason enough to drop Seeno!

Kathy Gleason

Borenstein: Seeno v. Seeno in building empire’s ‘War of the Roses’ (mercurynews.com)

Sent from Mail f or Windows

Page 221 of 478 ends

From: Albert Seeno III <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023, 3:31 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <Laura.H [email protected] >; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Subject: Statement Regarding 1/5/23 Editorial

Dear Mayor and Members of the Concord City Council,
As we approach Saturday’s critical hearing with the Concord City Council on whether to advance to the next negotiating stage of the housing job generating project at the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS), today’s editorial in the East Bay Times has attempted to tie a familial legal dispute to this critical development.

Two years ago, after successfully managing the Seeno group of companies (owned by various Seeno family members) for many years, I was formally named the CEO of several companies via an employment agreement. This succession plan had been in the works for years and was approved by the Board of Directors and shareholders of the various Seeno companies. About a year after the agreement was approved, despite a track record of successful operation and execution on the long-term vision, my father, Albert Seeno Jr., decided he no longer wanted me to run the companies, and he sued to invalidate the employment agreement.

I categorically deny all my father’s allegations. My primary concern is, and always has been, to manage the Seeno companies in the best interests of all owners, employees, and its homebuyers. Nevertheless, due to the outstanding performance of Discovery Builders and Seeno companies’ staff, the companies remain successful and are moving forward. Together we are executing on the vision for the future.

The timing of this editorial is part of a persistent campaign to attack my family and its members. If accepted and used as intended, it will only deny Concord and the region this much needed and exciting housing and job generating project. The dispute and its subsequent media coverage is not material to the project, and its multitude of benefits. The editorial does nothing to advance the work required to entitle, process, or deliver the CNWS housing and job generating project as envisioned. It is just an attempt to revisit the selection process, a decision that was made by Concord 18+ months ago.

This whole dispute is unfortunate and embarrassing for myself, my father Albert D. Seeno Jr., and the rest of the Seeno family. Everyone that has worked with me closely knows I operate with the highest integrity, and I am proud of my family name, I am proud of the companies I manage, and I am proud to be building in the communities where our companies operate and invest. But most importantly I am proud of the Discovery/Seeno team members, which make all of it happen. The past, current and ongoing success of these companies is due to the hard work and commitment by the Discovery and Seeno team members. There is no reason for my father Albert D. Seeno Jr. to have filed the lawsuit, nor any reason for much of his recent behavior, nor any reason for his making outlandish, baseless claims; unfortunately, that is just sometimes the way it goes in family businesses. This will all be resolved in court eventually.

Thank you,

Albert D. Seeno III

Page 222 of 478 ends

From: Kristen Oliner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 6:01 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Special Meeting January 7, 2023

Public Comme nt regarding this Agenda Item:
"Consideration of the Local Reuse Authority's acceptance of Concord First Partners, LLC's Term Sheet for development of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station."

I ask that you vote NO on this acceptance consideration. I attended the December 15 community meeting to learn about the term sheet being proposed by Concord First Partners. The presentation felt overwhelmingly like a sales job for a plan, and yet there seemed to be many aspects of the plan that couldn't be explained in clear terms, such as the timeline for the different Phases of the project and the tradeoffs that are made between promised open space acres and an additional 3,300 homes than originally planned. The "conceptual drawings" and maps show acres of concrete throughout the project that do not show any "character" or truly innovative community features that would be important to the quality of life for residents of this development and residents of Concord and the surrounding communities. Truly, the plan appears to have been thrown together and wrapped up in a glossy presentation.

I have been involved with this base reuse project since it began in 2012, attending community meetings and City Council meetings and distributing materials door to door to encourage others to do the same. I was saddened to read an article in the SF Business Times, November 30, 2022, where one of the Concord First Partners states, " The Area Plan that we are effectively trying to stay in compliance with is a 2012 document, with thousands of public input comments and no developer in the room to really set a table of what was reasonable or not." This is essentially negating the value of the work done by hundreds of people to create a visionary Area Plan.

At the December 15 meeting, citizens were assured that opportunities for community input would be ongoing even after the Concord First Partners, LLC's Term Sheet might be approved on January 7, 2023. Legally, however, many aspects of Term Sheet would be legally binding and community input would be largely for show.

As hard as it seems to see the timeline extended again for starting development of the acres of land awaiting an economic conveyance agreement with the Navy, the stakes are much too high to risk handing over the rights of the community in order to guarantee the financial success of the real estate speculators involved in Concord First Partners, LLC.

Sincerely,
Kristen Oliner
(510) 915-0261

Page 223 of 478 ends

From: Kathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 4:58 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Dominic Aliano <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <Edi.Birsan@cityofconc ord.org>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <Guy.Bjerke@cityofconc ord.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cityofconc ord.org>
Subject: Seeno/CFP CNWS

To: Concord City Council members

From: Kathy Gleason, CNWS Neighborhood Alliance

Date: 1/5/2023

Adding to my points of interest and questions previously emailed on 1/3/23.

• Today I became aware of the changes in the Seeno/Concord First Plan regarding the Greenbelt Framework adjacent to neighborhoods in the north Sun Terrace area and south Dana Estates and Bishop Estates side of the CNWS. The greenbelt Framework between existing neighborhoods and new development (per the approved General Plan) needs to be a minimum of 275 ft., not an average of 275 ft. as described in the Seeno/CFP proposed plan. Please note this for future planning and development. • Also, the connectivity areas between the clustered villages and the areas of greenspace from the creek to the clustered villages has been reduced. These changes do not follow the approved General Plan. Any Master Developer chosen must follow the General Plan.
• Dan Borenstein’s article in the East Bay Times today “Seeno vs Seeno becoming building empires War of the Roses” should be a huge red flag! Residents already knew the poor reputations of this company and its business associates and were shocked when City Council members voted to negotiate with Seeno/Concord First as Master Developer of the CNWS. City Council needs to recognize the negative impact this choice of master developer will have on the city and its residents, and end negotiation with this company. The negative impact is clear to your constituents.

Sent from Mail f or Windows

Page 224 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Proctor <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 4:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno as Master Developer of CNWS Development

As a long time Concord resident, I am once again requesting that the city council drop its negotiations with Seeno and Partners regarding the CNWS property development. Seeno has a history of resortinto to litigation, poor construction quality, environmental violations, and ignoring community concerns and input. This company does not keep its promises!
Its financial summary in the Term Sheet is woefully insufficient and it does not meet the 2012 Area Plan for 25% affordable housing. The Exclusive Negotiating Agreement should be allowed to lapse. Concord and its citizens deserve a first rate company to execute a first rate plan for the future of Concord! Drop Seeno!
Andrea Proctor
1211 Amaranth Way
Concord CA 94521
S
ent from my iPhone

Page 225 of 478 ends

From: Hein, Claudia <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 4:28 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Special Meeting of the Concord City Council Sat Jan 7 Agenda Item #2a

Mayor and Concord City Council members,

The process for producing the reuse plan for the Concord Naval Weapons Station has been a model for community involvement. 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, need to be upheld and should not be compromised.

Not only does the large increase in the number of residential units go against the adopted Reuse Area Plan, but it also goes against the original terms for bidding on the project. It seems extremely unfair not to allow the bidding to be reopened if the terms have changed in such a major way.

There also seems to be very little transparency in the financial feasibility analysis provided in the term sheet. A project this large, that will affect the city of Concord, the county, and the region, needs to have the financial implications laid out in more detail.

The city of Concord needs to choose a trustworthy and reliable partner to the many stakeholders and the community at large.

We strongly encourage you to vote no on the Concord First Partners, LLC proposed term sheet and not to proceed with the DDA. It may seem like a step backward, but this is too big a project to make this decision without all the information necessary.

--
Scott and Claudia Hein
Concord residents since 1988
Members of Community Advisory Committees

Page 226 of 478 ends

From: Martha Ann Wishnev <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:43 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Naval Weapons Station

We have lived in Concord for 56 years and are very proud of our city. It does not appear that Seeno is the correct choice as the Master Developer for this project. They have a history of charges of fraud, intimidation, and environmental
violations. You, the members of the council, need to make a better choice. Please reconsider.

Thank you
Martha Ann & Sanford Wishnev
Martha Ann Wishnev
925-586-2853 (Cell)
Better Homes & Gardens Reliance Partners
C
al DRE Lic.# 00608658

Page 227 of 478 ends

From: Morgan Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Seen as master/developer

DROP SEENO NOW!
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 228 of 478 ends

From: Petra K. <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:27 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: I disaggree with Concord First Partners as the master developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station

To Conord City Council

A a Concord residents, I disagree with Concord First Partners being the master developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station because of SEENO’s history of environmental violations, poor quality developments, lack of customer service, FBI raids, and disrespect of Native Tribes.

I am concerned that Concord City Council ignored the voices of their constituents and entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. The Term Sheet resulting from that negotiation period lacks full financials, transparency, and a commitment to the 2012 Area Plan.

As a Concord resident I urge you to reconsider your previous decisions regarding Concord First Partners as the master developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

Sincerely,
Petra Kasan
Tomas Kasan

Page 229 of 478 ends

From: Mark Cantrell <markcantrel2018@gma il.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:26 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW

Dear City Council Menbers,

I am sending this email as a lifetime resident of Concord and want my voice to be heard by you, the Council Members I vote for.

PLEASE put our City first over greed and DROP SEENO as the developer of the former Naval Weapons Station.

Put Concord and it's citizens first. Seeno's plan to increase housing units by 27% more, than was accepted in 2012, is only going to make Concord more densely populated and increase traffic substantially. This scenario will be to Seeno's benefit and Concord's detriment.

Please DROP SEENO and help Concord thrive. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark Cantrell

Page 230 of 478 ends

From: JOSE OSTROVSKY <ojosemarie@sbcgloba l.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 1:15 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Please Drop Seeno as Master Developer

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow Dear Concord City Council, It%2��s tim e. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners as the Master Developer for the Concord reuse project. This project could be the largest developm ent in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region. The consequences of this decision are too im portant to allow com panies with such a long, poor record (shady practices, governm ent investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environm ental laws, bullying,
threats, lawsuits against key partners on this project) to be involved. Last year in August when Seeno and their partners were tentatively chosen, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you NOT to choose them as the Master Developer. Concord
residents were ignored. And just this year, the com pany%2��s own representatives tried to elim inate the city%2��s leverage on the project, and even adm itted they couldn%2��t make the project work. They shouldn%2��t have been chosen in the first place, they
can%2��t deliver, and Concord residents deserve all the com m unity benefits associated with this project that were prom ised to them in the years and decades leading up to today. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners so a trustworthy, capable entity can take
the lead and create som ething that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster. Regards, Jose Ostrovsky and Maria Elena De Leiva Concord Resident

Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 231 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: MJ Stephens <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 12:53 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Ex-CNAWS Plan Increases Concord Population 25%. Not Enough Water Now!

Concord City Council-

Concord is planning a residential development on the ex-CNAWS land, increasing the city’s population by 25%.

And there is not enough water now in Concord!

There were TWO 200 years droughts in California between the years 1000 and 1500 AD. That is only 500 years ago!

Then there is Climate Change, with it hitting 121 degrees in Canada last year. No denying, we are up the creek without a reliable water source now.

And this present round of storms is not going to change that, any more than the storms in December 2021 changed our drought status.

Concord should be using the ex-CNAWS hills for an Open Space natural water recycling system down to what was, and should be, a migrating birds marsh, at the bottom of the hills, providing residents with a new water source, looking to Federal Climate Change Financing for a Water Recycling Infrastructure Project.

I know Concord’s residents want the Open Space a Recycling Water Project would provide, because I stood up and suggested 5,000 acres of Open Space at the very first Reuse meeting, and it got the loudest round of applause. But it never even made up onto the white board, because the City Council then were the money-hungry puppets of property developers. Are you still now?

ACT to be GOOD PARTNER with all now, by providing the benefit of Water to this City’s Grandchildren, instead of being short-sighted and selfish, only looking to make money for a few now.

Aiming for Wealth for a Few now, while causing the harm of Water Poverty for All, is going to lead to Concord’s grandchildren CURSING YOU in your graves.

Concord City Council must not stick their heads in the sand, condemning this city’s grandchildren to dying of thirst.

You want it different? It’s not, in the 21st Century!

-MJ Stephens
Concord Resident 35 years.

The Almost-dead who cares more about other people’s Grandchildren than Concord City Council does about their own.

Page 232 of 478 ends

From: Jonna Henderson <hendersonjonna@gma il.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 12:24 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Concord First Partners (a.k.a Seeno) as the Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station

I would like to submit my comments to the above referenced agenda item January 7, 2023 City Council Meeting.

I am asking for the following:
•
o The Term Sheet should be amended to include more affordable units and affordable homes in earlier phases.
o The total number of units should not exceed the Area Plan without significant community engagement.
o JADUs should not be included as affordable housing.
o If Seeno and its partners are unwilling to honor the 2012 Area plan that includes 25% affordable housing, th e T erm Sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse. •
o To assure the reputation and integrity of this development we want to expand section 11c ( page 37 of 61) to include a ny developer that has been suspended, disbarred, or prohibited from contracting with any jurisdiction, as w ell as limit any developer with a repeated history of environmental violations and litigations against munic ipalit ies.
o We need assurance that this “w orld-class” development is built by ethical, responsible developers.
o If Seeno and its partners cannot comply with these requirements, the Term Sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

In Summary: CFP’s Term Sheet violates the expectations of the Concord community as to the process and development of the CNWS property.

Thanks and Have a Great Day!
Jonna Henderson
Human Resources Consultant
Cell: 925.917.1350
Email: [email protected]

The materials transmitted by this electronic mail are confidential, are only for the use of the intended recipient, and may also be subject to applicable privileges. Any di ssemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender. Please also remove the message from your hard drive, diskette, and any other storage device.

Page 233 of 478 ends

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Polly Rink <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 5:39 PM
> To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> > Subject: Seeno/Concord Naval Weapons Station
>
>
> Dear Council Members,
>
> As a resident of Concord for 74 years (I was born in Concord), I am adamantly opposed using Seeno Builders for the development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. >
> Seeno is a builder with a history of misrepresenting what he proposes/promises to do and what he actual does. Seeno has a very unsavory reputation in the area as well as outside of the area. >
> I’ve followed the work the council has done to secure a developer and the extreme frustrations you must be experiencing. But awarding Seeno the contract seems like a dire move. There must be a developer out there much more qualified than Seeno with a much better reputation and proven track record.
>
> The Naval Weapons property development is too important to give the responsibility to a builder with the Seeno reputation. I urge you not to award Seeno the contract. >
> This is the first time that I have written to my council members in all the years I have lived in Concord.

This is one issue I feel very strongly about that l felt the need to speak up this time. >
> Thank you for all the work you do for the City of Concord, I know at times it is extremely difficult for all of you.
>
> Polly Rink
> 1742 Clinton Drive
> Concord
>

> Sent from my iPad

Page 234 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Lyn Roy <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 8:42 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno

I implore you to see the evidence of this firms poor record, and open the bidding process up to others.

Please do NOT stay in this “bed” any longer.

Paul & Lynda Roy

Sent from my iPad

Page 235 of 478 ends

From: Helen Tavares <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 2:30 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno

Please vote NO (reject) with regards to the term sheets

Page 236 of 478 ends

From: Dianne Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:41 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: SEENO TERM SHEET SHORTCOMINGS - I am unable to attend the meeting Saturday AM but want it know that I, along with the majority of Concord residents, am firmly against allowing Seeno and it’s partners to proceed with the plan to develop the Concord NWS.

The Financial Summary in the Term Sheet i s insufficient and does not reflect the verbal commitment to “transparency.”
• The half-page explanation (Exhibit B, page 58 of 61) does not provide enough information for Concord residents to evaluate and understand the financing, economics and risk to taxpayers.
• No contribution to the project by Concord First Partners (CFP) is shown - ALL planned sources and amounts should be clear, particularly for the initial backbone infrastructure
• Anticipated funds to all stakeholders should be explicit - not just CFP, but the City, Labor, affordable housing, community benefits, etc., and the uses of tax supported Public Financing should be clearly disclosed. • OUR ASKS:
o Make available the full feasibility analysis.
o CFP to meet its commitment to full financial transparency. o If Seeno and its partners are unwilling to provide this information, the Term Sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

The Term Sheet proposal DOES NOT meet the 2012 Area Plan requirement of 25% affordable housing. This should disqualify CFP (a.k.a Seeno) from further conside ration unless and until amended.
• The 2012 plan allotted for 12,000 homes with 25% being affordable units. The Seeno Term Sheet increases the units to 15,595, substantially reducing open space and does not increase the total number of affordable units.

Page 237 of 478 ends

o The addition of over 3,000 units was negotiated without public inputbehind closed doors between Concord First Partners and city staff. o CFP was privileged to receive an extremely lengthy ENA period, yet no community input for such changes was requested or utilized. o Only 5 weeks during the holiday season was given for full review of the proposed Term Sheet.
• Despite the number of proposed units increasing, the affordable units, incl uding those for homelessness, remain at only 3,020 ( Exhibit A-5, Page. 57 of 61 ) o CFP includes Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) as “affordable ” although deed restrictions are unenforceable. JADUs are not an afforda ble housing solution if you cannot require the homeowner to rent them out.
o Many of the planned affordable units will not be constructed for upwards of a decade.
o Phase 5 has no high density affordable housing.
• OUR ASKS:
o The Term Sheet should be amended to include more affordable units and affordable homes in earlier phases.
o The total number of units should not exceed the Area Plan without significant community engagement.
o JADUs should not be included as affordable housing.
o If Seeno and its partners are unwilling to honor the 2012 Area plan that includes 25% affordable housing, the Term Sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

Page 238 of 478 ends

• OUR ASKS
o To assure the reputation and integrity of this development we want to expand section 11c ( page 37 of 61 ) to include any developer that has been suspended, disbarred, or prohibited from contracting with any jurisdiction, as well as limit any developer with a repeated history of environmental violations and litigations against municipalities. o We need assurance that this “world- class” development is built by ethical, responsible developers.
o If Seeno and its partners cannot comply with these requirements, the Term Sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

In Summary: CFP’s Term Sheet violates the expectations of the Concord community as to the process and development of the CNWS property.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 239 of 478 ends

From: mary kobayashi <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 8:34 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Deny Term Sheet

Mayor Hoffmesiter and Council Members:

We question Council supporting Seeno's Term Sheet.

The first developer (Lennar) was only given 500 acres on their Term Sheet for Phase One. First Partners is requesting ALL 2,275 acres for their First Phase.

Why isn't Seeno's financial picture strong enough to support Phase One? The fear is if they are given FULL acreage of developable property they would walk away because it is too expensive to complete and/or they can't get the funding.

What protection does the City have?

Transparency: Where is the transparency on Seeno's finances when only a select few can see if they are capable of financing this project over the 40 years? Why hasn't the City Council seen their financial report?

