Agenda packet — Concord City Council, January 28, 2023 (part 4 of 4)

Page 42 of 61 ends

good faith negotiate such licenses, LIFOCs, FOSETs and related Environmental Services Cooperative Agreements (“ESCAs”) that provide for sufficient funds from the Navy to complete the necessary remediation and procure ap propriate environmental insurance.

d. For properties not included in the Phase One Property that may be eligible for a FOSET, as may be determined by the Navy, Developer similarly agrees to coordinate with the City to actively and in good faith negotiate FOSETs and related ESCAs that provide for sufficient funds from the Navy to complete the necessary remediation and procure appropriate environmental insurance. As appropriate, the Parties shall consider advocating for the use of a phased transfer of FOST- eligible properties to the extent such phasing would allow accelerated transfer of less complicated sites critical to development phasing (e.g. Site 13) ahead of the transfer or early transfer under a FOSET of other potentially more complicated sites (e.g. Bunker City).

16. Habitat & Species Mitigation and Resource Agency Permitting.

a. The Parties will cooperate, at Developer’s expense, to obtain from the various resource agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, all permits and approvals which are necessary to implement reuse of the Development Footprint in accordance with the General Plan/CRP Area Plan, as proposed to be amended, and the Specific Plan. Developer will work with the lead land manager for the EBRPD PBC areas and the City as to Mt. Diablo Creek conservation areas, in an effort to meet aquatic resource/wetlands and endangered specie s mitigation for the EDC property development on the EBRPD PBC property to the maximum feasible extent. Final determinations regarding the amount of mitigation credit will be reflected in permits or other authorizations issued by the resource agencies, and Developer will bear all costs of such mitigation requirements whether on or off of the EBRPD PBC property.

b. The Parties agree to cooperate in pursuing all resource agency permits necessary to implement the Project and establishing mutually agreeable, reasonable, and appropriate mitigation obligations. The Parties share the following objectives regarding resource agency permitting and the associated mitigation:

i. Impacts to species, aquatic resources, and other resources subject to the resource agency permits and authorizations (collectively, “ Ecological Resources”) from development should be mitigated, to the maximum extent reasonably feasible and cost-effective, on site or on the EBRPD PBC property. If off site mitigation is required, best efforts will be made to mitigate within the Mt. Diablo or Kirker Creek watersheds to the extent reasonably feasible and cost-effective.

Page 531 of 712 ends

Page 43 of 61 ends

ii. Obligations to fund and implement mitigation should be roughly proportionate -- in amount, nature, and timing -- to either the phasing of development generally or, where appropriate, to the timing of actual impacts caused by development. However, the Parties acknowledge that resource agencies may require some, or a substantial amount, of mitigation in advance of development in order to accommodate all of the mitigation on the PBC property. City will work with the resource agencies to identify in the permitting documents and approvals the mi tigation necessary to offset impacts from the Project. However, the permitting documents may not clearly distinguish the impacts and offsetting mitigation, and this determination may have to be made by mutual agreement of City and Developer.

c. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, Developer will establish an endowment fund or provide a financial mechanism acceptable to the resource agencies to pay certain ongoing costs associated with Ecological Resources and other on -going mitigation obligations associated with each particular Phase of development. The endowment fund or other acceptable financial mechanism will be in an amount deemed sufficient by the resource agencies to fund long -term management and monitoring of the conservation are as. While a non -wasting endowment will be required to fund certain creation, restoration, enhancement, start -up, and interim management and monitoring obligations associated with the mitigation program, the Parties acknowledge that it may be appropriate for other mitigation obligations to be secured through other financial tools (for example, letters of credit, bonding, etc.). The Parties agree to pursue the most cost -effective combination of funding mechanisms available through the resource agency permitting process.

d. Following execution of the DDA, Developer may apply to become co -applicant / co-permittee on the City’s pending resource agency permit applications.

17. Prevailing Wages.

Developer agrees that any worker (as defined by State prevailing wage law) performing publicly-funded construction, alteration, demolition, installation or repair work or street, sewer or other improvement work done under the direction and supervision or by the authority of any officer or public body (“ Public Work”) shall be paid not less than the general prevailing rate of wages, as provided by State prevailing wage law, and shall be subject to the same hours and working conditions, and shall receive the same benefits as in each case are provided for similar work performed i n Concord, California. Developer shall include in any contract for Public Work a requirement that all workers performing labor under such contract shall be paid not less than the general prevailing rate of wages for the labor so performed as provided by California prevailing wage law.

Page 532 of 712 ends

Page 44 of 61 ends

18. Insurance.

Developer shall maintain, at its cost and expense, the following policies of insurance: (a) commercial general liability; (b) automobile; (c) workers’ compensation; (d) builder’s risk and (e) one or more Pollution Legal Liability policies to the extent required under Section 6, naming Developer as insured and, except for workers’ compensation insurance, naming the City as additional insured, on forms acceptable to City, and in amounts commensurate with similar military base redevelopment projects as will be determined in the DDA.

19. Indemnity.

a. Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims resulting or arising from or in any way connected with the following, provided Developer shall have no obligation to indemnify the City (but will be obligated to defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City), subject to reimbursement below) to the extent any such claims directly result from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City:

i. The existence, release, presence or disposal of any hazardous materials to the extent that the City’s liability results from any of the following: (i) Developer’s breach of any obligation under the DDA with respect to hazardous materials; (ii) Developer’s breach of any environmental law on or relative to the Development F ootprint; (iii) Developers breach of any covenants or land use controls contained in the applicable Navy deed to the City or other actions by Developer that compromise or invalidate City’s rights under the CERCLA covenants granted by Navy or the DOD Indemnity; or (iv) any release or threatened release of Hazardous Materials to the extent the release or threatened release commenced during Developer’s ownership of the subject real property or was caused, contributed to, or exacerbated by Developer, prov ided that (iv) shall not apply to the extent that such release or threatened release was caused, contributed to, or exacerbated by the City;

ii. The non-compliance of improvements constructed by Developer with any federal, State, or local laws or regulations, including those relating to access, or any latent defects, in all cases regardless of whether the City has reviewed and/or approved plans for such infrastructure.

iii. During the period of time that Developer holds title to any portion of the Development Footprint, the death of any person or any accident, injury, loss, or damage whatsoever caused to any person or to the property of any person that shall occur in such portion of the Development Footprint; and

iv. The death of any person or any acci dent, injury, loss, or damage whatsoever caused to any person or to the property of any person that shall

Page 533 of 712 ends

Page 45 of 61 ends

occur in or around the Development Footprint, including any portions of the PBC property, or off -site improvement areas, to the extent caused by the act, omission, negligence or willful misconduct of Developer, or its agents, servants, employees or contractors.

b. In addition to the foregoing, Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City), and hold the City harmless from and against all losses and costs arising out of or connected with contracts or agreements (i) to which the City is not a party and (ii) entered into by Develope r in connection with its performance under the DDA, including any assignment & assumption agreement (see Section 21, infra), provided Developer shall have no obligation to indemnify the City (but will be obligated to defend, with counsel reasonably acceptable to City), subject to reimbursement as provided below) to the extent that any such losses and costs result, directly from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where claims are asserted against the City in connection with any of the claims above, Developer agrees to defend the City, subject to reimbursement by City to Developer of the City’s pro rata share of costs (including attorneys’ fees associated with Developer’s defense) corresponding to City liability following final resolution of such claims.

d. Each vertical developer will be required to undertake comparable indemnity and defense obligations for benefit of City with respect to the portion of the Development Footprint acquired by such vertical developer.

20. Third Party Legal Challenges.

At Developer’s sole cost and expense, City and Developer shall cooperate in the defense of any third party, or state or federal governmental entity or official challenge to the validity of any provision in this Term Sheet, the DDA, the General Plan/CRP Area Plan amendments, the Specific Plan, the DA, any Project entitlements and/or any related CEQA determinations or documents (for purposes of this section, a “Litigation Challenge”). If Developer elects, in its sole discretion, to contest or defend a Litigation Challenge, the Developer shall take the lead role defending such Litigation Challenge and shall reimburse City for any of City’s reasonable costs, including any attorneys’ fees, related to the Litigation Challenge.

City may, in its sole discretion, elect to be separately represented by the legal counsel of its choice in any such action or proceeding with the reasonable costs of such representation to be paid by Developer. Any proposed settlement will be subject to City’s and Developer’s approval, each in its reasonable discretion. If the terms of the proposed settlement would constitute an amendment or modification of this Term Sheet, the DDA, the General Plan/CR P Area Plan amendments, the Specific Plan, the DA, any Project entitlements and/or any related CEQA determinations or documents, the settlement shall not become effective unless such amendment or modification is approved by City, and City reserves its full

Page 534 of 712 ends

Page 46 of 61 ends

legislative discretion with respect thereto. If Developer opts not to contest or defend any such Litigation Challenge, City shall have no obligation to do so.

Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) , and hold harmless City Parties from and against any and all Claims raised in connection with the Litigation Challenge, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against City by way of judgment, settlement, or stipulation. Any proposed settlement of a Litigation Challenge shall be subject to City’s approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.