We ask you to deny this Term Sheet and let the Agreement expire with this Master Planner.

Sincerely,

Eizo and Mary Kobayashi

Page 240 of 478 ends

From: David Fry <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:54 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Trust

Laura, Carlyn, and Edi,
There can be no doubt that the Seeno organizations cannot be trusted.

Not trusted to perform on contracts. Not trusted with their financial reporting. Not trusted to follow through with commitments to organizations. Not trusted to steward the environment. Not even trusted by their own family members that currently litigate for control of the Seeno companies.

The City of Concord must not move forward with a contract involving an organization that it cannot trust. If anything, the principals of the Seeno organization have consistently shown that they should not be trusted.

The members of the City Council must not move forward with a commitment to any organization known to be untrustworthy. The Seeno organizations have demonstrated how unworthy of trust that they are. If I were given the opportunity, I would not invest in their organizations. I could not imagine that those who manage the finances of the City of Concord could agree to enter into a long term (or any term) contract with an organization that includes the Seeno companies.

The people of Concord want to move forward with a great project without dealing with the devil. They expect their representatives to likewise recognize the error in continuing further along this path. End this madness. Start anew to find a trusted partner and make a workable contract with a trusted organization.

David Fry

Page 241 of 478 ends

From: Sheila Sundberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 6:41 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: SEENO
Importance: High

DROP SEENO NOW!
Nothing but bad news!

Page 242 of 478 ends

From: Bill Holian <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 6:24 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

My wife and I both oppose Seeno's increased density plan for the former naval weapons station.

William and Julie Holian
4385 SnowCloud Ct
Concord 94518

Page 243 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Christine <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 4:43 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Save Mount Diablo

Drop SEENO now.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 244 of 478 ends

From: Stacy and Debbie Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 4:06 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Please Drop Seeno as Master Developer

“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”
Dear Concord City Council, It%2��s tim e. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners as the Master Developer for the Concord reuse project. This project could be the largest developm ent in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region. The consequences of this decision are too im portant to allow com panies with such a long, poor record (shady practices, governm ent investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environm ental laws, bullying,
threats, lawsuits against key partners on this project) to be involved. Last year in August when Seeno and their partners were tentatively chosen, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you NOT to choose them as the Master Developer. Concord
residents were ignored. And just this year, the com pany's own representatives tried to eliminate the city's leverage on the project, and even adm itted they couldn't m ake the project work. They shouldn't have been chosen in the first place, they can't deliver,
and Concord residents deserve all the com m unity benefits associated with this project that were prom ised to them i n the years and decades leading up to today. PLEASE drop Seeno AND their partners so a trustworthy, capable entity can take the lead and create
s
om ething that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster. Regards, Stacy Thompson.

[email protected] C oncord Resident. 4662 Springwood Way Concord, CA. 94521

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 245 of 478 ends

From: JOE TRUE <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 10:40 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: DO NOT APPROVE THE SEENO DEVELOPMENT

Good morning.

I am unable to attend tomorrow's meeting, but I urge the Council to vote no on awarding the Navel Weapons Station Project to Seeno and its partners.

Thank for,
Donald True

Joe True
707-688-2323 (cell)

Page 246 of 478 ends

From: Judith Herman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 10:30 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Special meeting January 7

Dear City Council,

The majority of Concord residents voiced concerns about Concord First Partners (a.k.a Seeno) as the Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station because of SEENO’s history of environmental violations, poor quality developments, lack of customer service, FBI raids, and disrespect of Native Tribes (Miwok.) Concord City Council ignored the voices of their constituents and entered into an exclusive negotiation agreement. The Term Sheet resulting from that negotiation period lacks full financials, transparency, and a commitment to the 2012 Area Plan.

The financial summary (Exhibit B to the Term Sheet) is insufficient and does not reflect the verbal commitment to “transparency.”
• The half-page explanation (Exhibit B, page 58 of 61) does not provide enough information for Concord residents to evaluate and understand the financing, economics and risk to taxpayers.
• No contribution to the project by CFP is shown - ALL planned sources and amounts should be clear, particularly for the initial backbone infrastructure • Anticipated funds flows to all stakeholders should be explicit - not just CFP, but the City, labor, affordable housing, community benefits, etc., and the uses of tax supported Public Financing should be stated explicitly. • CFP must:
o Make available the full feasibility analysis
o CFP to meet its commitment to full financial transparency o If Seeno and its partners are unwilling to provide this information, the term sheet should not be approved and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

The Term Sheet proposal DOES NOT meet the 2012 Area Plan requirement of 25% affordable housing. This should disqualify CFP from further consideration unless and until amended. It should further disqualify at the increased number of over 15,000 without significant public input.
• The 2012 plan allotted for 12,000 homes with 25% being affordable units. The Seeno Term Sheet increases the units to 15,595, substantially reducing open space and does not increase the total number of affordable units.
o The addition of over 3,000 units was negotiated without public input behind closed doors between Concord First Partners and city staff. o CFP was privileged to receive an extremely lengthy ENA period, yet no community input for such changes was requested or utilized o Only 5 weeks across the holidays was given for full review of the proposed Term Sheet

Page 247 of 478 ends

• Despite the number of proposed units increasing, the affordable units, including those for homelessness, remain at only 3,020 (Exhibit A-5, Page. 57 of 61) o CFP includes Jr. Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) in “affordable” although deed restrictions are unenforceable
o Many of the planned affordable units will not be constructed for upwards of a decade.
o Phase 5 has no high-density affordable housing; JADU’s are not an affordable housing solution if you cannot force the homeowner to rent them out. • Our asks
o The term sheet should be amended to include more affordable units and homes in earlier phases
o The total number of units should not exceed the Area Plan without significant community engagement.
o If Seeno and its partners are unwilling to honor the 2012 Area plan that includes 25% affordable housing, the term sheet should not be approved, and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

CFP’s principals have a history of initiating litigation against their civic partners in development projects. This causes delays which are unacceptable to stakeholders with respect to CNWS, including labor and those needing affordable housing.
• Our Ask
o To assure the reputation and integrity of this development we want to expand section 11c (page 37 of 61) to include any developer that has been suspended, disbarred, or prohibited from contracting with any jurisdiction, as well as limit any developer with a repeated history of environmental violations and litigations against municipalities.
o We need assurance that this “world-class” development is built by ethical, responsible developers.
o If Seeno and its partners cannot comply with these requirements, the term sheet should not be approved, and the Exclusive Negotiating period should be allowed to lapse.

In a democracy your constituents must matter. This term sheet lacks respect for the years of effort and public input that went into the 2012 area plan. It does not provide constituents with enough financial information to make reasonable decisions about the quality of the deal going forward. It does not provide the city with enough protection from a developer with a history of using litigation and intimidation to solve disputes with its government partners.

Judi Herman
Concord Resident
Concord Communities Alliance

Page 248 of 478 ends

From: Fred <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 9:56 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Pending CNWS Term Sheet Decision

In light of the very recent news reports (see link), it seems appropriate that the entire Council be copied on the below email as it raises questions regarding Seeno financials.

The City of Concord absolutely avoid getting sucked into the vortex of the Seeno abyss!

http://benicia independent.com/topics/seeno-pr
operty/?fbc lid=IwAR0QCOS0SBy4Aj0bx-
MYVzNXMF9dcr424UkkL74nXEoB7gW9NYE0RMTnIZY

Begin forwarded message:

From: Fred Hersom <[email protected]>
Date : January 2, 2023 at 2:01:21 PM PST
To: Carlyn Obringer <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Pending CNWS Term Sheet Decision
Correction of typo in second to last paragraph; that should read 2012 area plan.

On Monday, January 2, 2023, 01:47:30 PM PST, Fred Hersom <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Council Member Carlyn Obringer,

Happy New Year!

As 2023 begins, the Concord City Council has a weighty decision to make regarding the Seeno/Discovery team’s term sheet. With the new membership configuration of the Council, Concord constituents widely understand that you are likely the swing vote.

As you consider your vote, I’d like to remind that the Seeno Team refused to disclose its financials despite “financial capability” being the second most important RFQ award decision factor. The Seeno Team proposal should have been rejected as non responsive on that basis alone.

As you know, large construction projects are expensive. The Seeno Team term sheet proposes 4,202 more residential units above the 2012 community vetted and officially approved area plan (a 34%increase!).

Page 249 of 478 ends

The Seeno Team may be intending to harvest funds by selling properties even before they get built, a common developer tactic for cash flow and loan maintenance. In the context of deliberate opaque financials, such a strategy portends, at worst, shaky financial circumstances and, at best, private profit motives counter to the best interest of the community (i.e. expanding Junior Accessory Dwelling Units/JADUs at the expense of affordable townhomes).

Seeno’s long and publicly known business record of dubious integrity advises against trusting a commitment by Seeno to the City of Concord’s best interests. It has even demonstrated a tendency to bite the hand that feeds it through a practice of incessant lawsuits and specific to this project its attempts to renege on its proposal’s “commitments” made to local labor.

At minimum the proposed term sheet must be rejected in favor of adherence to the 2012 area plan. Ideally, the Seeno/Discovery Team should be shown the door by the City Council and a clearly financially capable and above board alternative be chosen via an RFQ process that specifically requires integrity in business practices.

Please show the courage to choose responsibly and to promote the best interests of the City of Concord and of your constituent’s as per your duty.

Sincerely,

Fred Hersom
A District 2 Constituent

Page 250 of 478 ends

From: m c alexander <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 1:35 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Jan 7 2023 Agenda Item re Concord Naval Weapons Stn Development

Hello,
I am a 35 year resident of the City of Concord and have been following closely the Naval Weapons development project. I was deeply disappointed in the choice of Discovery Builders as a major participant in our City's future.

The current opportunity that you have to walk away and start this project over is a gift. Take it.

Binding the next two or three generations of Concord citizens to admitted bank fraudsters is madness.

Done with deliberate fairness and integrity, the development of this land can be a shining beacon for California's future.

I strongly urge you to drop this vendor and start over.

Sincerely,
M.C. Alexander
3515G Northwood Dr.

Concord, CA 94520

Page 251 of 478 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 12:29 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno

Drop Seeno. I find it hard to believe that any Seeno was even considered for this project. After all the unscrupulous things that these companies have done. Their motto seems to be "Build lots of houses anyway they can, make lots of money, and move on to another unsuspecting outfit.

Thank you for considering my statement.

Barbara George
Marcella Ct, Concord

Page 252 of 478 ends

From: Sally Holliday <sally.holliday@gma il.com>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 11:47 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Drop Seeno Now

We are against using Seeno as the developer for the Concord Naval Station.

Drop Seeno Now.

Sally and William Holliday
4319 Satinwood Dr, Concord, CA 94521

Page 253 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Brinton McCusker <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 11:13 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: DROP SEENO NOW

Dear City Council Members-

You are political caretakers for the well being of Concord, and, as such, I request that you DROP SEENO NOW as the developer for CNWS.

Thank you,

Brinton McCusker

Sent from my Brinton McCusker's iPhone

Page 254 of 478 ends

From: Kanda Alahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 12:59 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Regarding Seeno Builders

Members of the city council,

I've read both editorials from the EB Times, and am appalled at the ethical and business issues facing the contractor who the city council had approved earlier.

No forward looking city, focused on what is best for its residents and cognisant of the importance of maintaining a balance between the needs for more housing and environmental quality in open space, should ever seriously consider Seeno Builders.

Please vote to sever your relationship with this construction company and seek out a developer who can better serve the interests of our community.

Kanda Alahan
1881 Scott Rd, Concord, CA 94519

Page 255 of 478 ends

From: P hil <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 1:20 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <citycouncil@c ityofconcord.org> Subject: Please keep Seeno out of the Concord Naval Weapons development

Dear City Council,
I am a Concord resident. I recognize that the CNWS development is a complex matter. I have appreciated the effort to include the voice of the residents in the development of the plans. However I feel that the council is ignoring the voice of their constituents by going with Seeno / Concord First Partners. I strongly believe that they are not the right choice for Master Developer. We strongly request that you do not select them.

Philip Quinlan
Concord Resident, CA 94519

Page 256 of 478 ends

From: Sarah Butler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 2:53 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments re: 1/7/23 public mtg on CNWS & term sheet

Dear Concord City Council Members,

Re: Opposition to the current ENA with the Concord First Partners, LLC (CFP) for the Concord Naval Weapons Station

I urge you to read the 3 recent articles in the East Bay Times, and to vote against continuing to negotiate with the CFP LLC.

As is clearly communicated in the "Alternatives" section of your staff report, page 10 for tomorrow's meeting,I urge you to please do the 3rd option as follows • Direct LRA staff to let the ENA with CFP expire on January 31, 2023. ie, do not go forward with negotiating with the CFP LLC when the terms have changed. (larger project area, longer term, etc.)

This project will have an impact on the greater area for generations! Although I do not live in Concord, as an elected member of the Contra Costa County Board of Education, my trustee area includes most of Concord.

Links to East Bay Times:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2023/01/06/editoria l-
concord-can-do-better-than-seeno-for-
weapons-station-deal/

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/12/30/concord-c ity- c ouncil-set-to-vote-on-nava l-weapons- project-future/

Sincerely,
Sarah Butler
233 Overhill Rd.

Orinda, CA 94563

Page 257 of 478 ends

From: maimoona ahmed <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 2:54 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Concord Reuse of Naval Weapons Station -City Council meeting for 1/7/23

Dear Concord City Council members and staff,

Instead of appearing in person at the January 7, 2023 meeting, I am sending this to you because, unfortunately, I have to be out of town this Saturday.

I have been a Concord resident since 1997 and take pride in the positive changes in the city over the years. There have been many instances in the past where the Council truly listened to its residents and made the right decision. Right now each of you has the most important decision you will ever make regarding the future of our city.

Will Concord be a leader in California or its laughing stock? It pivots around the issue of the Concord reuse project of the former Naval Weapons Station. As you, of course, know this is a massive project that will permanently impact everything that happens here: property values, quality of life, attracting new businesses, a possible higher education campus, and so much more. And it will impact the future reputation and character of the city. Will young families want to move here or not?

I strongly urge you to drop Seeno and their partners as the Master Developer for this project.

Their reputation and their past actions as well as the current lawsuit (see link below to East Bay Times article) suggest strongly the city is about to go over a cliff if you don't immediately change course and reject any further association with this group of companies. I don't need to remind you of their past reputation. It's well documented in the link to the article below and elsewhere.

According to the article sited below, here are some historical facts of the Seeno “business empire” that raise serious red flags.
“In 2020, a Seeno Jr company was fined $1 million for destroying endangered red-legged frog habitat in Pittsburg.

Two years later, the Nevada Gaming Control Board fined the Seenos, who own casinos there, $775,000 for not alerting the agency of their environemental violations and other issues.

In 2008, a Seeno Jr. company reached a $3 million settlement relating to improperly permitted grading at an Antioch development.

Then, in 2016, Seeno III pleaded guilty to bank fraud on behalf of his home sales company, Discovery Sales. As part of the plea deal, Seeno III was ordered to pay fines and restitution totally $11 million.”

Seeno's record is such that the city could find itself in a lawsuit in the future. And quoting from a recent email from the organization, Save Mount Diablo, “In 2022, the company’s representatives tried to eliminate the city’s leverage on the project, and even admitted they couldn’t make the project work.” And if the city needs to back out of this deal in the future?

Page 258 of 478 ends

In the case of a lawsuit, our tax dollars would go to the lawyers and instead of the reuse project, the city could potentially go into debt and the negative consequences that would follow. That is a very frightening possibility. I have to ask myself how do we expect to succeed in this major project with Seeno companies as the city’s partner given their history?

We residents deserve what was originally promised to us as the benefits of this development project.

I strongly urge you to drop Seeno. Instead a new search is warranted for a development team that is reputable and experienced that can provide the leadership needed to make this project something we can all be proud of in the future.

Thankyou,
Maimoona M Ahmed (Mrs.)
Concord 94521
Borenstein: Seeno v. Seeno becoming building empire’s ‘War of the Roses’

Borenstein: Seeno v. Seeno becoming building empire’s
‘War of the Roses’
With largest Bay Area housing project on the line, family legal feud revelations should concern Concord council.

Page 259 of 478 ends

From: Shane McKinley <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 1:49 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Please Drop Seeno as Master Developer

Regards,
Shane Mckinley
Concord Resident

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

Page 260 of 478 ends

From: Katherine Luttjohann <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 8:48 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Cc: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno as Master Developer

I am asking that you reject the term sheet and remove Concord First Partners as the Master Developer. The reasons are listed below.

The low-income housing should not be included in JADUs. Too costly for the City to regulate.

The financials are not explained in a way for us to understand and appear to not pencil out.

The increase in the number of houses is going to decrease the open space/parks.

There are too many new houses being added for the county infrastructure to handle.

The Term Sheet does not adhere to the Area Plan that was approved.

The past behavior of 2 of the 3 partners with regard to the environment. Their willingness to pay fines in order to destroy wildlife habitat is unacceptable.

Katherine Dano-Luttjohann
Concord resident

Page 261 of 478 ends

From: Brad Watson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 2, 2023 11:22 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: DROP SEENO / DISCOVERY BUILDERS AS MASTER DEVELOPER OF CONCORD !!!!

Seeno and it's affiliated companies should never have been allowed to be assigned master developer. This reaks of back room bribery by those counsel members that actually endorsed Seeno/Discovery Builders. Seeno is bad for concord and lacks the building quality, layout, and design that concord deserves!
Hire a different master developer that actually has an excellent reputation!!!!! NO ON SEENO!!!!!

Page 262 of 478 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: NB Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Drop Seeno

Dear Concord City Council,

Drop Seeno AND their partners as the Master Developer for the Concord reuse project.

Nancy Wright
Concord Resident

Sent from my iPad

Page 263 of 478 ends

PerDear Concord City Council,

Thank you for rejecting Seeno’s proposal and their changes at the May 24 Concord City Council meeting.

Seeno/Discovery Builders and their partners were clearly the weakest candidate for Master Developer of the Concord Naval Weapons Station based on city staff review of qualifications; refusal to provide required financial information; a long history of unethical and illegal business practices; and their filed lawsuits against the city, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the Navy.

The Concord reuse project should keep all the commitments and public benefits that were discussed prior to the Seeno decision. Any watering down of these benefits and commitments would break trust with the public and stakeholders who negotiated public benefits over the past 15 years.

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 of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station.

Sincerely,
(Patricia Mackey-Perez )
Concord Resident

Sent from my iPhone

Page 264 of 478 ends

From: Edi Birsan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 10:15 AM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Aliano Dominic <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Subject: Court Ruling from Yolo County on discovery and native cemetery in Sacramento area

Joelle,
Please make the court finding below as part of the correspondence on the Jan. 7th Agenda item.

Notes from the Court Resolution of claims clears Discovery of any wrong doing in Yolo County Case.

1. The court held that
"The text ... "hide that, shit now" was a stray, isolat,ed remark taken out of context … he had no idea that the bones discovered were Native
American so the comment was not directed at the Tribe in any measure.