For purposes of S ections 18, 19 and 20, “ City Parties” means and includes City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers, attorneys, contractors and representatives, and “ Claims” means any and all liabilities, obligations, judgments, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses, actions, causes of action, claims, cross -claims, disputes, demands, losses, taxes, costs, loss of service, expenses, liabilities, debts whatsoever, in law or in equity, whether known or unk nown, of any kind or character, including attorneys’ fees and costs.

This Section 20 shall survive expiration or other termination of this Term Sheet to the extent a claim accrues prior to or costs are incurred prior to such termination or expiration. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, this Term Sheet shall terminate upon execution and approval of the DDA or as otherwise provided within this Term Sheet.

21. Transfers.

This Term Sheet and the DDA and DA shall be executed and entered into by Concord First Partners, LLC, or another entity controlled by the three members of Concord First Partners, LLC, and approved by City in its sole and absolute discretion. After execution of the DDA and DA, transfers by Developer of certain rights and obligations under the DDA and DA may be appropriate or necessary to achieve organizational and tax efficiencies, to attract development partners for diverse Project elements, to attract capital and investment in the Project, or other commercially recognized reaso ns. Developer shall be permitted to transfer its interests in the DDA and DA only as set forth in this Section 21. For purposes of this Section 21, “control” means power, indirectly or directly, to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of the subject person or entity by contract or otherwise, subject only to major decisions requiring the consent and approval of other owners of such entity.

a. Transfer to Affiliate of Developer . 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 controlled by, or is under common control with Developer (any such person or entity, an “Affiliate”) without, in any such case, the approval of the City (except as provided in Section

Page 535 of 712 ends

Page 47 of 61 ends

11.c. above), provided that at the time of such transfer: (i) there has been no event of default by Developer under the DDA or DA; and (ii) no event has occurred that, with notice and opportunity to cure or both, would constitute an event of default by Developer under the DDA or DA.

b. Change in Control; Stock/Share Transactions . Developer shall not, without the City’s consent, allow a transfer of the direct or indirect interests in the Developer to any new person or new entity or party. Nothing in this Section 21 shall restrict transfer or issuance of shares on a public market or a merger or similar transaction.

c. Mortgages & Transfers to Vertical Developers. Subject to any conditions set forth in other Sections of this Term Sheet, the following mortgages and transfers shall be allowed without review or approval by the City:

i. Upon o r at any time after the satisfaction of the conditions precedent to transfer of a Parcel to Developer set forth in Section 10, any mortgage against fee title (or leasehold title) as to such Parcel (but not including affordable housing development pads) for the purpose of securing debt financing for development of all or a portion of the Development Footprint.

ii. Upon or at any time after the satisfaction of conditions precedent to transfer of a large lot parcel to a vertical developer set forth in Section 11, any conveyance by Developer to a transferee of fee or leasehold title as to such large lot parcel, and a corresponding permitted assignment to such vertical developer assignee of rights and obligations, including In -Tract Improvement obligations, of Developer under the DDA and DA as to such large lot parcel.

iii. Upon or at any time after the satisfaction of conditions precedent to transfer of a Parcel to a vertical developer and completion of the vertical development, the sale or leasing for occupancy of the completed vertical development.

d. Form of Assignment & Assumption Agreement. The Parties agree to negotiate and include as exhibits to the DDA and DA approved forms of one or more assignment and assumption agreements. The form of assignment and assumption agreement for vertical developers shall include a framework for the commitment by vertical developers to a schedule of performance for commencement and completion of vertical development.

e. Other Transfers. Any transfer not otherwise permitt ed by this Section 21 may be approved by City in its sole, absolute discretion.

22. Remedies.

a. Limitations on Award of Damages . Appropriate and customary remedies in the case of default by a Party (and in no event to include actual, consequential, special, or punitive damages) will be addressed by the Parties in the DDA and DA. The

Page 536 of 712 ends

Page 48 of 61 ends

principal remedy of both Parties in the event of default under the DDA or DA shall be specific performance.

b. No Attorneys’ Fees. Each party will bear its own attorney fees in any action by a Party to enforce its rights under the DDA and/or DA.

c. City Remedies against Vertical Developers . The forms of assignment and assumption agreement to be negotiated between City and Developer and attached to the DDA and DA shall address City’s remedies against vertical developers for defaults by such vertical developers.

23. Excusable Delays.

The time for Developer to perform any act under the DDA or DA, including Developer’s obligations in Section 5 (Schedule of Performance), shall be automatically extended for the period of any of the delays described below (each, an “ Excusable Delay ”). Developer’s obligation to make any community benefit contributions to the City as set forth in the DDA and/or DA, including the schedule for such payments, shall not be subject to extension for Excusable Delay.

a. Administrative Delay . Meaning failure by governmental or quasi -governmental entities to act within re asonable times under applicable laws, or actions by governmental or quasi-governmental entities that are successfully challenged by the Developer or an assignee / transferee / vertical developer.

b. Resource Permitting Agency Delays . Meaning delays in issuan ce of resource agency permits required to implement the Project, including: (1) authorization to dredge or fill waters of the United States under Clean Water Act section 404 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; (2) certification of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board under section 401 of the Clean Water Act; (3) a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; (4) authorization under sections 7 and/or 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act from the Fish and Wildlife Service; and/or (5) a Consistency Determination or Incidental Take Permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife under the California Fish and Game Code. Application of this automatic extension is subject to Developer’s reasonably diligent pursuit of such resource agency permits. Provided Developer can reasonably proceed with development consistent with the Schedule of Performance in the absence of one or more of the above-referenced permits, the extension in this Section 23.b. would apply only to those geographic areas of the Development Footprint where development consistent with the Specific Plan cannot occur absent such permit.

c. CEQA Delay. Meaning the time reasonably required to complete any additional environmental review or documentation for future Project applications or approvals (not including the initial approvals of the General Plan/CRP Area Plan amendments, the Specific Plan, the DDA, and the DA), subject to a requirement that Developer shall have made all commercially reasonable efforts to timely

Page 537 of 712 ends

Page 49 of 61 ends

complete such environmental review, and the time during which legal proceedings regarding sufficiency of environmental review are pending (regardless of whether development is subject to a stay during such proceedings).

d. Economic Delay. Meaning two or more of the following have occurred in the same calendar quarter: (i) the FHFA House Price Index has declined by more than four percent (4%) over the preceding 12 -month period; ii) the Housing Starts rate has declined by more than fifteen percent (15%) for two consecutive quarters over the preceding 12-month period, and iii) the National Bureau of Economic Research has declared that a recession is in effect during such calendar quarter. Economic Delay shall commence upon Developer’s notification to the City of the Economic Delay (together with appropriate backup evidence) (the “ Economic Delay Start Date”) that two or more of the for egoing metrics have been triggered. Economic Delay shall continue prospectively on a quarterly basis and remain in effect until two or more of the following have occurred: (1) the FHFA House Price Index has increased by more than four percent (4%) over the preceding 12-month period, (2) Housing Starts has increased for two (2) successive quarters and, (3) the National Bureau of Economic Research has declared that the recession has ended; provided that the cumulative total of Economic Delay in any given Phase shall not exceed forty-eight (48) months. “FHFA Housing Price Index” means the Rolling 12-Month Change published by the Federal Housing Finance Agency representing home price trends for the Oakland -Berkeley-Livermore Metropolitan Statistical Area (comprising Alameda and Contra Costa counties). “Housing Starts” means the New Private Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits for California published by the U. S. Census Bureau... If the FHFA Housing Price Index and/or the Housing Starts are discontinued, Developer and City agree to use a substitute index that tracks the residential market with as close a geography to the Oakland- Berkeley-Livermore Metropolitan Statistical Area as possible. If the National Bureau of Economic Research no longer makes declarations of recession Developer and City agree to use a declaration from another similar public or private, non-profit, non-partisan organization.

e. Force Majeure. Meaning the range of natural and man -made acts outside of the reasonable control of the Party claiming delay, including wars, strikes, natural disasters, litigation, and reasonably unforeseen site conditions, which adversely affect the claiming Party’s (which may, notwithstanding anything above, be Developer or City) ability to timely perform its obligations under the DDA or DA, provided that Excusable Delay shall not include the inability to obtain financing.

f. Notice. To claim Excusable Delay, Developer shall provide notice within sixty (60) days of actual knowledge of the event causing the delay. The period of Excusable Delay shall commence, and shall run from, the date of such notice.

24. Transfer of Remainder of Development Footprint.

If, following Developer’s default under the DDA or failure to timely meet milestones or other conditions required to earn the right to acquire and develop one or more

Page 538 of 712 ends

Page 50 of 61 ends

Future Phases, City conveys all or any portion of the Future Phases (the “Transferred Portion”) to any party other than Developer or its Affiliate(s), then City will require the developer of such Transferred Portion to reimburse Developer, out of project revenues from such Transferred Portion, for such Transferred Portion’s pro rata share of reasonable Proj ect Costs incurred by Developer for oversized utilities, school facilities, habitat or species mitigation work, hazardous materials remediation or containment work or facilities, environmental insurance premiums, planning and environmental review, or other similar work or improvements serving and benefitting the Project as a whole, including such Transferred Portion, and that the new developer would have had to complete but for Developer’s completion thereof. The DDAs for such Transferred Portion will contain a mechanism for granting priority and security for such reimbursement.