Moreover... explained the exact steps they
took torespond. including protecting-
the remains and. ceasing all work in the area…There was nothing nefarious going on.” ( page 21 bottom)

2 .” In conclusion, for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence a violation.” (page 44)

Page 265 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
q
6 7
ö
9 10
11 I2
13 L4
15 76
I7
18 19
20 2t
22 ¿5
2(j
25 26
¿t
2B
F!LED
YoLo'süplnñ'n õounr
DEC2zNN
YOLO SUPERTOR COURT FOR lHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: CV-20!8-L228

THE PEOPLB OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,COURT' S RULTNG AFTER BENCH
TRIAL
Plaintiff,
vs.

SEECON FINANCIAL, et al.

Defendant
The plaintiff has brought this action against the defendant rand developer för penalties, restitution and injunctive rerief pursuant to Business and Professions Code section I120O.

The Proiect,and Díscover\t
The discovery of human remains at issue occurred at a
res'identialhousing development
Sacramento on the
known as Newport Estates in the
City of Vüest
River. The development project is l-ocated on 269 acres. ft .is western bank of the Sacramento
COURT'S RULTNG AETER I]ENCH TRIAL . 1

Page 266 of 478 ends

1 2
J
4 trJ
6 7
9 10
11 L2
13 74
15 16
t't
1B

1.9 .20
2l
2t
23 24
.E
26 2'',Ì
2B
divided into 13 units for purposes of construction of 866 homes.

Most of the activity ín this case occurred on Units 10 and 11.

More recentLy, spoils piles on Unit L2 were inspected for additional- finds. The Project construction began in 2000 and is currently ongoing with Units 12 and 13 nearing completion. As many as 760 homes have been constructed. The project is scheduled for completion in the Fall 2423.

After the initial discovery of human remains on October 6, 201,5, a team of professional archeologists identi-fied a wetl-- preserved, previously unrecorded prehistoric cemetery, which was officiatJ-y labelêd CA-YOL-24g. An investigation of the cemetery during the development of Newport Estates J.evealed 4 burial group locí and the human remains of as many as 69 individuals.l There are no doubt many other human beings buried at this site but who were not disturbed and discovered.. While some cultural artifacts were found, it is important to note that YOLO-249 contains no evidence of prehistoric habitation or systematic occupation; for the entire period of its existence, the site t This is a Court approximation based on the record. The initial rþporE identified 56 individual-s, whi-ch was lat.er amended to 58 with yet 4 more discoveries noLed in the 202L Addendum. In addition, it appears that 7 separate individuals were identified from the work done al- Unit 12.

The largest burial group was named Wood Glen Buria1 Group, contained as many as 47 individuals.

COURT' S RULTNG AFTER BENCH TRIAI - 2

Page 267 of 478 ends

1 .2
J
4 Ê
6 .1
o
9 10
1L
I2
13 '3.4
15 16
I1
1B
19 20
2I
22 23
24 25
26 27
2B
served exclusivel-y as
discoveries dates the
a cemetery.2 Radiocarbon
cemetery to 380 BC to 130
analysis of the
AD.

As discussed more below, the Native Ameri canHeritage
Dehe Vüintun
Yocha Dehe are
Commission designated Leland Kinter of the Yocha
Nation as the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The
a Patwin (Southe::n Wintun) , Vûintuan-speaking people whose ancestors at the time of Buropean .ont.ct likely contro-l-Ied the territory west of the Sacramento River. As the MLD; Yocha Dehe tribal- representatives supported the work of the professionaÌ archeologist. The Tribe provided independent and professionatr coll-aborative Native American consultation and monitoring servj-ces at the Project. In particular, the Tribe monitored ground disturbance, ínformed archaeologibts of finds, ensured cuLturally appropriate treatment of r.*"rrrr", and provided ceremoníal cleansing to human remains
With the approval of Yocha Dehe, Archeo-Tec has assumed temporary
cultural
custody of the human remains and the associated
materials recovered from the Project. Archeo-.Tec will
retairi custody
accordance with
developer.
of t.hese materials until they are reinterred in
any agreement 'between Yocha Dehe and the
2 There was some dispute about this finding raised at the trial. The Court found the testimony of AIlen Pastron, PhD, of Archeo-Tec, anil his staff compellÍng, given the team's personal experíence on site ànd qualifications.

COURTT S RULING AFTER BENCH TRTAL - 3

Page 268 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 tt
9 l_0
11 I2
13 1,4
15 L6
L7
t_8
19 20
2L
22 23
24 25
26 2'1
2B
Introduction to the Law'
In 1970, the California Legislature enacted the first of a series of statutes affecting the disposition of Native American remains.3 The Cal-ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires mitigation of projects that impact,environmentaì-J-y sensitive areas containing archeological resources. Notably, however, CEQA stops short of prohibiting the removal of remains from the project site.

The Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act (NAHCSA) closely followed CEQA. NAHCSA established the Native American Herítage Commission, which is charged wit.h, among other things, the responsibility of identifying and protecting sacred sites. NAHCSA also prohibits the removal- or possession of Native American remains or funerary objects taken from a grave and calls for repatriat.íon of such items, CaJ-ifornia has also passed'its own version of the federal Native American Graves Protectj-on Act (NAGPRA). It mandates consultation with tribal members as part of the general planning process of l-ocal go.ruarr*urrtu.

In 2006, even more protections were enacted thru
amêndments to the Public Resources Code, requiring a landowner 3 This summar'y is drawn from a law review published in by the Pacific McGeorge School of I'aw at 38 McGeorge L. Rev. 299 (2007).

COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCH TRTAL - 4

Page 269 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 B
9 10
11 L2
13 t4
15 16
17 1B
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 2B
who discovers Native American remains on private property to confer with the most 1ikely descendants regarding disposition of the remains and associated funerary objects. The conferral process, whichincludes (f) preservation of the human remains, (2) notification to the Commission, and (3) conferral with the most likeJ-y descendants. The objective is to reach an agreement regarding t.he preservation and reinternment of the human remains. It is an opportunity to build goodwill and to avoid litigation.

Less than adecade later, the LegisJ-ature passed Assembly Bítl 52, amending CEQA
law does not apply to
. t¡ühil-e the parties here agree that this
this case, it is an important development
to the current dispute. AB 52 mandates that provides
early tribal
it positions
context
consul-tation prior to and during CEQe review, and
Calj-fornia Native- American tribes As the experts on
cultural resources wìthin their own geographícal areas. AB 52 gives tribal governments a seat at the decision-making table alongside public agencj es and focal governments
The Interested Parties

1. The DistricÈ Attorney of YoJ-o County has brought this action on behalf of.the People of the State of California who is the plaintiff. As a public prosecutor, the
COURT'S RULTNG AETER BBNCH TRIAL - 5

Page 270 of 478 ends

1 '2
3 4
tr
6 7
B
9 10
11 72
13 L4
15 I6
t7
18 1"9
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 21
28 District .Attorney has standing under Business &
Professiéns 'Code section 11204.

2. The def endant.s are the following re.ì-ated entities:

Seecon Financial & Construct,ions Co. , Incthe Project
landowner; ALbert D. Seeno Construction Co, Inc
who served as the General Cont.ractor for a period
up to 2004; Discovery Builders, Inc., who served
General Contractor from 2004 tci the present; A-S
(r\Dsco)
of time
as the
PipeJ-ines, Inc. is a subcontractor hired to perform
excavation and installation of the "wet utilities trench" (water, se\A/er and storm) . The primary decision-maker for Discovery Builders is Louis Parsons. Parsons supervised the work of his on-site manager for what'is called the
horizontal build-out (i.e., mass grading, trenching and utilities), Jason Tamayo. Joe Cadena was an assistant
supervísor under Tamayo's direction. As for the vertical construction al-so under Parsons (i.e., foundation and
home building), Joe Griffith managed a team of
superintendents and assistant superintendents, incJ-uding Jeremy Slupe, Mark lrlatrker, and John Mann. Richarä
Sestero is a registered engineer and was the proj.ect
manager for Seeno Construction at the Project. The
COURT' S RULTNG AFTER BENCH TR]A], - 6

Page 271 of 478 ends

1 z
3 4
5 6
1 B
9 10
11 L2
13 t4
15 16
L7
10 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 defendants are col-lectively referred to herein as "the developer. "

3. Various subcontiactors offered testimony thru employees who worked on the Pro¡ect: Aaron Hoffman for the
Iandscaping company Procida;
technical and environmental-
Michael Watari for the geo-
soil onsite engineer Wallace-
Kuhl; Evardo Arel-l-ano for mass grading contractor
Ghil-otti; operators Gabriel Luna, Roberta Melena, and
Efren Ruiz Becerra for trenching contractor American
Underground Contractor (AUC); and Wesley Briggs for A-S Pipelines, fnc. (see above).

4. City of Vlest Sacramento is the lead CEQa and planning government agency overseeing
Newport Estat.es project. The
the construction of the
Mitigated Negative .Declaration
City issued the 1-998
(MND). for.the Project and
the.rel-ated Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) . These documents set forth the controll-ing CEQA requirements for the Project. The most relevant provision of the MMP
states: "If any archaeological remains are encountered
during subsu¡face devel-opment or constructÍon, al-I work within 65 feet of the discovery shall be stopped until- a professional archaeologist can determine the significance of the find and recommend appropriate mitigation"" As
COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCH TRTÀL - 7

Page 272 of 478 ends

I
2 3
4 5
6 'l
o
9 10
l_L'
L2
1?TJ
L4
15 I6
L7.
1B
19 20
2t
22 23
24 25
26 2''t
2B
discussed below, the"City issued a Stop Notice for two
days in mid-November 20L5. Charlene Ilamilton was the
Director of Community Development. David Tilley was a
principal planner and CEQA "p."itlist, working under
Hamilton. Vùendy Vüilliams was the lead engineer on the project.. Other city officials testified, including City project inspector Thomas Bacon, po-lice department
officers Roger Kínney and Carol Crouch.

5. The Native American Heritage Commíssion b¡as established through the enactment of the Native l\merican Historical, Cu1tural, and Sacred Sites Act. The Commission is
charged with, among many things, the responsibility of
identifying and protecting sacrament Native American
sites. (See Pub. Resources Code sec. 5097.94) Under law, .the coroner has t.he duty to notify. the Commission upon the discovery of NatÍve American human remains on private property. (Health & Safety Code sec. 7050.5). In turn,
the Commission is charged with identifying the Native
American group most likely descended from those Native
Americans who may be interred on the property. Fina1ly, the Commission has the authority upon request to mediate disputes between the l-ando\¡rner and t.he ident.ified tribe and to assist the partíes in the development of a
COURT' S RUL]NG AFTBR BENCH TRIAL - B

Page 273 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Õ
9 L0
Lt
L2
1"3
T4
15 16
L7
t"B
19 20
2I
22 23
24 25
26 21
2B
mitigation agreement
appropriate dignity,
Resources Code sec.5097.94 (sub
Iikely descendent. The Commission
Dehe. It had no other involvement in this matter and was not asked to mediate or assist in developing a mitigation agreement.

6. The Yocha Dehe 'WinÈun Nation is a federally recognized Native American Tribe. As noted, the Commission
ídent.ified Yocha Dehe as the most likely descendent of , the human remai-ns. Yocha Dehe members are descendents from Patwin'people whose ancestral lands included t.he
area now identified as the City of West Sacramentg. Upon the discovery of human, remains at the'Project on October 6, 201-5, Yoche Dehe wad contacted by the Commission and met with the l-andowner and others onsite two days later.

James Sarmento was the Cultural Resources Manager for
Yocha Dehe. Over the days and weeks that foLl-or^¡ed, Yocha " Dehe worked with the landowner to formalize a monitoring agreement,
2015. Over
which was signed on or about November 1-9,
the months that followed, Yocha Dehe
for treating
of the human
this case, the coroner contacted
ídentified the Yoche Dehe [¡lintun
or dj-sposing, with
remaÍns. (Pub.
(k) and sub (I) . ) In
the Commission who
Nation as the most
then notified the Yocha
COURT'S RULÌNG AFTER BENCH TRTAL _ 9

Page 274 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 I
9 10
11 T2
13 L4
15 1_6
t7
l_8
19 20
2L
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 monitored the development and responded to the discovery of additional human remains at the Pro¡ect. Several
amendments to the monitoring agreement were later
executed. The currenl treasurer of the Tribe, who is the former Chairman of the Tribe and who also now chairs the Cultural Commission, Leland Kinter, testified. As for
those representatives who worked'on site in addition to Sarmento, Anthony FÌores and Laverne Bill, testified. The Court also heard from the former Cultural Director of the Tribe, Marilyn Delgado.

7. The YoIo Count'y Coioner is the entity charged with t.he responsibility to determine whether the discovered human remains are Native American and if so, then to contact
the Native American Heritage Commissíon. fn this case, a Deputy Coroner visited the Project on October 7,. 20L5, examined the human remains, contacted an expert for
support, and determined that the remains were Native
American. The Deputy Coroner then contacted the
Commission. Apparently, the Coroner's office was
contacted a many more tj-mes after àir.ov.ry of additionat remains but took no further action. Deputy County
Coroner, Laurel Weeks, testified about not.ice received concerning finding human remains at the project.

COURT'S RULING AETER BENCTI TR]AL - 10

Page 275 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
tr
6 7
o
9 1-0
11 t2
t-3
14 1"5
16 T7
18 t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 8. Several archaeologists have been assigned to the Project, and various experts testified at triaÌ. After the
October 6, 2015 discovery, the landobrner híred Ric-
füindmi]'J.er to conf er with Yoche Dehe.. V,lithin one week or sor Vùindermiller handed off his duties to a larger
operation, Archeo-Tec led by A1len Pastron, PhD. Archeo- Tec provided archeological services thereafter and to
this day was respcinsible for compliance with the
Monitoring Agreement. Several of Pastron's associates
testified, nameJ-y ,Juf ianna Quist, Emily I¡lick, MichelIe Staley and Pat Paramour. Also, during thís time the City engaged Dokken Engineering who'specialize in Native
American Consuttâtion and AB 52 procedures. Namat
Hosseinien'Of Dokken testified as a CEQA compliance
expert for the plaintiff. For context about.the work of Archeo-Tec and the Tribe as to this Project, to date, the landowner has paÍd Archeo-Tec over ç2 - 6 mil-l-ion for archeology services associated with the discovery of
human remains at the Pro.ject. The landowner has also
paid over $650,000 to Yocha Dehe for staffing under the Monitoríng Agreement. The plaintiff also produced expert. archeologist Michael Delacourt from Sacramento State
University and Frank Roberts as a mapping expert. fn
COURT'S RULING ATTER BENCH TRIAL - 11

Page 276 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
a
I
9 10
1L
t2
l_3
14 15
16 11
t8
L9
20 21
22 23
24 2tr,
26 27
.28
addition to the archeologists, the
Erln Beavers as a cíty planning and
defendanls produced
CBOA compliance
expert.

The C].aíms
The pl-aj,ntif f / s civil- complaint alleges a single cause of action pursuant to Business & Professions Code section I1200. rt seeks recovery of civil penalties, injunctive relief an¿ reimbursement for costs. As noted, public prosecutors have standing to sue under sectíon 172O4 and may seek recovery for halm both within or outside their counties. The gravamen of the complaint is that the defendants engaged in an unlawful- business practice that is forbidden by-law. To prevail'; the þtaintiff must point to a legisLative policy reflected in a specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisj-on which the defendants violated. Conversely, .a particular praclice determined not to violate any law, wiLL not give ri.se to a section I7'2OO'action.
ïn this .r"", the plaintiff's civil complaint alleges the '
followíng specific statutory violations
I Paragrapr_ 47 (a) - defendants knowingly mutilated or disinterred, wantonly disturbed, or willfu11y removed
human remains. (Health & Safety Code sec. 7050"5 (a))
COURT'S RUT,TNG AFTER BENCH TRIAL - 12

Page 277 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
't
I
9 10
1l_
T2

1.3 T4
15 16
17 18
19 20
2L
22 23
24 25
26 2'7
28 I Paragraph 4'7 (b) - defendants failed to contact the coroner after encountering human remains on Newport
Estates and before further excavating or disturbing the site. (Health & Safety Code sec. 7050.5 (b))
r Paragraþh 41 (c) - defendants removed, ríitrrout authority of Iaw, Native American artifacts or human remaÍns from a Native American qrave with mal-ice or wantonness. (Public Resources Code sec. 5097.99)
I Paragraph 47 (d) - defendants engaged in development
activity in areas where Native American remains vüere
found without first conferring with the most likely
descendent of the Native American remains. (Pub.

Resources Code sec. 5097.98)
I ParagrapÀ 41 (e) - defendants faiLed to comply with the terms of the March 2, 1998 MND and the May 21, 1998 MMP for Newport Estatesi specifically, those provisions of
the MND and MMP concerning the steps to take when
archaeological- remains are encountered.

Like in any civil action, the burdèn of proof is by
preponderance of evidence, and it rests with the plaintiff. The plaintíff must prove the necessary el-ements of the viol-ation of the underlying statute. To the unlawful business practice cJ-aim, the defendant may assert any available defenses to the .

COURT' S RULING AFTER BENCH TRTAL - 13

Page 278 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 I
9 10
1L
t2
i_3
1,4
15 16
11 . 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 ¿o
2'l
28 underl-ying law violation. In many cases, the defendant merely contends that the evidence does noL support a law viol-ation.

A violation of Law is subject to a civil- penalty of up to $2,500 for each viol-ation. . This is a special penalty recoverable onJ-y by a public prosecutor and not a private plaintiff. The triaf court has discretion ín assessing the dmount of the civil- penalty. In exercising its discretion, the court must ðonsider any one or more of the relevant
circumsLances presented by the parties, including: the nature and seriousness of the mísconduct; the number of violations; the persistence of the.misconduct; the fength of time over which the miscondu.t o."r"r"d; the wil-lfulness of the defendant's misconduct,' and the defendant's assets, Iiabilities and net worth. Restitution and injunctive relief are also avaitable remedies r
Chrono].ogf:

I 1990 - City of 'West Sacramento General Pl-an
I L994 - Final Southport Framework PIan EIR
f f998 - Newport Bstates Project Approvals, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Uonitoring Programa a Newport Estates Mitigated Negative Declaration "incorporates by reference discussion of potential significant. environmental impacts in the l,ùest Sacramento Genera.L Plan EIR and the Southport Framework Plan Ef R. " COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCH TRTAL - ].4

Page 279 of 478 ends

I
2 3
4 5
6 1
o
I
10 11
L2
l-3
14 1"5
16 T7
LB
t9
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 2't
28 I 20OI - discovery. of
\
American, at Unit 1
r 2004
r 2015
human remains, identified as Native
of Newport Eêtates
Development Agreement
June thru October 5 - rnassgrading, joint
is the period of time trenching at Units
and the work'that

10. and 11; this
caused the greatest disturbance to what
wâs l-ater determined to be a pre-histori'c cemetery
t October 6, 2015 - discovery of human remains. identified as Native American, at Unit 10, and work ceased r
I October 7, 2015 - notice by the County Coroner to the NatiVe American Heritage Commission and designation of
Yocha Dehe as MLD
I Oct.ober B, 201"5 - the developer (with archeologist) and . the Tribe started the conferral- process, which sputtered until the developer hired Archeo-Tdc
I October 9, 2015 - t.he developer and Tribe exchanged draft monitoring agreements
I October 13, 2015 - work resumed rfan Cítyapproval and Tribal- monitors on site
and Dokken Engineering
(Archeo-Tec on-site by Oct. 16)
completed removal of the initial
discovery
I October L6i 20l-5 -
remains on Unit 1-1
discovery by Archeo-Tec of more h.uman
COURT'S RU],ING AFTER BENCH TRIAI _ 15

Page 280 of 478 ends

1 2
2 4
5 6
'l
o
9 10
11 12
l_3
I4
15 T6
L7
18 19
20 27
22 23
24 ,c,
¿6
21 2B
I October L9, 2015 - Archeo-Tec set forth detailed
reconmendations for site protection and recovery, J-ater set forth in detail in November 1-1, 2015 letter to City I October 27, 2015 - while the parties worked on final-izing the Monitoring Agreement., an understanding v,ras
memorialized that the Tribe had been given. full access at aII times to the site to monitor al-I development
activities
I November 16, 201-5 - stop work notice issued by the City I November I'l , 2015 execution of M'onitoring Agreement between Tribe and developer
I September 22, 2016 - pre-construction meeting for Unit 11 wíth City Engineer, City Pl-anner and City public Works InspecLors. tribal- representatives, archeologists, g€o- technical engineers, civil- engineers.
f January 201-7 - the procida Ïree Incident, unmonitored díscovery. of human remains during landscaping
I JuIy 1-2, 201,8'- pl-aíntiff files civíl complaínt
.t August/September 2022 - bench trial
I October 19, 2022 - cl-osi-ng argument
The Analysis
Heal-th and Safety Code sec- 7050-5 (a).

COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCH TRIAL - 1.6

Page 281 of 478 ends

1 a
J
4 5
6 1
B
9 10
11"
72 13
l_4
15 t6
L7
L8
19 20
2I
),)
23 24
25 26
27 2B
To prevail on the the first claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendants knowingly or wantonly or wil-lfulIy mutj-lated, dísturbéd or removed Native American human remains- The statute al-so expressly exempts conduct done under an agreement reached pursuant to Publ-ic Resources Code sec. 5097.94 (1) and immunizes those persons who ará authorized to implement section 5097.98. The evidence at trial established both that the developer here is a party to a Monitoring Agreement under section 5Og7'.94 (1) and by its äxtensive conferral- r,ùith the MLD was acting under color of section 5091.98.

While the Native American Heritqg". Commission'did not
directly assist the landowner in developing the Monitori-ng Agreement, the Commission did designate the Yocha Dehe as the MLD. Then, the lando\¡rner and the Tribe engaged in the conferral- process. and ultimately reached .n unruu*uq: as anticipated by the California Natíve American Graves. ProtecLion and
Repatriation Act. The agreement f,*.J. iu exactly what is anticipated under the law.

As further evidence, City officials testified that they deferred to the Tribe's expertise and desire as to how t.he development'should be monitored and how the human remains should be handled. The Cíty was satisfied with the execution of a Monitoring Agreement between the parties. At no time thereafter COURT'S RUTTNG AFTER BENCH TRIAI _'17

Page 282 of 478 ends

I
2 3
4 (
6 1
B
9 1U
11 T2
13 14
15 l-6
17'
L8
L9
20 2I
22 23
24 25
¿6
21 28
did the City question either the good faith efforts of the parties or their reliance on the MonitorÍng Agreement to guide theír work. Likewise, neither the Tribe or the developer compJ-ained to the City or sought material intervention by the City after the execution of th,e Monitoring Agreement.

Moreover, City inspectors were present on-site every day during the project development. -In light of the Monitoring Agreement, the City inspectors were never direct.ed to review compliance with CEQA, . the Monitoring Agreement or. any provision of law. The City completely deferred to the Tribe. In the end, the City approved the fina.l- plans and d.evelopment of Newport Estates, units 10 and 11, and ,ro .',ri.i*nce i¡ras produced suggesting that Unit.. l-2 will not be approved in kind.5 The City's iole is highly relevant, as discussed further below.. For a start, the CÍty is the leed agency on CEQA . compliance and project approval. More practically, the City is comprised of experienced staff who were engaged anã present throughout the entire development, including planners,
engineers, police officers, and i.,"p""tor". Tire City staff were charged with public safety. Given the City's broad and deep and fundamentaJ- involvement and partnership in the project, the s Archeo-Tec's Report on the Unit 12 spoils pile submitted November 2020 spel-J-s out aI.ì. legally compliant efforts t.o investigate and properly remove and store human re¡nains.

COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCH TRIAL . 18

Page 283 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 B
9 10
t_1
I2
13 14
15 16
T7
1B
1"9
2Q
2I
22 23
2A
25 26
?-1
2B
Court gives
than a few
discovery,
great weight to testimony of City official-s. Other
concerns initially raised after the October 6, 20L5
the City did not observe and were not made aware of,
any violations of law. Based on this record, it cannot be said that the developer acted wrongfully under Section 7050.5 (a), even if it were not immunized due to its conferral with t.he Tribe.

To the extent the pJ-aintiff seeks recovery for conduct that pre-dated the execution of the Monitoring Agreement, that claim fails too- As noted, the conferral process began within a couple days of the initial inadvertent discovery on October 6, 201,5 and all work had ceased within the relevant area.6 While the parties continued to negotiate the details of the agreement, the Tribe acknowledged that it had unfettered access to the development to monitor any ground distu::bing activity and that. there was mutual respect between the const.ruction workers and Tribal- monitors at the site. (See Yost letter October 27, 2015. ) A team of professionaJ archeol-ogists from Archeo-Tec 6 As discussed in greater detail below, the MND/MMP identified a síngle mitigation measure for cultural resources: "lf any archeotogical remains are encountered during subsurface development or construction, alt work within 65 fèet, of the discovery shall be stopped until a professional archeologist can determine the significance of the find and recommend appropriate mitigation. "
COURT'S RULTNG AFTER BENCTI TR]AL - 19

Page 284 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 B
9 10
11 I2
13 \4
15 l-6
L7
1-B
19 20
2L
22 c'¿
24 25
26 2'7
2B
were also present on site working with the Tribe. AIt human remains were removed by traíned professionals.

The October 6, 2OI5 'disturbance of human remains was an inadvertent and unexpected discovery. There is no evidence in the record that the deveJ-oper knew or should have known that a pre-historic cemetery, b¡as located at t.hat site. rmportantly, at trial the developer proved that all work ceased ritr,in 65 feet of the díscovery, and that tribat monitors andarcheologists safe construction b/ere thereafter engaged to observe and assist activities going forward. rn this context, the time it took to \
negotiate a formal- Monitoring Agreement or even the city's stop Notice citation to push the process arong are insufficient to i
estabfish a violation of- sectj_on 7050.5 (a) .

The statute is designed to protect against criminal- actors who are engaged in.misconduct outside the letter and. spirit of the carifornia Native American Graves protection Act. A developer who participates in good faith in the conferral process with the Tribe and who hires professional archeologists to work closeJ-y
(a) . Based on
with the Tribe has not víoLated section 7O50. s
t.he record, the Court concludes that the
COURT' S RULTNG AFTBR BENCH TRIAL - 20

Page 285 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
'l
o
9 10
11 t2
13 T4
15 16
r'7
1B
r.9
20 2L
22 24
25 26
27 2B
developer was exempt from section 7050.5 (a) and did not otherwise violate the faw.?
Heafth and Safety Code sec. 7050 (b).

The second charge by.the plaintiff is that the developer fail-ed to contact t.he coroner after the discovery of human remains in viol-ation of Heal-th & Safety Code. sec. 7050 (b) . The statute mandates that upon discovery of human remains, which are determined to be Native American, all work on the site shall cease until the coroner has referred the matt.er under section 5097.98 to the Native American Heritage Commission. The statute anticj-pates that the "person responsible for the excavation, or his'or her ::epresentative" will notify the coroner
provide a time trame for notÍce, other than to say
Tt does not
that all work
must immediately
make contact withthe Commj-ssion wjthin two working. days 7 The plaintiff argues that the developer engaged in a "cover-up" and attempted to conceal the discovery. The fact.s at trial did not support this argument. The text from Tamayo, "hide that, shit now" was a stray, isolat,ed remark taken out of context by the plaÍntiff. L-o:: that matter, at the time he made the comment, he had no idea that the bones discovered were Native American so the comment was not directed aL the Tribe in any measure.

Moreover, both Parsons and lamayo explained the exact steps they took t.o respond. including protecting-the remains and. ceasing all work in the area. the fact that the City police and coroner learned about the discovery quickly from an anonymous source may be sensational, but it does not support a claim of wiÌlfuJ or want,on.misconduct for the reasons set forth above. Parsons explained this was his first encounter with such a discovery ancl he sought the advice of a trained archeologist, who the City knew from the 2001 discovery. There was nothing nefarious going on.
stop and that the coroner once notíìieA shall
COURT'S RUI,ÏNG AI'TER BENCH TRIAL2T

Page 286 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
l
B
9 10
11 1,2
13 ).4
15 16
T7
18 19
20 2L
¿¿
23 24
25 26
21 2B
Here, Sergeant Crouch of
coroner's office within than
the City Police notified the
24 hours after the discovery. The
record is clear that. all work stopped within 65 feet of the discovery. At that
large pre-historic
point, there was no reason to believe that a
cemetery had been disturbed. The 65-foot
perimeter vras a reasonabl-e buffer given the site-specific CEQA mitigation mandate. The coroner showed up on site the day after the discoveryr. consulted with a forensic anthropologist at Chico State Universit.y who determined that the remains we.re Native American. The coroner then promptly notified the Native American Heritage Commission. It appears from the testimony of Deputy Coroner Weeks who was the responding official, that aII of this was done withín two days after the discovery.

No evidence was presented at trial that had the developer notified the coroner directly,any of
of the
this would have happened
sooner. Certainly, the spiritlaw was not violated.

Nonetheless, what did the developer do? As noted, the developer stopped work. Louis Parsons cont.acted archeologist Ric 9ùindmiller and hired him to visit the site. Jason Tamayo showed up on site
Weeks, who
Commission
designated.
on October 7 and met
advised him that she
and there h¡as nothing
According to Vileeks'
with Deputy Coroner Laure1
had already notified the
to do until a MLD was
testimony, she was not
COURT' S RULING AFTER BENCH TRLAL - 22

Page 287 of 478 ends

1 t
3 4
5 6
1 o
9 10

11. L2
13 14
15 16
L7
.18
19 20
2t
22 23
¿4
)q
26 2'l
28 concerned about site security and she
the site. Later that day archeologist
site and learhed that the coroner had
rel-eased the police from
I{indmÍller met Tamayo on
already taken action. As
Parsons testified, no one at DBI or Seeno was aware of the mandate to caII the coroner; instead, Parsons intended to seek guidance from Windmiller on site. But before Windmiller had even begun his ohrn investigation, the matter had already advanced from the coroner Lo the Commission.

Based on thi s record, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the developer violated the l-aw as to the initial discovery.

The developer's conduct of stopping work, hiring an
archeologist, and visiting the site the next workday was reasonable.

Vühat about the subsequent discovery of hundreds of human \
fragments ove.r the next few years? Archeologis! A1len Pastron who was engaged by the developer by the second week of October understood the statutory mandate. He testified that Louis Parsons'dírected him to call- the coroner after each discovery.

The pJ-aintiff faifed to producê any credibl-e evidence to contradict Pastron's testimony" Past'ron- testified that he made numerous cal-ls to the corone.r's office. lrieeks explained that there are as many as five deputy coroners in addition to the Chief. Pastron did not keep a log; nor did the coronèr's office COURT' S RULTNG AFTER BENCI'I TRTAL - 23

Page 288 of 478 ends

l-
2 3
4 5
6 1
I
9 10
11 72
13 I4
15 16
I'l
l_8
19 20
2L
22 23
24 25
26 2''l
2B
Iog calls until six years after the 2015 find. Not only did ) Pastron call, but he al-so invited the coroner to visit the site.

But the coroner dj-d nothing in response to any of these calls after the initial investigation and referral to the Commission.

At some point, Pastron reached an understanding with the coroner's office that he would only need to callif there was t
åir"orrured at some new development.
the.Project have beenlinked to the pre-historic cemetery.

Pastron memoriarized his contacts with the coroner in both e- mail-s to Louis Parsons and in his various archeologist reports concernj-ng the Project. There is no credible evidence to dispute Pastron's testimony.

Based on this record, the plaintiff has faired to prove a violation of section 750.5 (b) .

PubJ-ic Resources Code sec. 5097 - 99 ,(c)
' fn its third claim, the ptaintiff alleges that the
I
developer removed human remains with malice or wantonness from a Native American grave
Public Resources Code.
in violation of section 5097.99 of the
As discussed above, there is no credible
proof here that any human
with malice or wantonness.
remains were removed intentionally or
Instead, the evidence establ-ishes
All of the human remains
that there was an inadvertent discovery, then
monitorj-ng and professional consultation, and
systematic
then removal of
COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCI{ TRIAL - 24

Page 289 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 o
9 t-0
11 T2
13 L4
L5
16 L]
t8
19 20
2T
22 23
24 25
26 2'7
2B
discovered remains subject to professional archeologist standards and with the agreement of the MLD.

To date, the Tribe has approved of the removal, treatment and storage of aII human remains. The .part.ies continue to confer on reinterment. The best evi-dence shows extensive and ongoing efforts made by thedeveloper to propÒse a location that These efforts have not advanced. meets the Tribe's criteria.

But it cannot be said thatthe developer's proposals violate the not explain at trial why it ceased the
simply be that it is waiting for the
consider a single final reinterment.
law. t[hile the Tribe did
conferral process, it may
to end of the development
The plaintiff hasasked the Court to focus on unmonitored ground disturbing activíties as an unfair business practice. To the extent the plaintiff relÍes on section 5091.99 for this cla5-m, it, l-acks merit. This statute requires proof of a heightened mental state, namely malice or wantonness. This is a criminaL statute¡ so malice necessarily means intent to injure.

I¡üantonness is simil-ar in that it requires an intent to do the act, some understanding of the consequences and a reckless disregard for the likely injury. The plaintiff was abl-e to prove only a single incident where unmonitored ground disturbíng activity resulted in the disturbance of human remains, namely what. the parties cal-l-ed the Procida Tree Incident, where a COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCH TRTAL _ 25

Page 290 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 I
9 10
11 L2
13 14
t_5
l_6
71 1B
19 20
2T
22 23
2A
25 ¿6
27 2B
l
landscaper in haste began pJ-anting a single tree for the purpose of final authorizatíon for a sa-l-e of a completed residential home. The testimony of t.he various witnesses established that this was an oversight by the subcontractor and a
miscommunication, and at most, a negligent act. Upon the di-scovery, al-L work stopped, and the Tribe and archeologists then coordinated the investigation and safe removal of the remains.

The most credible test.imony on this j.ssue of whether
unmonítored ground disturbing activity occurred came from Allen Pastron. He was responsible for t.he Leam of archeologist. He was highry experienced in Lnvestigation and removar of human remains from a development site. He had worked on several- similar sites, including ones much bigger than Newport Estates.

His testimony was informative, measured and detail_ed. He and his team maj-ntained fiel-d notes, memoríal-ized findj-ngs in extensive e-mail- communications, and wrote at l-eastthree highly Proj ect . B
the Court
informative and detailed reports of the work on the
I^lhite he was hired by the developer, i-t was
that he woul-d not sacrifice his professional-
appease the develOper. The record reflects
integrity to
cLear to
times when Pastron
I The Archeo-Tec reporLs are the best evidence to understand what happened at the project site. Any effort to evatruate what happened or to put this Court ruJ-ing in context shouÌd start with reading the reports.

COURT'S RUL]NG AFTER BENCII TRIAL - 26

Page 291 of 478 ends

1 a
,3
.4
5 6
7 I
9 10
1l-
I2
13 14
L5
16 L7
t8
19 20
2I
22 23
24 25
¿õ
21 ¿ó
pushed back. To emphasize, Pastron and his employees who did the field work were far more credible than any other witness about what transpired at the work site. Pastron testified that he was not avlare of any unmonitored ground disturbing activity that resul-ted in the disturbance of human remains, other t.han the Procida Tree Incident.

Meanwhile, Laverne Bilt, who was one of the onsite Tribal- monitors, testified at length about whaL he believed were other incídents.. For many reasons, the Court did not find his testimony, on this point, to be credÍble. Most importantly, he wäs discredited by the testimony of senior tribal offici als.

Both James Sarmento and Marilyn Delgado testified that all field staff \^rere traj-ned to record al-l- rel-evant observations in daily monÍtoring reports. They both underscored that unmonitored ground disturbing activity and any breach of the Monitoring .Agreement should have been recorded in writing. Moreover, if they had been'advised of a viol-ation or any probJ-em, then they would direct that an e-mait be sent to the developer. fn the end, however, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that Laverne Bill fol-Ìowed the Tribe's own training and protoco.ls.

Tn fact, he admitt.ed he. did not. Moreover, there is no evidence that Laverne Bill or anyone at the TrÍbe to'Id the developer or the City abouL these alleged violations. None of his testì-mony COURT, S RULING AFTBR BENCH TRIAL _ 27

Page 292 of 478 ends

1 3
4 5
6 1
B
9 10
11 L2
l_3
T4
15 16
l7
18 r9
20 2I
22 23
24 25
26 27
2B
was vafidated by his supervisors or other tribal monitors * all- of whom the Court found credible.

The failure to document his alleged observations is a real- problem. Both Archeo-Tec and the tribe maíntain contemporaneous field.notes of daily activities on site. The parties produced hundreds of pages of the notes., Nothing there supports BiIl's claims.

It was a busy worksite. Tf there vlere hundreds of
violations of the Monitoring Agreement, one woul-d think that someone other than BiÌ-l- would have information to support the claim - archeologists, subcontract'ors, City inspectors, engineers, planners. The testimony was that the worksite was flat and open ground, took only a few mínutes to drive from one end to the other, and likewise was reÌaLively easy and quíck to flo a walk-about. .Archeo-Tec was on site at aII tÍmes during construction and according to Pastron "oútA have drawn attention to unmonitored ground disturbing activity had it occurred. In sum, there simply is no evidence to support BiIl's testj-mony.s g Thêre were other problems with Bill's testimony. Nearly all ot.her witnesses described him as Ìikeable personality, but he appeared to have a high distrust of and built-in bias against the developer simply because of the sensational circumstances.sur¡ounding the initial discovery. He was not a knowledgeable and experienced tribal monitor. Moreover, credible evidence was produced that he was disrespectful to the female Archeo-Tec employees.