Developer acknowledges that the City will not be obligated to fund such reimbursement from its general fund or other City revenues (other than fees or revenues from the development of such Transferred Portion).

25. Navy/City Conveyance Agreement.

Developer and City acknowledge the need to negotiate the terms for conveyance of property from the Navy. Any land acquisition payment required to be made to the Navy (which could include an up-front payment, a participation framework, or some other structure) would be considered a Project Cost for purposes of the Pro- forma. Developer shall actively participate as requested by the City in the City’s acquisition of the Development Footprint from the Navy. Developer shall be readily available to attend meetings, provide Project data, and provide Project financial analysis to the City to support the City’s acquisition negotiations and final agreement between the City and Navy which is consistent with this Term Sheet (the “Navy/City Conveyance Agreement”). City shall use its good faith efforts to complete such negotiations for: a term sheet with the Navy within 12 month following City Council’s approval of this Term Sheet or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable; and b) execute the Navy/City Conveyance Agreement within 24 months following City Council’s approval of this Term Sheet, or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable.

26. Corporate Structure & Capitalization of Developer.

Developer, Concord First Partners, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability corporation (“CFP”). CFP’s members are Discovery Builders, Inc., a California Corporation (“DBI”), Lewis Concord Member, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“LCM”), and Cal ifornia Capital & Investment Group, a California corporation (“CCIG”) (collectively the “Members”). LMC is the managing member of CFP. The Members have capital interests in CFP and will contribute equity towards Project related costs/expenditures as follows:

DBI – 45%

LCM – 45%

Page 539 of 712 ends

Page 51 of 61 ends

CCIG – 10%

27. Development Agreement.

a. Term. The overall term of the DA will be commensurate with the timeline for development of the entire Project. The DA will include an initial term equal to anticipated Phase One build out timeline. Automatic extensions of the Term shall become effective upon City’s conveyance of Parcels of land to Developer for each of the subsequ ent Phases Two through Five, subject to Developer meeting specified milestones. The duration of each Phase specific automatic extension shall be equal to the anticipated buildout timeline for the applicable Phase. The DA will also include provisions authorizing extension of the term and deadlines for performance milestones upon occurrence of specified events of Excusable Delay referenced in Section 23.

b. Vested Rights.

i. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the portion of the Property in which Developer has a legal or equitable interest in accordance with and subject to the DA, the Specific Plan (and any related contemporaneous approvals) and any subsequently -required project approvals, which shall control the overall design, development, and construction of the Project and all improvements and appurtenances in connection therewith, including without limitation: (1) permitted uses; (2) density and intensity of uses; (3) maximum height and size of buildings; (4) building location; (5) the number of allowable parking spaces, (6) provision for construction of public improvements, and (7) all mitigation measures that may be required.

ii. To the extent Developer is required to obtain any subsequent Project approvals from the City, the City shall not use its discretionary authority in considering any such application to change the policy decisions reflected in the DA and the Specific Plan, or otherwise to prevent or to delay development of the Project.

c. Public Improvements and Amenities . The DA would specify the public improvements, community benefits and amenities and required timing of delivery of same.

d. Fees. Except for impact fees (including habitat mitigation fees) imposed upon Project-specific permits by federal and state resource agenci es or to address Project-specific mitigation measures imposed through the CEQA process, the Project shall be subject only to development impact fees that are imposed uniformly on a City-wide basis. However, the Project shall not be subject to any of the fo llowing fees or exactions, due to the substantial infrastructure, mitigation measures and improvements to be provided by the Project:

i. Any affordable housing fee, off -set or similar affordable housing requirement.

Page 540 of 712 ends

Page 52 of 61 ends

ii. Any traffic or transportation impact fee other than a fee program pursuant to the Specific Plan or pursuant to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program adopted in connection with a CEQA document for the Specific Plan and the DA. Any City development impact fee that addresses development impacts previously addressed and/or mitigated by Developer relative to the Project through mitigation measures imposed through the CEQA process described in Section 8.c.; Project elements included in the development program; or Project features, programs, or benefits required pursuant to the DDA, the DA, or the Specific Plan.

iii. Where Developer would be required to pay a development impact fee notwithstanding the provisions above, Developer shall receive credit against the fee in the amount of actual reasonable hard and soft costs, not including financing costs, associated with facilities built or provided as part of the Project.

f. Assignment. Assignment provisions and remedies consistent with those in the DDA.

g. Addition of Future EDC Transfer Parcels. The DA would address addition of future EDC transfer parcels as and when Navy transfers such parcels to the City.

h. Termination. Termination of the DDA will result in automatic termination of the DA as to any property in the Development Footprint that has not previously been conveyed to Developer.

28. Exhibits.

Exhibit A: Land Use Plan with Phasing
Exhibit B: Pro-forma (Summary Sheet & Cashflow Analysis) Exhibit C: Backbone Infrastructure by Development Phase

Page 541 of 712 ends

Exhibit A-1
OAK #4886-0854-7635 v18

Page 53 of 61 ends

Exhibit A

Land Use Plan with Phasing

Page 542 of 712 ends

Exhibit A-2
OAK #4886-0854-7635 v18

Page 54 of 61 ends

Page 543 of 712 ends

Exhibit A-3
OAK #4886-0854-7635 v18

Page 55 of 61 ends

Page 544 of 712 ends

Exhibit A-4
OAK #4886-0854-7635 v18

Page 56 of 61 ends

Page 545 of 712 ends

Exhibit A-5
OAK #4886-0854-7635 v18

Page 57 of 61 ends

Page 546 of 712 ends

Exhibit B
OAK #4886-0854-7635 v18

Page 58 of 61 ends

Exhibit B

Proforma (Summary Sheet & Cashflow Analysis)

Sources and Uses ($$ in Millions*)
Community Benefits ($$ in Millions*)
Sources
Net Land Revenues $ 5,579.4 Community Center/Library $ 117.4 Marketing Program Revenue $ 209.4
CFD(s) $ 1,679.8 Affordable Housing Contributions $ 85.4

Subtotal - Sources $ 7,468.6 Tournament Sports Park $ 176.2

Uses Total Community Benefits: $ 379.0
Entitlements $ 77.6
Pre-Development $ 385.9
Remediation/Oversight $ 20.8
City Prior Debt Contribution $ 15.0 Projected Project Cumulative UIRR by Phase Habitat Mitigation $ 103.2 Phase I 15.2%
Backbone Infrastructure $ 1,154.6 Phase II 20.2%
Parks/Greenways/Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration $ 256.0 Phase III 20.5% Community Center/Library $ 117.4 Phase IV 20.8%
Affordable Housing Contributions $ 85.4 Phase V 20.9% Tournament Sports Park $ 176.2
Fire Stations (2) $ 28.8
Project Management/Overhead $ 72.3
Property Maintanance/Insurance $ 164.7 Profit Participation Structure City Marketing/Sales/Closing Costs $ 295.1
Contingency (20%) $ 443.8 Tranche 1 (18% - 20% UIRR) 40%

Subtotal - Uses $ 3,396.8 Tranche 2 (20% - 22% UIRR) 50%

Net Cash Flow $ 4,071.8 Tranche 3 (22% + ) 60%
Developer UIRR (Unleveraged IRR) 20.9%

* Costs/Revenues represented are estimates only based upon 2022 dollars with annual escalation; Actual results will likley vary from estimates

Page 547 of 712 ends

Exhibit C
OAK #4886-0854-7635 v18

Page 59 of 61 ends

Exhibit C

Backbone Infrastructure by Development Phase

PHASE 1
• Off-Site Infrastructure
o Downstream Upgrades to CCCSD’s infrastructure in North Concord (Alternative o #3 per 2022 CCCSD Study) – 2 Miles± of New or Replaced Pipelines o Potable Water Transmission Main to Bates Avenue / Port Chicago Highway – 1 o Mile± of New Pipeline
o 1 – 3.3 MGD± Potable Water Storage Reservoir and Supply Pipelines o Recycled Water Transmission Main to the CCCSD Recycled Water Treatment o Plant (Route B per 2011 CCCSD Study) – 3.3 Miles± of New Pipelines o 1 – 2.9 MGD± Recycled Water Storage Reservoir, Supply Pipelines and Booster o Pump Station
o Phase 1 Mt Diablo Creek Regional Detention Basin, approximately 50 Acre-Feet± o Evora Road Connection and Diablo Creek Golf Course Repair o Evora Road Bridge at Mt. Diablo Creek
• On-Site Backbone Infrastructure
o Site Preparation, Demolition and Grading
o Backbone Utilities (Sewer, Storm Drain, Potable Water, Recycled Water and Dry o Utilities)
o Stormwater Multi-Purpose Basins and Outfalls
o Widening of Willow Pass Road to 4 Lanes from Highway 4 to Landana Drive o New Willow Pass Road Bridge at Mt. Diablo Creek
o Delta Road Bridge at Mt. Diablo Creek
o Backbone Roadways
o Phase 1 Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration
o Site Preparation for the PG&E Substation
PHASE 2
• Off-Site Infrastructure
o 1 – 3.3 MGD± Potable Water Storage Reservoir
o Phase 2 Mt Diablo Creek Regional Detention Basin, approximately 90 Acre-Feet± o Panoramic Drive / Port Chicago Highway Intersection Improvements o Arnold Industrial Way / Port Chicago Highway Intersection Improvements o East Olivera Road Widening
o East Olivera Street / Salvio Street Intersection Improvements • On-Site Backbone Infrastructure
o Site Preparation, Demolition and Grading
o Backbone Utilities (Sewer, Storm Drain, Potable Water, Recycled Water and Dry o Utilities)
o Sanitary Sewer Pump Station
o Stormwater Multi-Purpose Basins and Outfalls