On this Project, he lacked a level of professionalism that other tribal officials and Archeo-Tec employees demonstrated.

COURT'S RULTNG AFTER BENCH TRTAI - 28

Page 293 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5,
6 o
9 10
1L
L2
13 14
i.5
16 t7
18 19
20 2T
22 23
24 25
¿õ
2't
28 For these reasons, the plaintiff has fail-ed to prove a violation of Public Resources Code sec. 5097.99 (c).

PubJ-ic -Resources section 5097.98 (b)
The pJ-aintiff's fourth claim is that the developer engaged in construction activities in an area where Natíve American remains vlere discovered before conferring with the MLD in violation of subdivision (b) of section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The
and
term conferral means, "the meaningful- and
careful- "o.rriOuration of the .ri"rr of each timely discussion parLy, in'a mannerthat is cognizant of al-l the partiês' cultural- values, and where feasible,seeking agreement. " and credible evidence that The defendant produced extensive the developer did confer wíth the Tribe ímmediatety foffowing it.s designation as the MLD.10 lhe conferral, in fact, started on October B, 2OL5 - Çhe second day after the initial discovery.

The conferral process resulted in a Monitoring Agreement which hras amended to refl-ect the progress of the Project. The Tribe rnd disturbing
l0 Leeland Kinter was identified as the MLD. Kinter is the former Chairman of the Tribe. He testified at trial. He was involved in making high level decísions regarding negotiation of the Monitoring Agreement, He voiced frustration wit,h the delays in executing the agreement.. He testified both to the promisp of AB 52 that Native American tribes may have more involvement up front in developing mitigation measures for projects like this one. He conceded that he wished he had appreciated the avaiJ-ability of mediation services of the Commission earlier in the l-ife of the Project. The Court. found hís testimony genrrine and compelling.

COURT' S RULING AFTER BENCII TRTAL - 29

Page 294 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 I
9 10
11 I2
l_3
T4
15 16
Ll
1B
19 20
2T
22 23
24 25
26 21
28 activity, and the Tribe and archeologists worked cJ-osely to ínvestigate discoveries and to ensu.re safe treatment and removal of human remains. Discussíons and conferral continued
throughout the life of the Project and are ongoing today.

As noted throughout, the evidence at, trial established by a preponderance of evidence that. all ground disturbing activity ceased within 65 ,feet of the discovery of human remains. Beyond the 65-foot bufferq, the Tribe monitored all other ground disturbing activities with the support of the team of
archeologists. The level of support included additíõnal professional monitoring, coverä.ge monitoring, investigation, treatment of remains and removal- and storage of remains.

It isno exaggeration to concl-ude that the developer
hundreds of cornmunications wit.h the Tribe over 1-he engaged in l-ife of the Project.
person meetings at the
There $rere in-person meetings, on site, in-
Tribe's headquarters, phone caLl-s between
on-site supervisors
messages between all-
and t¡iba1 monitors¡ and e-mait and text
the deveJ-oper and the
developer.
of the rel-evant individual-s from the Tribe, tr
I
archeologÍsts, acting as agents of the
In sum, based on this record, the pl-aintiff has failed to prove a violation of section 5097.98.

CEOA ComþJj.ance
COURT'S RUT,ING AFTER BENCH TRTAI - 30

Page 295 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 B
9 10
11 1"2
13 1.4
t5
16 11
1B
19 20
2t
22 23
24 25
26 aa
)a
As stated in the complaint, the plaintiff's fifth claim is for violation of CEQA, namely the Mitigated Negative Decl-aration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). (See Pub.

Res. Code sec. 21000 et seg.; see specifically sec. 21.080 (c) and sec. 2L0B1.6.) Those documents provided notice of a single mitigation measure, the 65-foot buffer rule discussed above, which the court has arready concl-uded was compÌÍed with at arl times. This mitigation measure $ras sufficient to add::ess what the city called "significant cultural or archeologicar sites" identified by the General Plan within the project, area.

At trial, the pJ-aintiff went one step further and claimed that CEQA compliance at the Project involved"tiering"
and i-994 mitigation measures off the 1990 General planSouthport Framework Pl-an Environmenta]- rmpact Review, a program ErR. The Southport Framework Plan document lísted six addj_tional mitigation measures.ll "Tiering" ís a werl-accepted practice under CEQA. (14 CCR sec. 1-51-68 (c); Pub. Res. Code sec. 2L094.) Oyeral-l-, the purpose under CEQA of the miti_gation measures is to reduce to l-ess than significant the impact upon the 11 fn Íts cJ-os.ing arguJnent, the plaintiff focused on the first four of those measures, summarized here: (1) activities shalr cease untir the significance and extent of human remains can be ascertained by an archeorogist; (2) prÍor to grading or earthwork in'the vicínity of known archeological sites nearby, an invesLigation or survey shouLd be conducted; (3) the coroner and commissi-on shall be notified j-mmediatery after a discovery,'and (4) development shall attempt to avoid an archeologicaJ- site to the extent feasible, listing methods COURT' S RULTNG AFTBR BENCH TRIAL - 31

Page 296 of 478 ends

1 2
a
4 tr
6 1
o
9 1,0
11 T2
13 74
15 L6
I1
1B
I9
20 21
22 23
25 zþ
21 2B
cultul:a1 resources, incl-uding the finding of Native American human remains and cultural artifacts. The key questions here are (1) what are the applicable mitigation measures to achieve that objective and (2) what notice was given to the developer to ensure compliance. \
The most credible expert produced at trial on this subject was Erin Beavers. Beavers has-decades of experience as a City Planner and Director of Community, Development, including responding to the inadvertent discovery of human remains at project sites. His testimony v'ras cJ-ear and informed.12 He concLuded that there was no CEQA tiering on thj_s project.

Beavers explained that tieríng requires notice and action by the l-ead agency. The purpose of this is to ensure that the developer knows what mitigation measures apply to the project and who withi.n the l-ead agency. is charged with enforcing those measures. The regulations advise the lead agency to publicj-ze that tiering is being used. (See L4 CCR sec. 15152(s) .) to the essential Tmplementation of mitigation measules is success to CEQA compliance, and the leadagency must be an 12 As noted above, the Court reÌied heavily on the testimony of AlLen Pastron as to archeology mâtt.ers because of his experience and knowledge of the facts of the case. The Co.urt similarly rel-ied on Erin Beavers. Vùhite he was not a percipient witness, his experience and abítity to explain city planning and CEQA compliance in a clear, concise and compelling v.ray greatly assisted the Court. To better understand the Court's ruling, one is wel-l-- served to review the teslimony of Pastron and Beavers.

COURT' S RULING AFTER BBNCH TR]AL - 32

Page 297 of 478 ends

1 ¿
3 4
5 6
1 o
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16

1.7 18
19 20
2I
22 23
24 25
26 21
2B
active participant. (see Hilfside & canyon .Assn v. city of Los Angeles (2000) 83 CaI.App.4ttt 1252, 126I.) The lead agency remains at aÌI times responsible for ensuring implementation of the mitigation measures in accordance with the proqiram. (pub- Res. Code sec. 2IOBI.6¡ LincoLn Place Tenants Àss,n v. City of -Los Angeles (2001) 155 Cal . App . Atln 425; L4 CCR sec. 1S0 97 . ) In fact, the court in -[incoTn pface went as far as to ho]d that the l-ead agency is an indispensabre party to any actÍon seeking to enforce GEQA mitigation measures- vûhite it. is true here that the plaintiff may pursue an independent action und.er the Business & Professions code, the exercise of identifying what mitigation measures apply to a particular project
necessarily invol-ves, as Erin Beavers concluded., a cl_ose examination of the actions of the read agency. rt is not 'an academie exercise.

Even if the Court does not find the City to be an
indispensabl-e party and even if waiver or estopper or abstention are not applied, the City's conduct is front and center -- as a matLer of evidence
The City officials
the developer and
-- as to determination ofCEQA compliance.
to the conducL of are percipient wítnesses
al-l- on-site actors,incl-uding the
t.he Tríbe. subcontractors, the archeologists and
COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCH TRTAI - 33

Page 298 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
cJ
6 1
B
9 10
1t
L2
13 L4
15 16
1"7
1B
L9
20 27
22 23
24 25
27 28
In her trial testimony, the City's Director of Community Development Charl-ene Hamilton, the highest ranking offÍcial to testify, struggJ-ed to identify the mítigation measures applicable to the Project. In short, she believed that upon the discovery of human remains, the developer should cease all work and c,onf er with the MLD - which was done. She then later authorized a Stop Vlork notice until ä formal Monitorj_ng Agreement was executed. She faiLed to provide any specific authority to support the Stop !ùork notice, relying on her general notion that CEQA authorized it. She ptayed no role mediating the j-ssue or assÍsting the negotiation of the l¿onitoring Agreement. After the agreement was in place, Hamilton deferred to the Tribe and concluded that the City would not be involved further unl-ess the Tribe asked for assistance. other than a.few coLLaterar issues, the Tribe, never asked for any material- assistance and did not compJ-ain to the city about any vioJ-ations of the Monitoring Agreement.

On direct examination, Hamilton, s t.estimony r^ras all_ over the map. She was most concerned that the developer had not initiaLly ceased work upon the first discovery and had not called the City, as well as not prompLly enlaging an
archeologist - again, her concern vJas about the sensational- ner¡/s Ieporting. As discussed above, however, the City poJ_ice were COURT' S RULTNG AFTER BENC}I TRIAI, - 34

Page 299 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 I
9 10
11 L2
13 T4
i.5
I6
I'7
18 L9
20 2L
22 23
24 25
26 2'l
28 on-síte within 24 hours, as was the coroner, and the developer and a professional- archeoLogist met with both that same day.

Within a few days and before any work resumed, the developer brought in a more experienced and better resourced archeologist who laid out a plan for the Project. Hamilton conceded that she \¡/as aware and approved work resuming, incJ-uding the compleLion of the joint trench, with the Tribe and the archeologist on site. Even if the Court q¡ere to accept her testimony, she failed to identify any violations of CEQA. In sum, her
testimony was defensive, j-nconsistent with the basic fact.s, and vague and conclusory.
vüith respect to tiering, she testÍfied that she ber-ieved as a general ¡iratter that tiering applied to the project through the process of incorporatíon by reference and generalJ-y expected the developer to be on notice. When asked about the specífics,. however, and whether she had reviewed the historical documents and understood how tiering applied, she was evasíve. She conceded that the city n\ever required an archeol-ogical survey after the 2001 discovery at unit 1 or even after the october 6, 2015 discovery. She never discussedthe specifics of the I
I
Southport Framework
effòrts to amend the
Pl-an with the developer. She never made any
mitigation measures. She also never
COURTÍ S RULING AFTER BENCH TRIAL - 35

Page 300 of 478 ends

1-
2 3
4 5
6 7
o
9 10
11 t2
l_3
t4
15 L6
1-1
J_Õ
L9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 21
2B
directed City fnspectors to enforce any measures or even monitor compliance.

At some point after the october.6, 2015 disiovery HamiLton did ask staff to conduct a cEeA compriance review. perhaps, this was done at the request of James sarmento of the Tribe, who had made the request in wríting. David Titley was
it. It was never done, and Hamil-ton never fol-lowedup. The two-day sole enforcement act,ion taken on the project was the stop vüork notice, intended to prompt the execution of the Monitoring Agreement. rn the end, the city issued arr permits and project approval-s, concJ-uding furl- cEeA compriance and satisfaction of aLl" conditions of approvar, incr'uding the MND,/MMP, by the developer on the project.

David Tilley's testimony, as l-ead planner and the city, s CnQe expert' did not support the application of tiering e.ither. l{hen asked directry about tierj-ng, he equivocated, ultimately concl-uding that the city does not tier without expressly saying it is tiering environmental mitigation measures.

Tilley did confirm that the City never required an
archeologicaj- survey. This was telling to the court, since Tilley was the city pranner who responded to the 2001 discovery at unit 1. rf t,here bJere ever a moment in time to do a survey, that would have been it. rnstead, the human remains discovered tasked with
COURTT S RULING AFTER BtrNCII TRIAL _ 36

Page 301 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 B
9 10
r.1
t2
13 L4
1"5
16 t'I
18 19
20 2I
22 23
24 25
26 2't
2B
on site in 2001 were returned to the MLD, and there was no follow up by the City or the Tribe wit.h. the deveJ-oper.13 As it turns out, the City employee charged with
implementing and monitoring the mitigation measures was engineer tlendy Williams. Again, the MMP identified only the on'e measure, the 65-foot buffer. The MMP l-isted Wil-Iiams as the person responsible for that single mitigation measure. WiIl-iams testified t.hat she met with Tamayo and archeologist Ric Windmiller on-sÍte within 24.hours of the-ài="ov.ry. She asked for a larger team to screen the spoiÌs pile. MeanwhíIe, the City directly engaged Dokken Engineering to assist with the inítiat discovery. In the early days, th.r. r." some dispute about the J-evel of security needed at the site. In the end, there $ias never a securit,y problem of any kind (no evidence oft any. third-party disturbance)'.

Will-iams ultimately issued the Stop-Work not.ice, which she Iifted in two dayb after the Monitoring Agreement was executed.

She was later involved in a discussion regarding whether to use 13 The plaintiff raises red flags ::egarding the developer's'conduct in 200L, FÍrst, the developer identified the Sou!.hporb Eramework PLan as the operative document concerning mitigation measures at the time. Second, the archeologist Ric 9tindmill-er'did not report the discovery to the Northwest Information Center. , Finally, there was no reburial and no survey. As noted above, however, the City and the MLD approved of all actions taken by the developer, and the City did not implement or enforce mitigation measures from the Southport Framework PIan at any time during the development of Units 10, lL and 12.

COURT'S RULTNG AFÎER BENCH TRIAL _ 37

Page 302 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 B
9 10
11 \2
13 t4
15 16
71 18
19 20
2L
22 23
24 25
zo
2'l
zÕ
Iime treatment at the site. The issue was resolved without any problems.
tr0ill-iams testifíed that she generall-y deferred to Hainilton and TilÌey in the pl-anning department on CEQA matters. She further deferred to the Cfty inspectors on what was happening on site ol u daily basis. rs She explained the process of permitting and the "partnership" between the City and t.he developer as to Iand development, including City streets and utilities and all of the j-nfrastructure. The City staff worked as a team to review and approve planning documents, permits, conditions of approval and final- approvals. Like Hamilton, Williams, as the City engineer, signed off on alt project approvals. Wiltiams testified that all public improvements were accepted by the City. In doÍng so, Vüil-liams never applied the so-called "tiered" mitigation measulles and was never asked to do so.

Ultimately, the opinion of Beavers and the finding of the Court is supported by the testimony of t.he City officials that the City did nbt tier mitigation measures off the 1994 Southport Framework Pl-an or the L990 General Pl-an. Beavers explained that 14 The City inspectors work in a separate department, Public [r7orks.

The inspectors on the Project during the relevanl- time period were Tom Bacon, Steve Gunn and Ted Karnegas. Only Bacon was calted as a witness, He provided very little relevant testimony. One thing was clear, according to B3con, that prior to October 2Q1"5, the inspect.ors had rro reason to beJ.ieve Lhere would be a discovery of a pre-historic cemetery at units t0 and 11.

COURT'S RUL]NG AFTBR BENCII TRIAT _ 38

Page 303 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 B
9 L0
t-1
12 13
T4
15 t6
1-"Ì
18 r.9
20 21
22 23
25 26
27 ¿Õ
there is an extensive process along the way t.o ensure that the developer is focused on mitigation, including notice to the Native American Heritage commission regarding the MND, a pubJ-ic comment period, the drafting of a MMP designating responsible staff, the formal- adoption of the MND and MMp, the trainj-ng of site i-nspector.s, .planners and engineers to assist with compliance review, and the permit and final approval process lr]illiams described.

Beavers further testified that there is a process to-amend or modify
added that
the MMP.
t.he Mtt{P,
:,rt t.he City did not
the Monitoring Agreement was
do so here. Beavers
not a modification of
It was never adopted by the City;the City had ,no part
underscore his in it; and the City did not enforce it. To pointr rìo one ín the Planning Department or Engineering Department took responsibility for. the Monitoring Agreement or directed the inspectors from the public [üorks Department to monitor on-site compliance or even, aL a minimum to check in with the Tribe. As such, there vras no t.iering and the MND and MMP are the guiding cEQA documents. rn the end, the project, had a síngle mitígation measure, the 65-foot buffer.15
15 Beavers' testimony and expert opinions carried the day over the praintÍff's expert NamaL HosseÍnien of Dokken Engineering. Hossej_nien described best practices about how to tier, conceding that more expticit City action is ideal, and acknowledged that there was nothing in the Cit.y, s file other than the general "incorporate by reference" ranguage to support tieríng. ID sum, his testimony was vägue and confusing and jumped around.

COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCI,I TRIAL - 39

Page 304 of 478 ends

l"
2 J
5 6
1 B
9 10
11 t2
13 TA
t_5
16 l''l
L8
I9
20 2L
22 23
24 25
26 2''l
2B
The plaintiff'argues, in effect, that
Monitoring Agreement are CEQA violations.
merit. As noted, the Monitoring Agreement
Thisargument lacks
not adopted as a
enforceable mitigation measure. ft is a private ag::eement through contract lal (not subject to Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 'L1200). This is the position the City took when it referred the Tribe to mediation in the event a further dispute arose. (See Hamilton 10-14-201-5 e-mai1. ) Mediation is statutorily authorized under Pub1ic Resource code sec. 5091.g4t granting the Native American HerÍtage Commissj-on the power to mediate Landowner/MlD dj-sputes. This remedy has been avaitable to the Tribe ever s.ince it was designated as the MLD in early october 2015.

In addition to mediation, the Tríbe had and has ot.her ways to address the.concerns raised by the praintiff in this l-awsuit.

As. Erin Beavers testified, there is a process for the City to amend or modify CEQA mitigation measures on site. The Tribe cou.l-d h,ave pressed the City to address what it believed were violations of the Monitoring Ägreement and to pursue more formal means of mitigation thru the City as the lead agency for He is not a CÍty planner. He had no answer as t-o who was responsj.ble for ensuring compliance with Lhe mitigation measures and how compliance was documented or why the CiÈy would. approve projects if there were vioJ-ations of the mitígation measures - in lighL of !ùendy vüilliams testimony that she knew nothing about the so-called tiered measures.
violations of the
I¡¡A S
f
COURT'S RULTNG AFTER BENCH TRTAL - 40

Page 305 of 478 ends

L
2 3
4 5
6 1
B
9 t0
11 1"2
13 L4
15 I6
t1
t-B
L9
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 27
2B
purposes of CEQA. For example, Charl-ene Hamilton had tasked David Tilley with conducting.a CEQA compliance review. But there was no follow-up on the part of either the City or the Tribe. It is not lost on the Court that the one forma] measure taken to advance' protections for the site was the City/ s issuance of a stop work Notice. That was done at the request of the Tribe. Nothing simÌIar was tried later.