Page 548 of 712 ends

Exhibit C
OAK #4886-0854-7635 v18

Page 60 of 61 ends

PHASE 3
o Backbone Roadways
o Phase 2 Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration
• Off-Site Infrastructure
o Phase 3 Mt. Diablo Creek Regional Detention Basin, approximately 50 Acre-Feet o East Olivera Road Widening
o Willow Pass Road Widening from Granada Drive to East Olivera Road o Willow Pass Road / Clayton Way Intersection Improvements o Bridge to City-Wide Park
• On-Site Backbone Infrastructure
o Site Preparation, Demolition and Grading
o Backbone Utilities (Sewer, Storm Drain, Potable Water, Recycled Water and Dry o Utilities)
o Stormwater Multi-Purpose Basins and Outfalls
o Backbone Roadways
o Phase 3 Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration
PHASE 4
• Off-Site Infrastructure
o Bridge to EBRPD Visitor Center
o West Street Extension to Concord Boulevard Connection o Phase 4 Mt. Diablo Creek Regional Detention Basin, approximately 50 Acre-Feet± • On-Site Backbone Infrastructure
o Site Preparation, Demolition and Grading
o Backbone Utilities (Sewer, Storm Drain, Potable Water, Recycled Water and Dry o Utilities)
o Stormwater Multi-Purpose Basins and Outfalls
o Backbone Roadways
o Phase 4 Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration
PHASE 5
• Off-Site Infrastructure
o Major Arterial Extension to Bailey Road and Intersection Improvements o Major Arterial Bridge at Mt. Diablo Creek
o Phase 5 Mt. Diablo Creek Regional Detention Basin, approximately 50 Acre-Feet± • On-Site Backbone Infrastructure
o Site Preparation, Demolition and Grading
o Backbone Utilities (Sewer, Storm Drain, Potable Water, Recycled Water and Dry o Utilities)
o Stormwater Multi-Purpose Basins and Outfalls
o Backbone Roadways
o Phase 5 Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration

Page 549 of 712 ends

396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: (415) 552-7272 F: (415) 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
ROBERT "PERL" PERLMUTTER
Attorney
[email protected]
January 6, 2023
Via Electronic Mail Only

Mayor Laura Hoffmeister and
Concord City Council Members
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, California 94519
Email: [email protected]
edi.birsan@city ofconcord.org
dominic.aliano@c ityofconcord.org
[email protected]
carl
[email protected]

Re: Proposed Term Sheet for Concord Naval Weapons Station

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister and Members of the City Council:

This Firm represents the Concord Naval Weapons Station Homeless Collaborative (“Collaborative”) in connection with the above-referenced Term Sheet and the proposed redevelopment of the Concord Naval Weapons Station (“CNWS”).

Yesterday, the Collaborative submitted its comments on proposed Term Sheet between the City and Concord First Partners (“CFP”) and asked the Counc il to postpone making any decisions on whether to approve the Term Sheet until after that document was revised to address the Collaborative’s concerns.

We write to underscore the Collaborative’s request for the Council to postpone making any decisions on whether to approve the Term Sh eet and also to respond to the Term Sheet Revision Memo and Revised Term Sheet that was issued by City staff yesterday after the Collaborative submitted its comments.

In 2012, the City entered into a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) with the Collaborative to oversee the construction of housing at CNWS fo r people experiencing homelessness. As set forth in the LBA and summarized in the Collaborative’s January 5, 2023 letter, the LBA was a precondition for the federal government’s transfer of the CNWS to the City, and its terms impose mandatory legal obligations on the City. The

Page 550 of 712 ends

Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council Members
January 6, 2023

Page 2 ends

LBA provides for the development of a minimum of four Homeless Sites to be developed at CNWS and expressly mandates that “[a]t least one Homeless Site will be in the first phase of CNWS to be developed.” LBA, § 3(a) (emphasis added).

Despite this express requirement, the Term Sheet proposed and circulated for public review by the City on November 30, 2022 did not incl ude any Homeless Sites in Phase I. Representatives from the Collaborative met with City staff and CFP in mid- December to raise this concern, and the Collaborative was pleased that staff acknowledged their concerns and attempted to address them in the memo and revised Term Sheet issued yesterday. Specifically, the Revised Term She et now provides in Section 4(a) for “Transitional housing, 4 acres (65 affordable units).” Although this phrasing is imprecise, we understand that staff has indicated these 65 units are intended to satisfy the requirements of LBA section 3(a) by providing permanent supportive housing (“PSH”) for the unhoused.1
However, simply revising the Term Sheet in this manner does not suffice to comply with the letter or the spirit of LBA. The LBA requires the City to consult with the Collaborative to delineate the “exact locations of each Homeless Site” and provides that, “to the maximum extent feasible, the Homeless Sites should be located to be competitive and conform to the requirements of outside affordable housing finance programs (e.g., the Homeless Sites shall be located near public transportation and other appropriate residential amenities).” LBA § 3(b) (emphasis added).

In addition to being expressly identified in the LBA, proximity to public transportation is widely recognized as one of the most important factors in providing successful permanent supportive housing and thus in securing outside financing for such projects. Based on the extensive experience of the Collaborative’s member s, it is difficult to imagine that a Homeless Site could “be competitive and conform to the requirements of outside affordable housing finance programs” if it is not located in close proximity to public transit. Nonetheless, while acknowledging the City’s obligation to construct at least one Homeless Site in Phase I, CFP has steadfastly maintained—albeit for reasons that appear to keep changing—that Phase I of the development cannot be constructed near public transportation.

1 To avoid any confusion and potential future disputes, the Collaborative has requested that all references in the Term Sheet to “transitional” or “homeless housing” be replaced with the term “permanent supportive housing,” consistent with b est practices and the intent of the LBA.

Page 551 of 712 ends

Mayor Hoffmeister and City Council Members
January 6, 2023

Page 3 ends

There is a fundamental contradiction between City staff’s acknowledgment that PSH units must be constructed in Phase I and CFP’s claim (apparently accepted by staff) that Phase I development cannot occur in close proximity to transit. On behalf of the Collaborative, we urge the City Council to direct City staff to work with CFP and interested stakeholders to resolve this contradiction, devise a realistic and practical means of ensuring that permanent supportive housing can and will actually be funded and constructed during Phase I, and revise the Term Sheet to reflect that approach prior to the Council taking any action to approve the Term Sheet.

Approving the Revised Term Sheet in its current form, with Phase I located at a significant distance from any public transportation, jeopardizes the utility and effectiveness of these units as PSH for people experiencing homelessness. Doing so would also contravene the City’s mandatory obligations under the LBA and do a grave disservice to the homeless individuals and population the LBA is intended to serve.

Very truly yours,

SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP

Robert “Perl” Pe
rlmutter

cc: Guy Bjerke (via email – [email protected]) Clients

1603282.3

Page 552 of 712 ends

From: Sarah Mott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:28 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Let Seeno Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Expire

Dear Council Members,

I am writing to strongly urge you to let the Seeno Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno/Discovery Builders and their partners expire at your meeting on Saturday January 28th. I understand there will not be an opportunity for public comment at the meeting.

This is an extremely important project for the entire region and it is clear from the last vote of the City Council that Seeno's appointment as master developer is at the least controversial. Seeno's reputation itself should raise fundamental questions, but there are also serious and glaring problems with Seeno's Term Sheet.

It proposes 3,300 additional units more than were originally accepted, fails to live up to green space and affordable housing commitments -- which are a crucial need in Contra Costa County -- and increases traffic by failing to take advantage of the BART stations.

This should be unacceptable.

Please open this process to other organizations that can offer forward-looking, environmentally sound, and community-friendly developers.

Sincerely,

Sarah Mott
3118 Hambletonian Lane
Walnut Creek, CA

--
Sarah Mott

Page 553 of 712 ends

From: Africab <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:26 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno Exclusive Negotiating Agreement

Dear Council Members: I have been following the City Council meetings discussing the proposals for the Concord Community Reuse Project. . I am very concerned about the Seeno Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno/Discovery Builders and their partners. Please let this agreement expire at the Council meeting on January 28th.

This project is extremely important for the entire region and it is apparent from the last v ote of the City Council that Seeno's appointment as master developer is at the least controversial. There are serious and glaring problems with Seeno's Term Sheet. It proposes 3,300 additional units more than were originally accepted, fails to live up to green space and affordable housing commitments - which are a crucial need in Contra Costa County - and increases traffic by failing to take advantage of the BART stations. This should be unacceptable.

Please open the process to other organizations that can offer forward-looking, environmentally sound, and community-friendly developers.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Brenda de la Ossa
3140 Hambletonian Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94598

Page 554 of 712 ends

From: paul stagnaro <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 2:30 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: SEENO

Please stop seeno and its partners . We still have time to get a norther Developer which we do not have to watch to closely for taking advantage of us.

Sent from Mail for Windows

Page 555 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 11:04 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Weapons Station Project

Please read the the Editorial in the Sunday East Bay Times. It points out the obvious action you should take. That is, to end further dealing with the known corrupt Seeno group and get an honest and capable developer for the project. Do your job for the people who elected you. Look at what has been done at River Islands, in of all places Lathrop.

Gordon Monroe
Concord resident since 1946

Sent from my iPhone

Page 556 of 712 ends

From: djeanbean <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 10:20 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Seeno

DROP SEENO NOW!!!!!

Sent from my Metro By T-Mobile 4G LTE Android Device

Page 557 of 712 ends

From: Debra Ballinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 7:44 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Put Concord First: Reject the CNWS term sheet!

Dear Mr. Aliano,

Dear Councilmember,

I am writing as a Concord resident to ask that you do not accept the term sheet for the Concord Naval Weapons Station put forward on January 7th until several key issues are addressed.

The redevelopment of the Concord Naval Weapons Station is a huge opportunity for our community. It is critical that we get this right and approve a term sheet that provides the maximum amount of affordable housing.

The issues with the current term sheet as identified by East Bay Housing Organizations include:

1. The current term sheet does not provide enough affordable housing. The developer has proposed building just 19% affordable housing, far short of the 25% affordability requirement approved in the Area Plan.

2. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units should not be considered affordable housing. The 25% affordable housing built in this project must be equivalent to the homes built with unregulated rents. In the current term sheet, Accessory Dwelling Units (also known as “granny flats”) are being used to fill the 25% affordable housing requirement. They should not count towards this total.

3. Housing at North Concord BART should be developed sooner rather than later. If the term sheet is adopted as written, the “Innovation District” would be developed first. This essentially would create dependence on cars for both workers and residents since this site is not near BART. The community is in dire need of affordable housing and transit options. As such, the “Transit Oriented Development” phase of the project, which includes housing at North Concord BART, should be built first.

4. The selection of the Affordable Housing Administrator creates a conflict of interest. The term sheet as written designates Related, a for-profit developer, as the Affordable Housing Administrator for the entirety of the affordable housing development. In this role, they would select sites for affordable housing development and evaluate applications from nonprofit developers. This is a conflict of interest, as Related itself will be an affordable housing developer on this project. In order to run a neutral and fair selection process, an independent entity should be chosen as Administrator.

Please do not accept this term sheet until these issues are addressed.

Sincerely,
Debra Ballinger
1760 Danesta Dr
Concord, CA 94519

Page 558 of 712 ends

From: Elizabeth Spooner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 10:37 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Concord's CNWS property

From: Elizabeth Spooner
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 12:55 PM
To: carolyn.obringer@cityofcooncord <carolyn.obringer@cityofcooncord> Subject: Re: Concord's CNWS property

I want the Concord City Council to know that I am adamantly opposed to the City's proposal to continue doing business with "Concord First Partners"!

I am a longtime elderly Concord resident and homeowner, and well aware of the history and reputation of Seeno, both here and in other states. I don't believe this company's practices are honest or that they care about what is best for Concord residents.

I am aware that this property is presently a Super Fund Cleanup Site for numerous toxic contaminants which must be eradicated before the area is available for residential developmemnt. I have concerns about the city's ability to service the needs of such a huge development, as proposed. I already have concerns about the current increasing crime and traffic issues in our City.

Let's just enjoy the beautiful Los Medanos Hills and let them rest in peace until the area is properly cleaned up. Drop Seeno Now!

Elizabeth A. Spooner
1842 McNorth Drive
Concord, CA 94519

Page 559 of 712 ends

From: Bjerke, Guy
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2023 7:58 AM
To: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>; Ortega, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Cc: McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>; Mora, Israel <[email protected]>; Ryan, Joan <[email protected]> Subject: Latest East Bay Times Editorial (January 21, 2023)

*This email is being shared with all Councilmembers*

Good morning.

Attached is the latest editorial on the Term Sheet from Dan Borenstein.

(BTW, I am now home and will be in the office on Monday. It’s cold here.)

Regardless of your position on the pending Term Sheet I want to repeat/answer two assertions in this editorial that echo what you saw as my team tried to answer Dan’s questions while I was gone.

1. The IRR comparison is not apples to oranges, but a comparison of what each Master Developer (albeit with different projects) – was/is willing to get paid to do the work. That is all that is being compared. And it is the basic IRR metric that investors often use to evaluate different projects.

2. While we asked for the PLA several times – both the Trades and CFP ultimately claimed it was protected by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). The “open book” accounting provision in the Term Sheet will allow the City/LRA to track and question the impact of costs, including the PLA, on our future profit sharing.

As always, please contact me if you have any questions.

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

Page 560 of 712 ends

Editorial: Concord should call off
its engagement with Seeno III
Company bank fraud. Lawsuits. Broken promises
to the city. Proposed Naval Weapons Station
marriage keeps getting worse.

East Bay Times editorial January 21, 2023 at 5:35 a.m.
(Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group/2017 file photo))
Developer Albert Seeno III walks outside the Federal Courthouse after pleading guilty to bank fraud on behalf of his home sales company, Discovery Sales, in Oakland, Calif., on Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016. Seeno was ordered to pay $11 million as part of a mortgage scam to boost the sales of Seeno homes in 2006- 2008. (Ray […]
1/21/23, 7 :12 AM

Page 1 of 7 ends

Page 561 of 712 ends

It’s time for Concord to break off its engagement with Albert D. Seeno III’s consortium and find another partner to serve as master developer for the massive Naval Weapons Station site.

The city can do better. Seeno III pleaded guilty in 2016 to bank fraud on behalf of his home-marketing company, Discovery Sales. His consortium, Concord First Partners, already has reneged on its promises from 2021.

No deal has been finalized. The City Council next Saturday has an opportunity to start fresh, to find a suitor for the Bay Area’s largest housing project that will keep its word and doesn’t have a criminal past.

In a marriage that’s likely to last 40 years or more, Concord residents deserve better.

The city has been courted over the past eight years by two desirable and experienced developers. In 2016, Catellus Development Corp. submitted what city staff then determined was the clearly superior proposal in the first search for a developer. But the firm withdrew from contention when it couldn’t stomach the
city’s ugly politics.

In 2021, the City Council passed over a deal with a partnership of multinational Brookfield Development and Sunset Development, the family-owned East Bay firm that built the Bishop Ranch business park in San Ramon. The partnership came with an
impressive proposal that
met the city’s union labor and housing unit requirements.

Instead, the council chose Concord First Partners, despite Seeno III’s companies’ troubled past and his propensity to sue government agencies when he doesn’t get his way. Ironically, Seeno III, the third- generation leader of a family building empire, now finds himself the 1/21/23, 7 :12 AM

Page 2 of 7 ends

Page 562 of 712 ends

target of litigation from his own father.

Albert D. Seeno Jr. sued his son seeking to oust him as CEO of five of the father’s firms. The court documents reveal how deeply financially entwined the father’s and son’s businesses are and raise troubling allegations, which Seeno III denies, about his management and his debt to and deception of his dad.

Fortunately, it’s not too late for the city to look elsewhere for a mate.

Consequential decision
In August 2021, the City Council selected Concord First Partners — comprised of Seeno III’s Discovery Builders; California Capital & Investment Group, run by Phil Tagami, who is also seeking to build a controversial coal-export terminal in Oakland; and a subsidiary of Southern California development firm Lewis Group of Companies — from three groups seeking exclusive negotiating rights to develop the 2,275-acre site.

Since then, the consortium and city officials have been bargaining over a term sheet, a document that outlines details for the next round of the negotiations. During
a nine-hour meeting Jan. 7, councilmembers heard
from city staff and listened to public testimony for and against the deal.

But they made no decision on whether to approve the term sheet and continue negotiating with Concord First Partners.

That decision will come in a special City Council meeting that starts at 9 a.m. Jan. 28. The council has a choice. It can vote to stick with Seeno’s consortium. Or it can find another developer.

The councilmembers’ decision carries tremendous consequence for 1/21/23, 7 :12 AM

Page 3 of 7 ends

Page 563 of 712 ends

the city and for their own political careers. Concord voters have signaled what they think of partnering with Seeno: In the only two competitive council races in the Nov. 8 election, candidates who originally backed the deal with Concord First Partners lost.

A bad match
The council selection of Concord First Partners was a bad decision from the start that keeps getting worse as the Seeno consortium repeatedly tries to change the terms it earlier agreed to.

When it was selected by the council, the consortium, like its two competitors, had agreed to comply with the bidding terms, which included a 12,200-home limit and a requirement that developers reach agreements with organized labor groups to use union workers.

Everyone was mindful of those key conditions because an earlier developer, Lennar Urban, had bailed because it could not make the deal pencil out under those conditions.

Yet, Concord First Partners, just eight months after it had won exclusive bargaining rights, suddenly said it too could not make the deal work financially and
tried to leverage major concessions from the city.

Fortunately, the council said no.

Now, another eight months later, the consortium is trying another bait and switch. This time, as part of the proposed term sheet, the Seeno team wants to change the original deal it agreed to so it can build 16,474 homes on the same site, a whopping 35% increase.