Finalry, the Tribe could have pursued a direct regal action against the developer for what it believed was a breach of contract- i^lithin that legar process, the Tribe could have sought timery injunctive relief. rnstead, before the court id plaintiff's effort, on its own timeline, to adjudicate a case seven years after the initial discovery of human remains atf"the Proj ect .

In its closing argument, the plaintiff produced a
demonstrative exhibit showing thousands of viorations of law, most of which \4/ere alleged violations of the Monitoring Agreement. The chart summarizes the pJ-aintiff,s legal t""*," interpretation of various documents admitted into evidence. It. is not a mere summary of evidence; rather, its concr-usions are based on analysis and numerous assumptions and inferences. No witness testified to how the concl-usions r¡rere drawn or wnat inferences were made, Many of the records, while admítted, \^rere COURT'S RULTNG AFTER BENCH TRIAL - 41

Page 306 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
q
6 '7
o
9 10
l_1
T2
13 L4
15 16
L7
1B
19 20
2I
22 23
24 25
26 27
2B
never explained thru direct witness testimony. The plaintiff failed to use an expert to explain the methodology of analysis Even after Court review, it remains pure speculation that unmonitored ground disturbing uJti-nity impacted human remains.

Thedefense rightly pointed out numerous flaws in the
the chart does not properly reflect what notice was
t6
analysis:
required
it draws
)
for the different types of grounddisturbing activity;
a subcontractor a conclusion without support that
timecard equates to ground disturbing activity; it mistakenly concl-udes thal- no monitoring took place prior to the initial- Monitoring Agreement.' and it overstates the meaning of the absence of tribal moniLors, which we learned thru testÍmony could have been voluntary. Unlike the submission of the chart in closing argument, the flaws identified by the defense are apparent fr.om actual testimony of the vari ous. witnesses at trial. Because t-he chart is not s,upported by credible witness 16 The defendant pressed this Court throughout t-he litigation for an order directing the plaintiff to produce a chart of predicate .violations.

The Court did not issue such an order, allowing the plaintiff to control its presentation of evídence. But the Court repeatedly encouraged l-he plaintiff to provide guideposts. The C'ourl; did order lhe production of a statement of undisputed facts and statement of disputed matters, akin to the summary judgment process. Ultimately, the plaintiff waited until- after the close of evidence to produce the chart. The defense makes a fair poínt that this chart, whj-ch plaintiff relies on al"most entirely (along brÍth Bil-l-'s testimony), should have been vet.Ced through expert discovery and expert trÍal. test.imony. It would have in fact assisted the Court to have an expert t.ie it a1l together and explain t.he analysis subject to cross-examination and rebuttal -
COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCËI TR]AL42

Page 307 of 478 ends

t_
L
3 4
5 6
7 B
9 10
11 I2
13 7A
15 1,6
L7
18 19
20 2T
22 t2
24 25
¿o
21 28
test.imony, it is not
there were dozens of
compeJ-1ing. The Court underscores t.hat
individuals who worked on site and
testified about the Project.
of these credibl-e witnesses
The Court relied on the testj-mony
and the documents t.hey used to tell
what happened.

Like many trials, this case turned on the credibility of witnesses. The Court relied on the directives of CACI 107 regarding the bel-ievability of witnesses.rT The Court also relied on t.he various instructions about how to weigh expert testimony, incl-udíng cACr 221,. with respect to the production of evidence, the Court relied on CACI 203 and 205. As to drawing inferences from the test.imony and documentary evidence, the Court used CACI 202.
rt should al-so be not.ed for the record that this court has accepted the. stipul-ation of the parties as to Evidence fil-ed.on September 22, 2022r âs amended by filing on October ?, 2022.

The Court has also accepted into evidence t.he Maclear
Decfaration fil-ed October 12, 2022
r? In addition to Parsons, Beavers and af} Archeo-?ec employees, the Court also gave gfreat weight to the tesLi.rnony of Louis Parsons. Again, the power of his testimony was his complete understanding of the facts and his extensive e-¡naiÌ documentation regarding.his communications regarding the Project, He was committed to complying with the law. His diligence, organization, and, perhaps, row-key but direct demeanor, however, rubbed the Tribe the wrong way. It turned out to be an asset when asked as a witness about what happened on site. The plaintiff faited to impeach hÍs credibility.

COURT'S RULTNG AT"TER BENCH TRIAL _ 43

Page 308 of 478 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
1 q
9 t0
11 1_2
13 L4
15 16
T1
r8
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
21 2B
It shoul-d be noted that this case is about whether the plaintiff has met a l-egat burden of proof based on the specific craim alJ-eged and the evidence produced at trial-. Nothing in this court's ruling should be read as an endorsement of anything but the highest regard for the law designed to protect Native American graves and human remains- The court hopes as chairman Kinter testified that both AB 52 and the use of mediation going forward can bring about a greater confidence in the cEeA process and the protection of cul-tural resources during deveropment proj ects .
fn conclusion, for the reasons
hereby finds that the plaintiff has
preponderance of
Plaintiff shaLL
evidence a viol-ation under section
take-nothing from the complaint.
party. Defendants shaLl prepare
a Court Trial on Judícial Councíl
ORDERED.

Signed in
the prevailing
judgment after

TT IS SO
set forth above,
failed to prove
on DecT
the Court
bya
J"7200.

Defendants are
a proposed.
form.
odland, Calif o::nia
22, 2022
c\*p-ã
The Honorable Samuel- T. McAdam

1.tnt
COURT'S RULING AFTER BBNCH TRTAI, - 44

Page 309 of 478 ends

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF YOLO

IOOO MAIN STREET
WOODLAND, CA. 95695
s30-406-6700
For Court Use

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
VS
SEECON FINANCIAL, et al.

Case CV-2018-1228

CLERK'S CERTIITICATE OF MAILING
I, tlre undersigned, certifii under penalty of pery'ury that I am a Deputy Clerk of the above-entitled Court and not a parry to the within-entitled action; that on 12/22122I served true and cor¡ect copies of the foregoingiattached COURT'S RULING AFTER BENCFI TRIAL by depositing the same, enclosed in sealed envelopes with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the Unitecl States Post Offrce at V/oodland, Califomia addressed as follows:

Matthew Maclear
301 Second Street
\iV'oodland, CA 95695
James Colopy
235 Montgomery Street, lTth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
At the time of said mailing there was regular comrnunication by United States Mail betwcen the said place of mailing and the places addressed.

Dated: 12/22/22 SHAWN C. LANDRY,

COURT EXECUTTVE OFFICER
By:

A. Truitt, Deputy Clerk

Page 310 of 478 ends

From: Kamala Parks <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Cc: Val Menotti <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Ryan, Joan <[email protected]>; Sage, Aaron <[email protected]>; Carli Paine <[email protected]>; Deb Castles <[email protected]> Subject: Comments to CFP Term Sheet for the CNWS Master Development Agreement

Greetings, Guy,
Happy new year!
Attached, please find our comments to the Term Sheet.

We very much appreciate your time and effort for moving the CNWS forward and working with BART.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

In office: M onday, Tuesday, Friday
Remote: Wednesday, Thursday

Kamala Parks (she/her)
Principal Planner, Stations Planning Group
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
2150 Webster Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Office: 510-817-5901
Mobile: 510-421-4435

Page 311 of 478 ends

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
2150 Webster Street, P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6000
January 6, 2023
Guy Bjerke
Director of Economic Development and Base Reuse
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Dr
Concord, CA 94519

Sent by email to [email protected]
RE: Comments to Concord First Partners, LLC’s (CFP) Term Sheet for the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) Master Development Agreement
Dear Mr. Bjerke:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the staff recommended CFP Term Sheet for the CNWS Master Development Agreement. As always, we appreciate all the work you and Joan Ryan have put into this effort.

We understand that BART land is not included in the CFP Term Sheet or the proposed CFP Project because the CFP Project is limited to the land that is expected to be transferred from the Navy to the City of Concord. We appreciate, however, the potential of including BART land in the Specific Plan process once the Master Development Agreement is underway. Additionally, BART staff appreciates being included in any local planning efforts that may affect ridership and station access.

We are providing comments as BART’s future ridership, development, and access may be affected by decisions about the proposed CFP Project and its phasing. These comments are based on the BART Board adopted transit-oriented development and station access policies, and other Board policies.

Implementation Phasing
We are concerned by the language in Section 4f, which states that the TOD component of the Reuse project can only be delivered “after BART completes its own planning process, negotiates a DDA, and provides for the reconfiguration of its existing parking, access, and related facilities.” BART’s development of property adjacent to North Concord BART station is dependent on infrastructure upgrades that will be completed in Phase 2. BART’s property is a minority fraction of the total TOD area. There is no apparent reason why BART’s efforts would need to precede that of the Reuse project. We respectfully request that this condition be removed as a requirement to advance the TOD component of the Reuse project.

For clarification, please note that BART does not enter in to DDAs but uses exclusive negotiating agreements and subsequently lease options to develop its properties.

The original CNWS phasing prioritized Phase 1 development around the North Concord/Martinez BART Station, establishing the site as oriented towards transit. BART 2023
Janice Li

PRESIDENT
Mark Foley

VICE PRESIDENT
Robert Powers

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTORS
Debora Allen
1ST DISTRICT
Mark Foley
2ND DISTRICT
Rebecca Saltzman
3RD DISTRICT
Robert Raburn, Ph.D.
4TH DISTRICT
John McPartland
5TH DISTRICT
Elizabeth Ames
6TH DISTRICT
Lateefah Simon
7TH DISTRICT
Janice Li
8TH DISTRICT
Bevan Dufty
9TH DISTRICT
www.bart.gov

Page 312 of 478 ends

January 6, 2023

Page 2 ends

had prioritized development at this station area to coincide with this phasing. However, TOD on BART property depends on the CNWS project’s delivery of critical utility infrastructure. Based on the timeline proposed in the CFP Term Sheet, BART would not seek a developer for the North Concord/Martinez Station until Phase 2 is advanced.

Residential unit count for the Area Plan and BART property We are pleased to see an increase in the overall number of residential units from 12,272 to 15,595, as indicated on Page 2 of the Agenda Report, and elsewhere in the document.

How will Concord ensure that at least 75 units per acre will be allowed on BART’s North Concord/Martinez Station property, as mandated by AB 2923 and included in BART’s 2017 Transit- Oriented Development Guidelines (TOD Guidelines)?
Zoning for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
We are delighted that one of the guiding objectives has been to implement best practices in the planning and execution of this major project. To that end, we encourage you to reference and incorporate in Term Sheet 4.a.i. Phase 2 Figure 1 and Table 1 of BART's TOD Guidelines for zoning and parking requirements within a half-mile of the North Concord/Martinez BART Station.

These guidelines provide best practices for how to plan and design station areas that are sustainable, attractive, active, safe pedestrian-friendly places that feature good connectivity, an inviting public realm, and a greater mix of transit-supportive land uses along with higher densities close to the station. The redevelopment of the site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to provide the density of housing, employment and services commensurate with the site’s location adjacent to regional, high- quality transit.

We are concerned with densities identified in Term Sheet 4.d.iv Self-Help Housing (Habitat for Humanity) as it relates to transit proximity. If the property is within one-half-mile of the BART station, BART requests that the density be at least 75 dwelling units per acre to take advantage of the regional transit hub
Additionally, as indicated in Exhibit A-2: CNWS Land Use Plan, the TOD Core District and the TOD Neighborhoods are anticipated to be zoned for 64.9 and 22.3 dwelling units per acre, respectively. Zoning for both falls short of BART’s TOD Guidelines of 75 dwelling units per acre for land within one-half mile of the North Concord/Martinez BART station.

It is also important to anticipate and prepare parking management strategies within at least one-half mile of the North Concord/Martinez BART Station, as well as any other major transit nodes, that will balance demand for parking, other curb uses and the variety of modes of access. To this end, we encourage that the city and project team commit to developing a transit access and curb management strategy for the site, as indicated in the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan.

Multimodal Access
Given the CNWS’s proximity to the North Concord/Martinez BART Station, its promise as a development that encourages multi-modal access, and general efforts to enhance walking, biking, and transit options in Concord, omission of on-street infrastructure for these modes of travel as it relates to non-vehicular travel.

Page 313 of 478 ends

January 6, 2023

Page 3 ends

The Term Sheet should identify measures to encourage multi-modalism both within the site and at its boundaries, consistent with the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan. In particular, the Transportation and Circulation section in Chapter 2 of the Area Plan identifies the importance of access to BART in Complete Streets, Bicycle, and Transit Network maps contained in Figures 2-1 through 2-3. The Term Sheet should also be consistent with the Area Plan for Willow Pass Road, which is identified in the Complete Streets and Bicycle Network maps (Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively).

Alignment with Concord’s Housing Element
Figure 2 of Agenda Report and elsewhere indicates that development around the North Concord/Martinez BART Station will occur in Phase 2, timing for which will be based on Phase 1 implementation and performance. The CFP development program on page 5 identifies five major phases over 40 years, which averages to one phase every eight years. This timeline makes development on BART land very unlikely within the Housing Element’s timeframe of 2023 to 2031 due to the lack of infrastructure. Based on previous assumptions, Concord’s site inventory for its draft Housing Element includes housing units being built on BART's land within the Housing Element time frame. The final Housing Element should remove BART’s land should the development phasing identified the CNWS Term Sheet be approved.

Affordable Housing Strategies
We support the overall Affordable Housing goal of 25%, indicated in Item 5 on Page 8 of the Agenda Report and elsewhere. This would result in about 3,750 units, based on the total estimated number of units. We look forward to interfacing with the city as they develop the Specific Plan and the Disposition and Development Agreements to ensure affordability is fairly distributed in all phases.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide our comments. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Kamala Parks at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Val Menotti
Chief Planning & Development Officer

cc: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager, City of Concord
Aaron Sage, Principal Planner, City of Concord
Joan Ryan, Community Reuse Planner, City of Concord
Carli Paine, TOD Program Manager, BART
Deb Castles, Principal Property Development Officer, BART Kamala Parks, Principal Station Planner, BART

Page 314 of 478 ends

Page 315 of 478 ends

City Clerk Joelle Fockler,
Dear Honorable Concord Mayor and Councilmembers,
Over the next 50 years, we have a regional opportunity to move us forward that will positively impact our local residents, our city’s revenue, our small businesses, and our schools. The Concord First Partners (CFP) Term Sheet is a comprehensive outline that encompasses the needs of labor and affordable housing, is supported by city staff, and allows this process to move forward thoughtfully where the community will continue to be able to provide feedback and input along the way.

As a Union construction worker, we have wanted to see a term sheet like this that highlights the important community benefit that CFP has entered into a Project Labor Agreement with the Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades for all project construction. The term sheet also has provisions for local hiring opportunities, training programs, and opportunities for local businesses. This means Concord residents will have the ability to start a career in one of the Building Trades Apprenticeship Programs on this project, there will be opportunities for Veterans through the Helmets to Hardhats program, and you can be assured that workers on this project will be paid area standard wages with benefits for themselves and healthcare for their families.

Other community benefits include over 850 acres of parks, recreations, and trails that will be enjoyed by East Bay residents for decades to come. There will be hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions made for both the Tournament Sports Park and a Campus District Community Center/Library. These benefits are only possible if we take the right step and move forward with this Term Sheet.

We appreciate your continued support of working families and ask that you approve the CFP Term Sheet on January 7th. Thank you for your time.

The following people submitted the above email:

Page 316 of 478 ends

1 Joshua Aasved
2 William Abbott
3 Doug Adams
4 Jared Adkins
5 Raul Aguilera
6 Tony Aiello
7 David Alemayehu
8 Dustin Alo
9 Chad Andrews
10 Steven Anello
11 Alberto
Anguiano-
Hernandez
12 Mark Ansell
13 Jaime Anson
14 Gustavo Aparicio
15 Byron Arenas
16 Gamaliel Arias
17 Geoffrey Asbell
18 James Ashcroft
19 Mousaab Atassi
20 Mitch Auerbach
21 John Baca
22 Tyson Bagley
23 K evin Bailey
24 Terry Baldwin
25 Mark Barbieri
26 Wayne Barker
27 Jason Barmann
28 Craig Bartlett
29 Hershel Barton
30 Randy Basilio
31 Donald Basso
32 Zachary Beason
33 Michael Beights
34 Scott Bell
35 Zenaido Berra-lopez
36 Christina Bertea
37 Jay Betzold
38 Cecil Bindrum
39 Alysia Blakeman
40 Moses Blopleh
41 Mark Bolles
42 Bradley Bourroux

Page 317 of 478 ends

43 Jack Bowen
44 Rivers Boyd
45 Doug Boyum
46 Gordon Brandt
47 Austin Braunberger
48 Aaron Bray
49 Robert Brewer
50 Christopher Broadnax
51 Jerry Brooks
52 Anthony Brown
53 Paul Brown
54 Ryan Brown
55 John Bruno
56 E lvn Bunker
57 K evin Burbank
58 Steven Burnett
59 Travis Butcher
60 Ken Butler
61 Socrates Caballero
62 Brian Callaghan
63 Piero Cambero
64 S t eve Camblin
65 Dennis Camera
66 Jeffrey Camp
67 Flavio Campo
68 Matthew Canfield
69 Ernesto Cardenas-Medina
70 Trent Carden-jr
71 Jesse Carpenter
72 Joseph Carpio
73 Clayton Carstensen
74 Asdrubal Casillas
75 Gasper Castro
76 Marcello Celis-Boyle
77 Patrick Chatard
78 Wallace Chin
79 Kyle Church
80 EJ Cire
81 Travis Clay
82 John Clement
83 Serena Clements
84 Derek Cole
85 Carlos Collins

Page 318 of 478 ends

86 Keith Combs
87 Chris Cossey
88 Ronald Cox
89 David Crews
90 Benjamin Crocker
91 Melissa Crowley
92 Sergio Cruz
93 Byron Dahl
94 Jordan Daley
95 Toban Damon
96 Michael Danberg
97 Thanh Dang
98 James Davenport
99 Derek DeCot
100 Brian deLara
101 Jason DeShasier
102 David Dexheimer
103 Fausto Diaz
104 Mark Dockham
105 Timothy Dodd
106 Johnny Dominguez
107 Phillip Doolittle
108 Jason Driskill
109 Melodie Ducey
110 Mikayla Ducey
111 Daniel Duprat
112 Wayne Ellis
113 Douglas Emerson
114 Jack Erickson
115 John Escobar
116 Luis Esparza
117 Tim Esquivel
118 John Etherington
119 Ralph Farber
120 Thomas Farmer
121 Jemecas Farr
122 Jason FARRIS
123 David Farsh
124 Jeffrey Faust
125 Huajun Feng
126 Vincent Ferrante
127 Marco Flores
128 Greg Flower

Page 319 of 478 ends

129 Alex Foster
130 Aric Fox
131 Cody Frades
132 Jason Gallia
133 Philip Gangl
134 Denis Garcia
135 Jorge Garcia
136 Jose Garcia
137 Luis Garcia
138 Mayra Garcia
139 Ivan Garcia Morales
140 Matthew Gibbs
141 Jethan Giles
142 Anthony Gilliam
143 Canyon Gleave
144 zakinijemgmail.com
145 Terry Gober
146 A lvaro Gomez
147 Zachary Gonsalves
148 Jaime Gonzalez
149 Luis Gonzalez
150 Niko Gonzalez
151 Sofia Gonzalez
152 Kem Goodwin
153 Nick Goodwin
154 Raymond Green
155 James Greene
156 Anthony Grover
157 Vicente Guerrero
158 Joe Gutierrez
159 S t eve Gwizdak
160 Tommy Gwizdak
161 Andrew Halafihi
162 Anthony Hampton
163 Garrett Hansen
164 Mike Hansen
165 Kyler Haun
166 Aidan Haynes
167 Amy Haynes
168 Cole Haynes
169 Eric Haynes
170 Tristan Haynes
171 Rolando Hernandez

Page 320 of 478 ends

172 Teneika Hernandez
173 Terence Hernandez
174 Bill Hines
175 Aram hodess
176 Robert Hopkins
177 Michael Hunter
178 Thomas Hurley
179 Edgar Hurtado
180 Marlon Hurtado
181 Jimmy Hylton
182 Hormuz Isaac
183 A.G. Isom
184 Mark Jackson
185 Paul James
186 Terry Jardim
187 Timothy Jefferies
188 Luis Jimenez
189 Douglas Johnson
190 Joshua Johnson
191 Mark Johnson
192 Phil Johnson
193 Troy Johnson
194 Jeffery Jones
195 Xavier Juarez
196 Mark Kalinowski
197 Curtis Kelley
198 Ian Kent
199 Nicholas King
200 Arthur Klimkiewicz
201 Eric Knapp
202 Rolf Knauff
203 Kuyler Knickerbocker
204 Dylan Knight
205 Jerry Kung
206 Glenn Lamb
207 Kirk Larke
208 Carol Larson
209 Thomas Lawson
210 Andrew Leaaetoa
211 Brian Lee
212 K evin Lee
213 Roger Leffel
214 Doug LeMoine

Page 321 of 478 ends

215 Joy Lenox
216 Jason Lester
217 Gregory Levy
218 Jason Lindsey
219 Robert Llewellyn
220 Gabriel Loebs
221 Alejandro Lopez
222 Jeff Lucot
223 William Ludolph
224 Wilson Lugo
225 Joseph Lumbre
226 Jose Macias
227 Xavier Maciel
228 Alan Mahoney
229 Michael Mahoney
230 Francisco Maldonado
231 Garrett Marshall
232 Brian Martinez
233 Ismael Martinez
234 Jeff Mason
235 S t eve Mason
236 Adam Masters
237 E van Masters
238 Caleb Matheny
239 Robert Mayorga
240 James Mayse
241 Jeff McBride
242 Daniel McNulty
243 Josiah Meahan
244 Pablo-
Gonzalez Mendoza
245 Alan Mengenhauser
246 Jimmy Miller
247 Edgar Mocinos
248 Nile Moore
249 Casey Morel
250 Mario Moreno
251 Constante Morla
252 Michael Morrissey
253 Chris Moyer
254 K evin Mueller
255 Andrea Munoz
256 Josue Munoz

Page 322 of 478 ends

257 Patrick Murray
258 Louie Nazzal
259 Aaron Neff
260 Mike Nesbitt
261 Kristi Nesbitt
262 Alejandro Nevarez
263 Brian Newman
264 Nicholas Noble
265 Joshua Nunez
266 Marco Nunez
267 Martin-Guerra Ochoa
268 Nicholas Olstad
269 Jordan O'Rear
270 Jesse Oropeza
271 Ramon Ortega
272 Ryan Pascoe
273 Richard Patterson
274 Brian Pattillo
275 Kurtis Peirce
276 Stephen Perea
277 Justin Pereira
278 Jesus Perez
279 John Perez
280 Brian Petersen
281 Lizandro Ponce
282 Steven Pratte
283 Nicholas Price
284 Larissa Printzian
285 Christopher Puglisi
286 John Radosevich
287 Mike Radosevich
288 Andrew Ramirez
289 Ruben Ramirez
290 Jonathan Ramos
291 Andrew Renner
292 Jafet Resendiz
293 Netza Reyes-Gomez
294 Robert Ring
295 Ignacio Rios
296 Ronald Rivera
297 Jimi Rivera
298 Glenda Rivers
299 Eldin Rivers

Page 323 of 478 ends

300 Dewey Robbins
301 Dwayne Robinson
302 Paul Robinson
303 Doug Rodriguez
304 Eduardo Rodriguez
305 Eric Rodriguez
306 Ruben Rodriguez
307 Rafael G Romero
308 Rennae Ross
309 Paul Rozowski
310 Phil Rubick
311 Ryan Ruf
312 William Ruppel
313 Justin Ruther
314 Khae Saechao
315 Alex Saephanh
316 Marco Salgado
317 Edward Sanchez
318 Tanisha Sanders
319 Jose Sandoval
320 Mario Santoyo
321 Rodolfo Saucedo
322 Steven Schaefer
323 Dan Schlegel
324 Mark Sever
325 Devly n Sewell
326 Shaun Shahan
327 Mark Shell
328 Jonathan Shull
329 Cal Simmons
330 Neal Smith
331 Richard Solak
332 Carlos Soto
333 Erick Soto
334 Sal Spataro
335 Robert Stack
336 Eric Stephens
337 Brad Steward
338 Jimmy Stockdale
339 Dan Sugarman
340 Randall Sugiyama
341 Felicia Templeton
342 Brian Theodos

Page 324 of 478 ends

343 Randy Thomas
344 Zhanna Thompson
345 Vince Threatt
346 Mariecris Tolentino
347 Andres Torres
348 Fernando Torres
349 Nick Trivisonno
350 Maximo Trujillo
351 Joshua Tuck
352 Hailton Valdez
353 Steven Valent
354 Tina Van Arsdale
355 Jacob Vancuren
356 Israel Vargas
357 Jossue Vasquez
358 Oliver Vido
359 Anthony Volpe
360 Ashad Warren
361 Jason Washington
362 Casey Waters
363 Jeremy Watkins
364 Edwin Weitz
365 Cassandra Whitcomb
366 Cody Whitcomb
367 Olivia Whitcomb
368 Bill Whitney
369 Jesse Wilkinson
370 Gregory Williams
371 Jordan Wilson
372 Joseph Wilson
373 Mark Wilson
374 Carl Woerner
375 Andrea Woodman
376 Tracy Woodruff
377 Alan Yanez
378 Michael Yarbrough
379 Patrick Young
380 Selena Young-Padilla
381 Nicolas Yurasek
382 Victor Zarza
383 Barry Ziegler
384 Dylan Zingg
385 Rigoverto Garcia

Page 325 of 478 ends

386 Manuel Esquer
387 [email protected]
388 Christopjer Bowles
389 Byron Dahl
390 Jerimiah Meisenbach
391 Robert Dulaney
392 Robert Art
393 Noel Bermudez
394 Jorge Ramirez
395 Juan Hernandez
396 Kenneth Kearns
397 Jeffrey Oneill
398 Doug Boyum
399 Hugo Sandoval
400 Chris Wright
401 Michelle Snow
402 Lucky Hoey
403 Ethan Law

Page 326 of 478 ends

From: Alissa Weber <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2023 11:48 AM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]> Cc: Ryan, Joan <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Reuse Project <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Homeless Collaborative Letter re CNWS Term Sheet

Mayor and City Council,

Please find attached a letter from the Concord Naval Weapons Station Homeless Collaborative regarding the draft Term Sheet prepared by Concord First Partners that is for your consideration on Saturday, January 7th.

The Collaborative, which holds a Legally Binding Agreement related to the CNWS Reuse Project, has several objections to the proposed term sheet, most significantly: 1) non-complia nce with provisions within the Legally Binding Agreement; and 2) a lack of substantive public engagement process prior to Council consideration. These concerns are outlined and explained in the attached letter.

Due to these concerns, we ask that the City Council postpone its decision on the Term Sheet until these issues can be resolved in a comprehensive and transparent manner.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Alissa Weber
(Acting as Administrator for the Homeless Collaborative)

| Alis s a Weber | Directing Attorney
Pronouns: she/her/hers
p: 415- 788-7961 ext. 347 w: www.homebas ec c c.org a: 870 Market Street, Suite 1228, San Francisco, CA 94102

Advancing Solution s to Homeles sness
Legal and Technical Assistance | Policy | A dvocacy | Planning Homebase COVID-19 Key Resource Guide - Click Here

The content in this message is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Homebase does not enter into attorney-client relationships.

Page 327 of 478 ends

Page 328 of 478 ends

Page 329 of 478 ends

Page 330 of 478 ends

Page 331 of 478 ends

Page 332 of 478 ends

Page 333 of 478 ends

Page 334 of 478 ends

Page 335 of 478 ends

Page 12 of 61 ends

Attachment 1

CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION

TERM SHEET FOR

DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND STATUTORY

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF CONCORD, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY (“CITY” OR “LRA”) AND
CONCORD FIRST PARTNERS, LLC (“DEVELOPER”)
DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose of Term Sheet and DDA and DA ........................................................... 1

2. Phase One; Future Phases ................................................................................. 1

3. Labor Policies & Local Opportunity ...................................................................... 2

4. Project ................................................................................................................. 3

5. Summary of Project Milestones and Phasing Requirements ............................. 13

6. Interim Lease ..................................................................................................... 16

7. Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 16

8. Project Entitlements ........................................................................................... 18

9. Reimbursement of City Costs ............................................................................ 20

10. Conditions Precedent to Transfer to Developer ................................................. 22

11. Conditions Precedent to Transfer to Vertical Developer .................................... 24

12. City Participation ................................................................................................ 25

13. Federal, State, and Regional Funding Sources; Financing of Public Improvements and Publicly Accessible Private Improvements .......................... 26

14. Open Book Accounting ...................................................................................... 27

15. Remediation ...................................................................................................... 28

16. Habitat & Species Mitigation and Resource Agency Permitting ......................... 29

17. Prevailing Wages ............................................................................................... 30

18. Insurance ........................................................................................................... 31

19. Indemnity ........................................................................................................... 31

20. Third Party Legal Challenges............................................................................. 32

21. Transfers ........................................................................................................... 33

22. Remedies .......................................................................................................... 34

23. Excusable Delays .............................................................................................. 35

Page 336 of 478 ends

Page 13 of 61 ends

24. Transfer of Remainder of Development Footprint .............................................. 36

25. Navy/City Conveyance Agreement .................................................................... 37

26. Corporate Structure & Capitalization of Developer ............................................ 37

27. Development Agreement ................................................................................... 38

28. Exhibits .............................................................................................................. 39 * * * * *

Page 337 of 478 ends

Page 14 of 61 ends

CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION

TERM SHEET FOR DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT AND STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF CONCORD, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LOCAL
REUSE AUTHORITY (“CITY” OR “LRA”) AND
CONCORD FIRST PARTNERS LLC (“DEVELOPER”)

1. Purpose of Term Sheet and DDA and DA.

The purpose of this term sheet (“ Term Sheet”) is to set forth the key business terms to be included in a Disposition and Development Agreement (“ DDA”) and statutory Development Agreement (“ DA”) between City and Developer. The purpose of the DDA is to (a) provide for City’s disposition of the Phase One Property (defined in Section 2) to Developer so that Developer may develop Phase One of the Project; (b) set forth terms and conditions upon which Developer, subject to meeting specified milestones and conditions, would have the right to acquire and develop future phases (each, a “ Future Phase” and collectively the “Future Phases ”) of the Development Footprint (defined in Section 2); and (c) ensure the timely development of each Phase, including all sub -phases thereof, with a range of land uses substantially consistent with the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan (the “CRP Area Plan”), including parks and other public amenities and facilities, commercial and residential uses, including affordable housing. Phase One and the Future Phases are sometim es referred to herein individually as a Phase and collectively as the Phases. The purpose of the DA is to ensure (i) appropriate vested rights with respect to Project approvals and entitlements including a Specific Plan; (ii) delivery of substantial commun ity benefits from the Project’s contributions to parks and recreation, transportation, and community improvements and contributions; (iii) increased affordable housing options for extremely low-, very low- and low income residents; and (iv) payment of fees for the purpose of developing recreational amenities, bicycle, pedestrian and road circulation improvements, and other project contributions as provided for in this Term Sheet and the Specific Plan.

2. Phase One; Future Phases.

The “Phase One Property” consists of approximately 423 acres, as depicted on Exhibit A. The Phase One Property includes a portion of an initial transfer parcel, expected to be 1,100 to 1,400 acres in size (the “ First Transfer Parcel ”) that is anticipated to be transferred by the United States Navy (“Navy”) to City as the first phase of an economic development conveyance (“ EDC”) of the inland portion of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station property. The developable property that will ultimately be transferred by Navy t o City through the EDC is expected to total approximately 2,275 acres (the “ Development Footprint ”). Subject to Developer achieving the Phase One -related milestones and meeting the conditions set forth in Section 10 below, Developer shall be eligible to receive

Page 338 of 478 ends

Page 15 of 61 ends

conveyance of an additional 553 acres of the Development Footprint (the “ Phase Two Property ”). Subject to Developer achieving the Future Phase-related milestones and meeting the conditions set forth in Section 10 below, Developer shall be eligible to receive further conveyances of an additional 352 acres of the Development Footprint (the “Phase Three Property”); an additional 366 acres of the Development Footprint (the “ Phase Four Property ”) and an additional 407 acres of the Development Footprint (the “ Phase Five Property”). Conveyance of the property comprising each Phase will be effectuated via multiple phased closings by sub-phase, with each sub-phase consisting of approximately 50 to 100 acres each. The DDA will include flexibility for future sub -phase conveyances to occur prior to completion of all prior sub-phase conveyances upon the City making findings that the proposed out-of-sequence conveyance and development will not adversely affect functionality of the Project.

3. Labor Policies & Local Opportunity.

a. The DDA will cross reference the contractual obligations of Developer and its transferees, including vertical develo pers, to local trades under Developer’s existing project labor agreement(s) for Project construction.

b. The DDA will address Developer’s obligations with respect to local hire policies and goals for Project -related construction jobs consistent with a progra m to be reviewed and approved by Developer and the City, which may include:

i. The City’s good-faith Hire Concord First goal that 40% of the construction workforce should be prioritized first for local employees who reside in Concord, then, employees who reside in Contra Costa County.

ii. Job training, apprenticeship programs, and vocational training opportunities, which would extend to both construction and permanent operational jobs.

iii. Coordination with the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce, the Mt.

Diablo Unified School District, East Bay Works, the Contra Costa Workforce Development Board, California State University East Bay, and the California Employment Development Department to enhance opportunities for local employment and training.

iv. Military veteran -focused career training and workforce reintegration programs.

v. Use of public sector employees (i.e. County Connection drivers) to staff the proposed “Concord Connector” providing access to and from the Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”) station. The Concord Connector program, including Developer’s and its successors’ participation in the funding of such program, will be addressed in the Specific Plan.

Page 339 of 478 ends

Page 16 of 61 ends

c. Developer will use good faith efforts to engage community -based organizations (“CBOs”) involved in local labor issues to promote awareness of the Project and opportunities for local labor workforce development and business participation.

d. Developer will se ll land corresponding to at least 50% of the total market -rate residential units (excluding affordable units) within the Project to unaffiliated third - party vertical developers. Developer is also committed to implementing “Hire Concord First” policies by maximizing development opportunities, at competitive prices, for local development firms. Opportunities would be for residential, commercial, and recreational facilities and would focus first on firms located in the City of Concord, second on firms located in Contra Costa County, and third on firms located in the other eight Bay Area counties.

4. Project.

Developer and the City (together, the “ Parties”) propose that the project to be developed within the Development Footprint include the key components and amenities, general densities, and land use patterns described in this Section 4 (the “Project”). The Project is based on Developer’s current anticipated financial feasibility pro-forma dated November 11, 2022, a summary of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Pro-forma”). Specific densities, land use patterns, and uses remain subject to refinement through the planning and negotiation of the Specific Plan and DA and associated California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., (“CEQA”) process, all as set forth in Section 8. While Developer’s key obligation under the DDA is to deliver Backbone Infrastructure (as described in Section 7.a) to serve the Project’s land use program, Developer also agrees to make commercially reasonable efforts to market resulting development parcels throughout the Project to vertical developers (including Affiliates of Developer as defined in Section 21.a and third -party developers) so that vertical development -- and its associated benefits to the community -- may proceed in an orderly and timely manner and to ensure that commercial and retail uses are developed in a balanced manner with residential uses.

a. Development Phases & Project Summary . The Project is propose d to be developed in five Phases as depicted in Exhibit A; each Phase will have multiple sub-phases. The primary Project elements to be included in each Phase are described below and also listed in Exhibit A.

i. Phase One

A. Innovation District - 88 acres of non-residential uses

B. 2,873 total dwelling units comprised of:

1) 2,180 market-rate units, and

2) 693 affordable units, including:
- Permanent Supportive Housing, 4 acres (65 affordable units)

Page 340 of 478 ends

Page 17 of 61 ends

C. Veterans Land Set-Aside – 4 acres

D. PG&E substation – 5 acres

E. Parks/Greenways – 79.7 acres

F. Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration – 38.5 acres

G. Phase One component of Tournament Sports Park/Citywide Park to be more fully described in the Specific Plan with Developer committing $5 Million to such work1
ii. Phase Two

A. 4,945 total dwelling units comprised of:

1) 3,777 market-rate units, including:

- 385 market-rate units in the Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) neighborhood, and

- 513 market-rate residential units in the TOD core; and

2) 1,168 affordable units, including:

- 570 TOD neighborhood affordable units;

- 513 TOD core affordable units;
- Transitional housingPermanent Supportive Housing, 4 acres (65 affordable units); and
- Habitat for Humanity, 2 acres (20 affordable units)

B. TOD Core District - a mixed use district that will include, among other uses, the market rate and affordable dwelling units noted in A. above, as further described in the Specific Plan

C. Campus District – a mixed use district as further described in the Specific Plan

1 All monetary community benefit contributions set forth in this Term Sheet are listed in 2022 dollars.

The amount of the community benefit contributions in this Term Sheet including the Library/Community Center contributions (Section 4.c.ii.), the Tournament Sports Park (Section 4.c.iii.), Citywide Park (Section

4.c.iv.), and the Affordable Housing Subsidy (Section 4.d.ii.) will be escalated by the increase in either the a) San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index, All Items (1982-84=100) for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco Bay Area (“CPI”), or b) Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Urban Area (“CCI”) published each year, whichever is most applicable, beginning January 1, 2024 and the date on which payment is made. If the CPI and/or the CCI is no longer available then a comparable index as reasonably selected by City will be used.