Concord First Partners knew what it was getting into when it submitted its proposal. To now say that it can’t afford to do the deal with the 1/21/23, 7 :12 AM

Page 4 of 7 ends

Page 564 of 712 ends

required 12,200 homes suggests that the consortium was either disingenuous from the start or did not realistically project its costs.

Either explanation would be problematic.

Concord First Partners should not be given a sweetheart deal after the other bidders have been cast aside.

The 12,200-home limit was hammered out after years of city and community collaboration and was approved by the City Council in 2012 as part of a
three-volume Area Plan for development of the weapons
station site.

Increasing the size by 35% radically changes the economics of the deal and undermines the deal the city struck with the community a decade ago. If the council wants more housing, it should reopen discussions about the Area Plan with community leaders, get their buy-in and then let potential developers submit new proposals.

Lack of transparency
That’s not the only disturbing aspect of the term sheet. The proposed deal also calls for Concord First Partners to begin sharing profits with the city after the consortium achieves an 18% rate of return on its investment. Exactly when those payments to the city would come is unclear. The city could use the money it receives for unspecified city costs and community benefits within the project area.

Guy Bjerke, the city staff member in charge of the weapons station deal, emphasized in his report for the Jan. 7 meeting that the 18% threshold was lower than a 20% level that was in Lennar’s earlier deal.

It’s a talking point that Seeno-backers glommed onto.
1/21/23, 7 :12 AM

Page 5 of 7 ends

Page 565 of 712 ends

But it’s a deceptive apples-to-oranges comparison. The Lennar deal was only for the first phase of the weapons station project, which would be the least profitable phase for any developer, whereas the Concord First Partners deal would be for the entire buildout of the site. In the first phase, which might not be completed for a decade, Concord First Partners projects that it will fall far short of the 18% threshold and does not project any profit sharing with the city.

Moreover, any profit-sharing projections are highly speculative. City officials claim that they have had their financial experts review the consortium’s financial estimates. But the rate of return is tied to the terms of the consortium’s agreement with labor unions, known as a project labor agreement. The more generous the PLA, the less profit for the consortium and, hence, the less profit-sharing for the city.

But city officials say they have never seen the PLA. Amazingly they did not include a requirement that the consortium make the PLA public. So there’s no way to determine what financial deals might have been cut that could affect the consortium’s profits and, in turn, the city’s profit- sharing.

The lack of transparency is appalling. But the bigger issue is Seeno’s troubled past. Before Concord gets to the alter, its leaders should recognize that this could be a very bad marriage.

For the good of the city, it’s time to find another partner.

How to watch
The Concord City Council will hold a special meeting at 9 a.m. Saturday Jan. 28 to consider the term sheet with Concord First Partners. The 1/21/23, 7 :12 AM

Page 6 of 7 ends

Page 566 of 712 ends

meeting will be held in the council chambers, 1950 Parkside Drive. The public can attend the meeting or view it on Concord Cable TV Channel 28 (Comcast), 1026 (Astound) or 99 (AT&T U-verse). Meetings are also streamed live from the City of Concord website,
www.cityofconcord.org.
1/21/23, 7 :12 AM

Page 7 of 7 ends

Page 567 of 712 ends

From: Kathy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 8:29 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Dominic Aliano <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: CNWS Development-Seeno/Concord First

To: Concord City Council members, Guy Bjerke, City Clerk

From: Kathy Gleason, CNWS Neighborhood Alliance

For all of the reasons addressed in the East Bay Times editorial below and more, the City of Concord should allow the ENA with Seeno/Concord First to expire.

We request that you invite other ethical, trustworthy and financially capable developers to bid on the development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Concord residents experienced the bullying of the Bay Area Building Trade Unions at the city sponsored meeting on Jan. 7, 2023, and I personally have experienced interference and suspension or elimination from local media sites regarding my comments and posts on this topic. I am also aware that others have received threatening phone calls. We do not look forward to bullying, intimidation, threats and lawsuits for the next 40 years if we disagree with choices this developer makes and forces upon us.

City Council should make this decision to allow the Seeno/Concord First ENA to expire in the best interests of your constituents, not in the best interests of Seeno/Concord First and the Building Trade Unions.

Please include this email in the record of the Jan. 28, 2023 meeting.

Thank you.

Sent from Mail for Windows
Editorial: Concord should call off its engagement with Seeno III Company bank fraud. Lawsuits. Broken promises to the city.

Proposed Naval Weapons Station marriage keeps looking worse.

Page 568 of 712 ends

PUBLISHED: January 21, 2023 at 5:35 a.m. | UPDATED: January 23, 2023 at 8:19 a.m.

It’s time for Concord to break off its engagement with Albert D. Seeno III’s consortium and find another partner to serve as master developer for the massive Naval Weapons Station site.

In a marriage that’s likely to last 40 years or more, Concord residents deserve better.

In 2021, the City Council passed over a deal with a partnership of multinational Brookfield Development and Sunset Development, the family-owned East Bay firm that built the Bishop Ranch business park in San Ramon. The partnership came with an impressive proposal that met the city’s union labor and housing unit requirements.

Instead, the council chose Concord First Partners, despite Seeno III’s companies’ troubled past and his propensity to sue government agencies when he doesn’t get his way. Ironically, Seeno III, the third-generation leader of a family building empire, now finds himself the target of litigation from his own father.

Fortunately, it’s not too late for the city to look elsewhere for a mate.

Page 569 of 712 ends

and a subsidiary of Southern California development firm Lewis Group of Companies — from three groups seeking exclusive negotiating rights to develop the 2,275-acre site.

Since then, the consortium and city officials have been bargaining over a term sheet, a document that outlines details for the next round of the negotiations. During a nine-hour meeting Jan. 7, councilmembers heard from city staff and listened to public testimony for and against the deal. But they made no decision on whether to approve the term sheet and continue negotiating with Concord First Partners.

That decision will come in a special City Council meeting that starts at 9 a.m. Jan.

28. The council has a choice. It can vote to stick with Seeno’s consortium. Or it can find another developer.

The councilmembers’ decision carries tremendous consequence for the city and for their own political careers. Concord voters have signaled what they think of partnering with Seeno: In the only two competitive council races in the Nov. 8 election, candidates who originally backed the deal with Concord First Partners lost.

Everyone was mindful of those key conditions because an earlier developer, Lennar Urban, had bailed because it could not make the deal pencil out under those conditions.

Yet, Concord First Partners, just eight months after it had won exclusive bargaining rights, suddenly said it too could not make the deal work financially and tried to leverage major concessions from the city. Fortunately, the council said no.

Now, another eight months later, the consortium is trying another bait and switch.

This time, as part of the proposed term sheet, the Seeno team wants to change the original deal it agreed to so it can build 16,474 homes on the same site, a whopping 35% increase.

Concord First Partners knew what it was getting into when it submitted its proposal.

To now say that it can’t afford to do the deal with the required 12,200 homes

Page 570 of 712 ends

suggests that the consortium was either disingenuous from the start or did not realistically project its costs. Either explanation would be problematic.

Concord First Partners should not be given a sweetheart deal after the other bidders have been cast aside.

The 12,200-home limit was hammered out after years of city and community collaboration and was approved by the City Council in 2012 as part of a three- volume Area Plan for development of the weapons station site.

Page 571 of 712 ends

The lack of transparency is appalling. But the bigger issue is Seeno’s troubled past. Before Concord gets to the altar, its leaders should recognize that this could be a very bad marriage.

For the good of the city, it’s time to find another partner.

Page 572 of 712 ends

From: Anne Kurylo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 10:26 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: Anne Kurylo <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: News Alert: Seeno v. Seeno becoming building empire’s ‘War of the Roses’

Sending comments/concerns re. development of the Concord Naval Weapons property for consideration at the Concord City Council meeting being held on Saturday, January 28.

Including emails sent to our City Council Supervisor, Laura Nakamura.

Anne and John Kurylo , Residents of Turtles Creek

One more thing.....

Has the availability of water within this development been addressed? What steps are being taken to ensure that water for residential as well as landscaping needs are being addressed? Some projects in Central CA are being deferred due to their impact on very limited water availability.

Our concerns (not certain if all are correct) include:
>The most recent plan presented by the Seeno Group is significantly different from the plan that was approved by the Council and put out for bid. It includes many more homes. If this plan is approved by the Council, it should be once again put out to bid. >Not certain if we read this right, but this revised plan for additional housing does not include an comparable increase in affordable housing.
>Not certain if we got this right....The revised plan includes ADUs and stated that these should be included in the count of affordable units. There is no reason to think that owners will rent these units as affordable housing. Also we question the overall appearance of the development having lots of ADUs.
>Affordable housing is a major concern within CC County. Might not have this right, but Seeno’s initial focus for first phases does not address affordable housing needs. These are included in later phases.
>The total time to complete this project is way too long. Was it 40 years? Can you imagine what the increase in costs will be for the latter phases of this project? And would it be the community amenities that would get chopped? Most likely.
>And with all the infighting within the various Seeno groups, focus and funds could be diverted from this project to resolving internal differences. Costs will increase, phases will be delayed, etc.

We do not support Seeno companies as the developer for this project unless the numerous concerns are resolved.

Anne and John Kurylo , Residents of Turtles Creek

Page 573 of 712 ends

From: Kent Ramirez <[email protected]>
Date: January 25, 2023 at 11:17:09 AM PST
To: "Barone, Valerie" <[email protected]> Subject: Your constituents have had enough with Seeno!
Reply-To: [email protected]

City Manager Valerie Barone,
They've made enough, exploited enough. Your constituents,.the ones in the know, the ones who make time for real issues are not ok with Seeno. You are in office to represent US. We're run down. Remember , "where families comes first", this isn't it!!! Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. 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.

In August 2021, 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 in 2022, 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 let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the city can find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Kent Ramirez
[email protected]
Concord, California 94521

Page 574 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: David Slaby <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 7:05 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Do not approve CFP/Seeno Term Sheet

Dump Seeno III

Sent from my iPhone

Page 575 of 712 ends

From: Chris Cerullo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 6:19 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: NO to SEENO!

Personally, I am shocked Seeno was ever approved for this project!! PLEASE do NOT finish a poor plan just to have the planning over and done with. I can imagine desiring this, but this plan is NOT the right way!
The Financial Summary in the Term Sheet is insufficient and does not reflect the verbal commitment to “transparency.

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.

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.

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

Christine Cerullo
966 San Simeon Drive
Concord, CA 94518-2139

Page 576 of 712 ends

From: Doug Leich <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 4:50 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 2a, January 28 meeting of City Council / LRA

Dear Concord City Council / Local Reuse Authority members, I am a Contra Costa County resident and a member of the Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition and of East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO). Concord's commitment to 25% affordable housing is very important to both of these organizations and to me personally. I share all of the concerns laid out in EBHO's January 5 letter to you.

Do not accept this Term Sheet as presented on January 7th. There are several issues that need to be resolved in order to move forward with this plan. These issues are;  This term sheet proposes only 3,020 units of realistic affordable housing, or 19% of the total.units, falling short of the 25% requirement from the Area Plan, and risking state intervention for not complying with the Surplus Land Act.  The proposed Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) will not function as actual affordable housing given the difficulty of monitoring and income-certifying tenants, and the lack of controls to prevent these units being used for non rental purposes.  The role of Related as the Affordable Housing Administrator is too large; the city should act as an impartial judge to select affordable housing developers and Related’s share of the affordable housing construction should be decreased substantially from 75% to no more than 20%.
 The TOD phase must be moved up to the first phase of development, which will allow BART to complete their housing plans for the North Concord Station parking lot and ensure that residents and workers in the first phase will not negatively impact climate goals with increased car travel.
 The process leading up to this meeting has not allowed any time to substantively address the concerns of residents and stakeholders.