Page 341 of 478 ends

Page 18 of 61 ends

D. Food bank – 10 acres

E. Phase Two component of Library/Community Center to be more fully described in the Specific Plan, with Developer committing $25 Million1 to such work
F. Phase Two component of Tournament Sports Park/Citywide Park to be more fully described in the Specific Plan with Developer committing $35 Million1 to such work
G. Fire Station – 2 acres

H. Parks/Greenways – 82.56 acres.

I. Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration – 46.08 acres

iii. Phase Three

A. 2,345 total dwelling units comprised of:

1) 1,980 market-rate units, and

2) 365 affordable units, including:

- Transitional housingPermanent Supportive Housing, 4 acres (65 affordable units)

B. Village center – 6 acres

C. Mid-rise hotel – 2 acres

D. School sites – 15 acres

E. Phase Three component of Library/Community Center to be more fully described in the Specific Plan, with Developer committing $40 Million1 to such work
F. Phase Three component of Tournament Sports Park/Citywide Park to be more fully described in the Specific Plan, with Developer committing $40 Million1 to such work
G. Parks/Greenways – 89.95 acres

H. Wetland Preservation – 35 acres2
I. Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration – 25 acres

iv. Phase Four

2 The actual mitigation in this area will occur in advance of Phase One.

Page 342 of 478 ends

Page 19 of 61 ends

A. 2,927 total dwelling units comprised of:

1) 2,530 market-rate residential units, and

2) 397 affordable units, including:

- Transitional housingPermanent Supportive Housing, 4 acres (65 affordable units)

B. Phase Four component of Tournament Sports Park/Citywide Park to be more fully described in the Specific Plan, with Developer committing $20 Million1 to such work
C. School sites – 10 acres

D. Parks/Greenways – 37.39 acres

E. Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration – 31.79 acres

F. Green Frame Park – 41 acres

v. Phase Five

A. 2,505 total dwelling units comprised of:

1) 2,108 market-rate units, and

2) 397 affordable units, including:

- Transitional housing, 4 acres (65 affordable units)

B. Village Center – 3.5 acres

C. Phase Five component of the City -Wide Park to be more fully described in the Specific Plan

D. School sites – 15 acres

E. Parks/Greenways – 97 acres

F. Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration – 37.65 acres

G. Green Frame Park – 41 acres

H. Fire Station – 2 acres

b. Commercial Pads; Neighborhood Serving Retail. Developer shall develop pads in development ready condition (i.e. graded, compacted, and with utilities stubbed to locations approved by City) (“Development Ready Condition”) for all commercial uses in each Phase prior to issuance of building permits for 75% of the market rate

Page 343 of 478 ends

Page 20 of 61 ends

dwelling units in such Phase. Following development of the commercial pads, Developer shall market such pads, including retail property, to vertical developers so that commercial and retail uses may be constructed and opened as soon as is reasonably practicable in each Phase of the Project. Of the approximately 75,000 square feet of commercial development proposed to be located within Phase One, Developer shall ensure that approximately 37,500 square feet will be reserved for retail uses carrying food items, sundries, and providing other daily necessities to provide a walking -distance retail resource for residents of the Project (“Neighborhood Serving Retail ”). Developer shall build or cause to be built a minimum of 10,00 0 square feet of Phase One Neighborhood Serving Retail buildings prior to issuance of building permits for 50% of the market rate dwelling units in Phase One. Developer’s obligations to facilitate development of Neighborhood Serving Retail uses in Phases 2 through 5 will be addressed in the Specific Plan.

c. Recreational/Civic Amenities . Developer shall develop and construct key recreational and civic amenities and public spaces in a sequence that will complement the overall pace and character of corresponding vertical development as more particularly described in this subparagraph c. Parks and greenways will provide for access and trail connectivity for local and regional trails/bikeways and will provide connectivity to the Delta DeAnza Regional Trail. The Specific Plan will include mechanism(s) ensuring the long term maintenance, repair and replacement of recreational and civic amenities and public spaces in perpetuity.

i. Parks and Greenways.

A. Developer shall construct and upon completion thereof o ffer to dedicate to the City approximately 80 acres of parks and greenways within Phase One. As part of Phase One, Developer shall fund a portion of the costs of the Phase One component of the Tournament Sports Park and the Phase One component of the Citywide Park within the time(s) set forth in the Specific Plan. Developer shall commence and complete construction of the Phase One parks and greenways within the times required by the subdivision improvement agreement between City and Developer; provided , however, in all events not less than 35 acres of the Phase One parks and greenways shall be completed and offered for dedication to City prior to issuance of building permits for 50% of the market rate dwelling units in Phase One. The remaining parks and greenways in Phase One shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits for 90% of the market rate dwelling units in Phase One. In addition, as a part of Phase One, Developer shall in coordination with the East Bay Regional Park District (“ EBRPD”): 1) construct interim trail improvements which shall be a decomposed granite surface treatment and more fully detailed in the Specific Plan to connect the Delta-DeAnza Trail to the Contra Costa Canal Trail; and 2) develop and construct vehicular access improvements off of Willow Pass

Page 344 of 478 ends

Page 21 of 61 ends

Road to EBRPD property which improvements will be more
particularly described in the Specific Plan.

B. As part of Phase Two, Developer shall fund a portion of the costs of the Phase Two component of the Tournament Sports Park and the Phase Two component of the Citywide Park within the time(s) set forth in the Specific Plan. Developer shall also construct and upon completion thereof offer to dedicate to the City the approximately

82.56 acres of parks and greenways within Phase Two (the “ Phase Two Parks and Greenways ”). Developer shall commence and complete construction of the Phase Two Parks and Greenways within the times required by the subdivision improvement agreement between City and Developer; provided, however, in all events not less than 41.2 acres of Phase Two Parks and Greenways shall be completed and offered for dedication to the City prior to issuance of building permits for 50% percent of the market rate dwelling units in Phase Two. The remaining Phase Two Parks and Greenways shall be completed and offered for dedication to the City prior to issuance of building permits for 90% of the market rate dwelling units in Phase Two.

C. As part of Phase Three, Developer shall fund a portion of the costs of the Phase Three component of the Tournament Sports Park and the Phase Three component of the Citywide Park within the time(s) set forth in the Specific Plan. Developer shall also construct and upon completion thereof offer to dedicate to the City the approximately

89.95 acres of parks and greenways within Phase Three (the “Phase Three Parks and Greenways ”). Developer shall commence and complete construction of the Phase Three Parks and G reenways within the times required by the subdivision improvement agreement between City and Developer; provided, however, in all events not less than 45 acres of Phase Three Parks and Greenways shall be completed and offered for dedication to the City prior to issuance of building permits for 50% percent of the market rate dwelling units in Phase Three. The remaining Phase Three Parks and Greenways shall be completed and offered for dedication to the City prior to issuance of building permits for 90% of the market rate dwelling units in Phase Three.

D. As part of Phase Four, Developer shall fund a portion of the costs of the Phase Four component of the Tournament Sports Park and the Phase Four component of the Citywide Park within the time(s) set forth in the Specific Plan. Developer shall also construct and upon completion thereof offer to dedicate to the City 1) a 41 acre portion of the Green Frame Park; and 2) an additional approximately 37.39 acres of parks and greenways within Phase Four (collectively the “Phase Four Parks and Greenways”). Developer shall commence

Page 345 of 478 ends

Page 22 of 61 ends

and complete construction of the Phase Four Parks and Greenways within the times required by the subdivision improvement agreement between City and Developer; provided, however, in all events the 41 acre portion of the Green Frame Park and not less than 18.70 acres of the other parks and greenways within Phase Four shall be completed and offered for dedication to the City prior to issuance of building permits for 50% of the market rate dwelling units in Phase Four, and the remaining approximately 18.69 acres of other parks and greenways within Phase Four shall be completed and offered for dedication to the City prior to issuance of building permits for 90% of the market rate dwelling units in Phase Four.

E. As part of Phase Five, Developer shall fund a portion of the costs of the Phase Five component of the Citywide Park within the time set forth in the Specific Plan. Developer shall also construct and upon completion thereof offer to dedicate to the City: 1) the balance of the Green Frame Park (approximately 41 acres); and 2) an additional approximately 97 acres of parks and greenways wi thin Phase Five (collectively the “ Phase Five Parks and Greenways ”). Developer shall commence and complete construction of the Phase Five Parks and Greenways within the times required by the subdivision improvement agreement between City and Developer; pro vided, however, in all events the Phase Five Parks and Greenways shall be completed and offered for dedication to the City prior to issuance of building permits for 75% of the market rate dwelling units in Phase Five.

ii. Community Center/Library. The Community Center/Library will be located in the Campus District. Developer will pay City a total of $65 million1 towards construction of the Community Center/Library as follows: A) an initial contribution of $25 million 1 shall be made w ithin Phase Two; and B) the remaining contribution of $40 million1 shall be made in Phase Three; the timing of delivery of the monetary contributions for the Community Center/Library within each phase and the anticipated project delivery methodology (e.g. design/build, design/bid/build, Developer build etc.) will be addressed in the Specific Plan and/or the DA. The improvements and programming of the Community Center/Library shall be defined in the Specific Plan. Developer, at its expense, shall prepare Development Ready Condition building pad(s) on land retained by the City for the Community Center/Library in Phases Two and/or Three as set forth in the Specific Plan. iii. Tournament Sports Park . Developer, at its expense, shall provide utilities stubbed to locations approved by the City to land retained by the City (approximately 69.6 acres total) for the Tournament Sports Park in Phases One, Two, Three, and Four all within the times set forth in the Specific Plan.

The improvements and programming, including specifics of each phased

Page 346 of 478 ends

Page 23 of 61 ends

component of the Tournament Sports Park, shall be set forth in the Specific Plan.

iv. Citywide Park. Developer, at its expense, shall provide utilities stubbed to locations approved by the City to land retained by the City (approximately 105 acres total) for the Citywide Park in Phases Two, Three, Four, and Five within the times set forth in the Specific Plan. The improvements and programming, i ncluding specifics of each phased component of the Citywide Park, shall be set forth in the Specific Plan.

v. Developer Financial Contributions for Tournament Sports Park/Citywide Park. In addition to the provision of utilities to the land retained by the Ci ty for the Tournament Sports Park and Citywide Park as set forth in subsections iii. and iv. above, Developer will also pay City a total of $100 million1 towards construction of the Tournament Sports Park and/or Citywide Park as follows: A) the initial con tribution of $5 million 1 shall be made within Phase One; B) an additional contribution of $35 million 1 shall be made in Phase Two; C) an additional contribution of $40 million1 shall be made in Phase Three; and D) the remaining contribution of $20 million1 will be made in Phase Four; the timing of delivery of the monetary contributions for the Tournament Sports Park/Citywide Park within each phase and the anticipated project delivery methodology (e.g. design/build, design/bid/build, Developer build etc.) will be set forth in the Specific Plan and/or the DA.

d. Affordable Housing. While the State Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220-54234 (“ SLA”), as amended by AB 1486, directly conflicts with various requirements of the Base Closure Law and is therefore preempted, the CRP Area Plan includes a 25% affordable housing requirement which supports the affordable housing goals embodied by AB 1486. Developer will be expected to deed restrict and contribute Development Ready Condition building pad s to support development of at least 3,020 affordable dwelling units affordable to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code (i.e. 80% of AMI or below), 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 foregoing commitment is intended to be consistent with the requirements of SLA section 54221(f)(1)(F) governing exempt surplus land.

i. Delivery of Development -Ready Affordable Housing Pads . Developer will convey fee title to Development Ready Condition building pads (“Affordable Housing Pads”) throughout each Phase of the Project at no cost to City. The valu e of the Affordable Housing Pads is estimated to exceed $187,000,000. Land for 693 affordable units and 4 acres for Permanent Supportive Housing will be included in Phase One. All Affordable Housing Pads within each Phase or sub-phase will be improved and offered to the City (or its affordable housing developer designee) no later than issuance of building permits for 25% of the market

Page 347 of 478 ends

Page 25 of 61 ends

rate units within the applicable Phase or sub -phase or as otherwise determined in the Specific Plan. Site locations shall be geographically disbursed throughout the phases and sub -phases, as determined in the Specific Plan, with consideration given toward selecting sites that a re proximate to transit and services such that they will be competitive for State, federal and regional affordable housing funding.

ii. Additional Developer Funding and Commitments to Ensure Delivery of Affordable Housing Units . In addition to its delivery of development-ready pads, Developer shall pay to City an affordable housing subsidy (“Affordable Housing Subsidy ”) of $10 million per Phase or $50 million 1 total. The Affordable Housing Subsidy for each Phase, together with the CPI increase, shall be paid to City no later than the issuance of building permits for 50% of the market rate dwelling units in the applicable Phase.

iii. Permanent Multifamily Supportive Housing and Food Bank Project.

Developer will make acreage available within timeframes consistent wit h the HUD Legally Binding Agreement as more particularly set forth in the Specific Plan.

iv. Self-Help Housing (Habitat for Humanity) . Developer will donate approximately 2 acres of development -ready property to one or more self - help housing developers for development of low or very low-income for-sale homes at approximately 10 units per acre, resulting in 20 affordable for-sale homes. Sites for self-help (Habitat for Humanity) housing will be located in reasonable proximity to transit and ser vices such that those sites will be competitive for State and federal affordable housing funding.

v. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (“JADUs”). 879 JADUs connected with for- sale market rate units shall be included in the Project. JADU units shall be subject to a recorded affordable housing covenant restricting rents to an amount affordable to lower income households (51 -80% AMI) to remain in effect for 55 years following the date of issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the unit. JADUs sh all be geographically disbursed to the maximum feasible extent.

Other Federal, State, and Regional Funding Sources. Additional funding will be required for affordable housing developers to deliver the remainder of the City’s goal of 3,020 affordable units (not including 879 JADUs) within the five Phases. Sites for affordable housing and Permanent Supportive Housing will be located in reasonable proximity to transit and services such that those sites will be competitive for State and federal affordable housing funding. Developer will assist the City and affordable housing partners, in applying for federal, state and regional funding to leverage the maximum possible amount of available government funding from existing programs and any new state or federal programs established in the future. Moreover, Developer will assist the City in pursuing government funding specific for veterans housing, including through HUD’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, and the California Department of Housing and

Page 348 of 478 ends

Page 25 of 61 ends

Community Development’s Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program.

vi. Related California . Developer intends to retain Related California (“Related”) to act as the Project’s affordable housing administrator in an effort to successfully implement the Project’s affordable housing requirements (excluding JADUs, Self -Help [i.e. Habitat for Humanity] Housing, and Permanent Multifamily Supportive Housing governed by the HUD Legally Binding Agreement). Related would, among other things:

A. Recommend the siting of affordable housing locations within Project that are best suited to achieve community and financing objectives, promote provision of supportive servi ces and transit opportunities while optimizing ability to compete for public funding, including tax credits; and

B. Administer and manage the competitive bidding and selection of affordable housing developers for stand -alone projects in coordination with and subject to oversight by the City.

C. At City’s request, work directly with the City to implement and administer the City’s affordable housing program for stand -alone affordable projects described in Section 4(d)(i) only, all at no cost to City.

In consideration for providing the services described in sub -sections A, B, and C above, Related would have the right/option to build/develop 35% of the stand-alone affordable projects on housing pads itself and an additional 40% of the stand -alone affordable projects in partnership with a non -profit affordable housing developer partner. 25% of the stand -alone affordable housing projects would be available for development by third -party affordable housing developers.

e. Golf Course/Evora Road . If identified as n ecessary mitigation by the applicable CEQA document to mitigate a potentially-significant project-specific or cumulative traffic impact, Developer, by no later than issuance of building permits for 90% of the Phase One market rate dwelling units, will fund and construct at its expense (subject to potential pro rata reimbursement by parties other than City in the event of a cumulative impact): (i) access improvements, including an extension of Evora Road from its current location to an area identified in a relevant traffic impact study as necessary to mitigate or reduce the identified traffic impact; and (ii) golf course reconfiguration improvements to address affected portions of Diablo Creek Golf Course.

f. Commitment to Successful Transit Oriented Development at Earliest Possible Stage. Developer’s land use program includes substantial high-density, mixed-

Page 349 of 478 ends

Page 26 of 61 ends

use development pads adjacent to BART which will be developed as soon as economically and logistically feasible.

i. Developer is committed to implementing the City’s vision for a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, and transit-oriented core around the BART station.

ii. Successful high-density TOD Core development can occur only after:

A. BART completes its own planning process, negotiates a DDA, and provides for the reconfiguration of its existing parking, access, and related facilities.

B. New development and place making create demand for high-density housing sufficient to elevate rents and land values to levels that will support development of the infrastructure and community benefits associated with such high-density development.

g. Mount Diablo Creek Restoration Area. Developer shall, at its expense, undertake the restoration of approximately 180 acres of Mount Diablo Creek (the “ Mount Diablo Creek Restoration Area”) which shall occur in each of the five phases of the Project as follows: 38.5 acres in Phase One, 46.08 acres in Phase T wo, 25 acres in Phase 3, 31.79 acres in Phase Four, and 37.65 acres in Phase Five.

Restoration of the Mount Diablo Creek Restoration Area shall be more fully described in the Specific Plan and/or the applicable CEQA document.

5. Summary of Project Milestones and Phasing Requirements.

a. Size and Configuration of Land Transfers from City to Developer . Transfers from the City to Developer within a Phase shall occur in multiple sub -phases (each corresponding to a “ Parcel”), the size and sequencing of which will be more specifically set forth in the DDA and the Specific Plan.

b. Defined Terms. “Master Entitlement Date” means the date by which the Navy has transferred the Phase One Property (or a substantial portion thereof in the event of carve outs to the initial Finding of Suitability to Transfer [“FOST”]) to the City and final approval of the General Plan/Area Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, DDA and DA, including EIR certification, has occurred. “ Large Lot Tentative Map” means a tentative subdivision map that subdivides a sub-phase or a portion thereof into large parcels, with each large parcel proposed to be further subdivided through further mapping,

c. Schedule of Performance. The Schedule of Performance to be included in the DDA shall address the phased public benefit delivery requirements (including for parks, affordable housing pads, acreage for Permanent Supportive Housing, JADUs, Neighborhood Serving Retail pads and buildings and the Community Center) addressed in Section 4 above and the following four key milestones for each Phase and sub -phase: i) applications for Large Lot Tentative Subdivision Maps, ii) conveyance of Parcels corresponding to

Page 350 of 478 ends

Concord City CouncilJanuary 7, 2023

Concord City Council
January 7, 2023