Thank you.
~~~~~~~~
Doug Leich
[email protected]
Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition

Page 577 of 712 ends

From: Brian Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:17 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Important City Issue

Director Guy Bjerke,
Drop Seeno and Discovery please.

Discovery is listed on California Contractors Licensing Board:

CODE Business & Professions Code
VIOLATION 7123
DESCRIPTION Conviction of a substantially related crime Respectfully,
Brian Wright
Brian Wright
[email protected]
Concord, California 94519

Page 578 of 712 ends

From: seearch <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 7:48 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]> Subject: Plea from a Concord Resident who is an Architect and Urban Designer

Dear Concord City Council,

Its in your hands to make the RIGHT decision. This term sheet is not in line with the Area plan approved by CONCORD residents. This term sheet adds 3000+ homes but does not address the issue of the existing traffic in the area. I am a resident at SunTerrace. Have you been on the freeway during the morning and evening hours? It is backed up right now. What plans does the city have to address this? This cannot be addressed with the current term sheet. There are a lot of pretty pictures without a reality based plan.

While these revisions to the approved area plan makes it economically more beneficial or feasible as CFP phrased it. The 3000 additional homes will negatively impact all the areas surrounding Concord and make traffic even worse. The reduced greenways between Sun Terrace and the Bart are also not acceptable. The existing residents and surrounding communities deserve better. These issues were not adequately addressed in the original plan and makes it even worse now.

The staff report does not seem to adequately address the issues raised by CONCORD residents but seems to give in to everything the Developers want.

Once the term sheet is approved by the Council there is NO going back.

Please decline this term sheet. It may seem at the moment like a step backwards but it will prove to be the right DECISION for CONCORD.

The CREDIBILITY of our COUNCIL is at stake here. PLEASE MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION for the sustainable future of CONCORD in the long run.

Regards,

Seema Mhaskar, AIA
Architect and Concord Resident

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S8+, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

Page 579 of 712 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 10:55 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: Save Concord from the Seeno Convicted Developers and Let Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Dear Concord City Council,
The Seenos are not strangers to Concord. From cutting a 200 year old oak protected heritage oak tree down and treating the fine as a joke to get one project going, to designing an office building in the flight path of the Concord airport, rules are challenges to be broken for the Seenos. Albert Seeno III threatened a politician in Nevada (is anyone on the council secretly receiving threats to have their legs broken if they don't go along with this lawsuit?). Hmm. Could Julian Assange hack into your email accounts? What would it show, for any city council to be plotting and planning to destroy its city with this catastrophic development?
Mystery revealed: Why Albert Seeno III was arrested - East Bay … https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/02/28/mystery...

Feb 28, 2017 · It was not the first threat allegation against Seeno III. In 2011, former Nevada lobbyist Harvey Whittemore claimed in a civil suit that Seeno III threatened to break his legs if …
The city council are not rogue agents. They owe a fiduciary duty to Concord residents and our priceless open space.

The Naval Weapon Station land should never be developed. It is a priceless treasure as open space. The city is as large as can reasonably be sustained. More importantly, the residents DON'T WANT ANY DEVELOPMENT. We don't want Concord to be a vast sprawling LA. I have lived here since 1962. Thank God for Save Mt. Diablo, because they don't develop with a vested interest in expanding their own pensions and salaries. There is no logical reason to develop the Naval Weapon Station at all, beside bringing money into the Concord City coffers. As to the infra structure in place, Concord cannot handle watering trees during the drought on city property. They can't afford to water trees on the street. Concord doesn't have police known as instantly responsive. There is a homeless problem, and the solution is not 30,000 or 50,000 more houses.

Land is beyond price. It gives quality of life and feel to the City of Concord. You are trustees of this land AND the resident's quality of life. Yet, you consistently go against Concord's residents' values and VOICES. There is nothing to do with this land but reforest it by planting native species and join it to Mt. Diablo state park. Forest it as it would have been in the 1800s. The Weapon Station is a gift you have gleefully, GREEDILY squandered with your development plans.

It is not as if you can all be impeached for developing every last square of land once your development damage is done. You have a very easy decision here. Deed the land, over your personal greed (it is not the residents greed, its YOURS) to Save Mt. Diablo. Then, by houses and clear them out of the way as they go on the market, in partnership with Save Mt.

Diablo. Because it is really one and the same interest as Save Concord. Do we need a Save Concord? Apparently so. Save Concord from its City Council and Manager.

There is no need for any housing at all. This city is building up the downtown Concord so Mt.

Diablo cannot even be seen in a grandiose socialist scheme to provide a mecca of affordable

Page 580 of 712 ends

housing and low income tenants. Concord cannot solve its homeless crisis because it cannot solve lifestyle choices, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, or mental health issues arising from refusal to accept treatment and choosing the homeless lifestyle. Still, the City Council virtue signals and value shames, "we have to solve the homeless and affordable housing crisis." California is expensive, and neither state or local governments can afford to subsidize lives. This is in contrast to the city spending money on strict enforcement of vagrancy rules, and making Concord a place where you follow rules. Put the homeless in the vast open buildings for shelter (it should not be fun), or you get a job, get an education, get a lifestyle and go to work. Has Concord opened trade schools to Concord residents for wood, metal or auto work and made such trades mandatory for receiving benefits? Of course not. Its just rushing to build affordable housing. We have too much housing, the cramming every lot with houses has to stop. Contact the governor about the lack of border enforcement allowing drugs to pour into the state exacerbating homelessness. On behalf of all Concord residents you don't deign to listen to: STOP BUILDING and over building, and stuffing this city with affordable housing, and fight for the residents already here to improve our quality of life. File lawsuits to stop the state and county from forcing buildings here.

The city council is destroying our neighborhoods, property values, and the feeling of old Concord. Some things are out of the council's control. One thing within your control is dedicating the Naval Weapon's Station to Save Mt. Diablo.

You are never honest with the votes. YOU want the Weapon's Station. We want an expanded Mt. Diablo open space. Ring the city with Mt. Diablo foothills.

Your development scheme hurts our environment. Its not progress. Developing the Naval Weapon's station strains CCWD resources, and how the water district ever approved your grandiose Build to the Limit, Just Dot with a Few Open Spaces scheme, I do not know. Are you aware Concord residents are getting notices in their water bills to save water? SO THE CITY CAN BUILD thousands of houses and consume water? Notwithstanding this year of rain, your scheme is an environment fiasco and irresponsible. The City Council is threatening the Delta's resources, and water for all of us. No more housing.

It would take great vision, for the Concord City Council to imagine a sweeping Mt. Diablo, already the jewel of the county traveling towards it from the Delta, from Sacramento, from Tracy or Berkeley, to encircle Concord.

Yes, a Mt. Diablo open space of foothills including Bailey Road hills, Kirker Pass hills, that encircles Concord and restores the environment and eco system and goes from the jewel of the County to a jewel in the state and example across America. Why can't you lead for the first time in your lives? You have eyesight, but no vision. A politician needs vision and what this City Council is doing to destroy this City with Development turns Concord resident's stomachs. Development is the scourge of the earth. Yet that is what you are frog marching all Concord residents towards, and against our will.

You work for us. This is our city, not yours, your residence here is superfluous, and doesn't give you monarchy power. You are elected. Perform. We want 100% open space, just like on Mount Diablo.

It was a breach of your fiduciary duties to ever enter an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with convicted, Concord law violating, Seenos.

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.

Page 581 of 712 ends

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 let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the city can find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

J. Creason
Save Mt. Diablo is granted permission to republish all or part of this email, as they so choose, or to produce in whole or any part of this email.

Page 582 of 712 ends

From: Robert Donohoe <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 9:26 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: The CNWS and Seeno

Dear City Council Members:

Aside from this issue, I am usually a "silent resident". But this situation is so appalling that it has prompted me to voice my opinion.

In the case of Seeno, it is patently obvious that The City is dealing with a predatory entity. There is nothing wrong with trying to make a reasonable profit; however, their motivation is goes beyond a simple desire to be fairly compensated. Their motivation is greed. It is as simple as that.

It appears to me that some of you on the City Council have been seduced by the Seeno group and their allies. Do not tell yourselves or your constituents that the Seeno plan is about providing affordable housing or well-paying jobs. A development plan that more closely adheres to the decade-old guidelines will provide for affordable housing. As for construction jobs, they are plentiful in the current environment. There is no need for hysterics about housing and employment to overrule common sense. A reasonable plan that is implemented by a principled partner is what we need.

I ask all of you on the Council to stand up bravely for our future. Do not be weak-willed. Do not be seduced by the smiling faces and disingenuous words of the Seeno team. You and the City should not be associated them. Do better for yourselves and for us by rejecting them.

Most sincerely,

Robert Donohoe
2701 Gill Drive
Concord

Page 583 of 712 ends

From: Matt Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:06 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject:

DROP SEENO!!!!

Page 584 of 712 ends

From: John Etherington <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 6:55 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop the development of the Naval weapons Station

Director Guy Bjerke,
Hello Concord council members, I live on Lynwood Drive In Concord. My house backs up to the Naval weapons Station. Every day I have the privilege of watching all the local wildlife have their own space in what is already a very congested city we live in. I would really like to see it all be given to the park district but I know that would only be a dream. When choosing a developer please keep in mind that most residents of Concord would agree that we do not have enough parkland open to the public. I would love for my kids to be able to grow up with more parkland available to them.

Thank you for your time
The Etherington family
John Etherington
[email protected]
Concord, California 94521

Page 585 of 712 ends

From: Mary Hanson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 4:50 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Drop the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno!

Director Guy Bjerke,
Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. This project could be the largest development in northern California and is definitely the largest one in our region. As such, it has the capability to be a wonderful or terrible undertaking for the City of Concord. It is imperative that quality partners are selected for this long-term (multi- decade) endeavor.

Some of the arguments against the Seeno family and their partners are well known - and you've heard them before: a poor business reputation, shady practices, government investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environmental laws, bullying, threats, and lawsuits against key partners on this project and even against other family members.

I will add another argument, based on my professional experience working as a licensed Real Estate Agent in the Tri-Valley and Diablo Valley, from 1987 through 2004. Seeno builds poor quality homes, and they are horrible about honoring warranty work that is needed. Their homes may look good when new, but it doesn't take long before the generally shoddy level of workmanship begins to show. This leads to general degradation of neighborhood "look," quality and desirability, which is not what Concord would want to be dealing with for the next 10 to 30 years.

In August 2021, a large percentage of Concord residents and media participants spoke out against selecting Seeno as the Master Developer. Concord residents were ignored. And in 2022, Seeno's own representatives tried to eliminate the city’s leverage and back-pedal on their previous project commitments, which should continue to be legally binding. The fact that they broke their word prior to even getting started on the project is disturbing and should be a huge "red flag."
Seeno 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 let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the city will be free to find and work with a trustworthy and capable entity partner, to create a truly great project that will be a valuable asset to Concord, the East Bay, and perhaps the greater Bay Area region.

I cannot make the upcoming meeting but would welcome being contacted by phone or email - if you would like to further discuss. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely Mary Hanson
Mary Hanson
[email protected]
Concord, California 94518

Page 586 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Cluster <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 7:56 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]> Subject: term sheet for naval weapons station

“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 don't think the term sheet should be approved without 25% affordable housing, NOT including the accessory dwelling units they are proposing. So the plan as currently proposed should be rejected.

Thank you.

Mike Cluster
3593 Halifax Way
Concord CA 94520

Page 587 of 712 ends

From: allan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 1:04 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: CNWS

No compelling arguments in favor of Seeno ?

Years of history pointing towards “No.”

Do you smell the coffee ?

See-NO !

--
allan
[email protected]
Sent from an ÆtheroTron.

Page 588 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Proctor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 4:52 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Drop Seeno as Master Developer of CNWS Project Dear Concord City Council Member:

I again urge you to let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno/Discovery Builders and their partners to expire. I have lived in Concord for 60 years and have followed Seeno’s many short-comings for years. Concord’s redevelopment of the CNWS deserves better and cannot and should not ignore the shady practices, government investigations, bullying, threats, and lawsuits with this company. Initial promises by the Concord First Partners have already been reneged on. If they can’t deliver as originally agreed to, then negotiations should be reopened to all capable and ethical consortiums. This is a very long-term project and it should be with a partner we can trust and believe in.

Sincerely,
Andrea Proctor
Concord Resident

Sent from my iPhone

Page 589 of 712 ends

From: Jackie Stewart <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 8:24 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: CNWS project

Please. No seeno as master developer. Seeno will never honor any terms of an agreement. Most notably affordable housing. It will be acres of huge mansions with football field size landscaping..golf courses .. One big water guzzling project.

In spite of the January storms.there is no consensus yet that the drought is over forever.

I would say to any potential developer ...show me the water..and show me that there will be substantial resources such as fire protection to manage such a huge undertaking.

My main concerns are affordable housing and sustainable water supply. Do not think Seeno has a good track record.how many times over the years has Seeno been involved in litigation over various projects..

Do you really trust Seeno enough to put this project into their hands.

If you must continue surely there are other companies with more credibility..Seeno is about seeno.

Page 590 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Lyn Roy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 9:47 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Reuse Project

It’s our conviction that you should re-open the bidding for NW development.

It seems very unwise to even consider the Seeno group as a consideration, based on their past contractural history, and shady business practices.

The project should be awarded in phases, NOT as a whole 40 year agreement. This is only common sense, as it allows for careful oversight by Staff, and incentives for the Contractors to do a good job.

Thank you for your careful consideration of these thoughts, as they represent the shared opinion of all our circle of fellow Concord homeowners.

Paul and Lynda Roy

Sent from my iPad

Page 591 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Rakesh Madra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 9:47 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Master developer

Dear Concord city council,
I am of a strong belief that the navel weapons development project needs an ethical Master developer with a clean and environmentally friendly track record. The city needs to have full transparency. We need ethical people involved in the development of such a large project.

Sincerely
Rakesh Madra
Concord resident.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 592 of 712 ends

From: Lou Ascatigno <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 10:21 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]> Subject: Naval weapons station project

Council members,
Please allow me to once again urge you to reject Concord First Partners for construction on the former Navy property. I heard the litany of union support for the project while Zooming the meeting earlier this month. I, too, support local union workers, and believe their services should be utilized for the construction. I refuse to believe, however, that only one builder is capable of rising to this bar.

The Seeno family, under its many corporate names, however, should NOT be involved with the project. They have already revealed their hand in changing the terms as soon as they were granted approval. Their litigious ways are well documented. When further problems arise down the course of the project, and they will, it will be the citizens of Concord who will have to deal with them. Please listen to our voices and reject the Seenos.

Lou Ascatigno

Page 593 of 712 ends

From: Jennifer Morales <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 12:55 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Say No to CNWS Term Sheet and Put Concord First!

Dear Concord City Council,

I am writing as a Concord community organizer to ask that you do not accept the term sheet for the Concord Naval Weapons Station put forward on January 7th until several key issues are addressed.

The issues with the current term sheet as identified by East Bay Housing Organizations include:

2. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units should not be considered affordable housing.

The 25% affordable housing built in this project must be equivalent to the homes built with unregulated rents. In the current term sheet, Accessory Dwelling Units (also known as “granny flats”) are being used to fill the 25% affordable housing requirement. They should not count towards this total.

4. To ensure a fair application process for affordable housing developers, the Affordable Housing Administrator should not be a developer on this project with rights to develop 75% of affordable homes, as the Term Sheet currently proposes. Having the same entity serve to both administer the affordable housing program and develop affordable units is a conflict of interest.

Page 594 of 712 ends

To this day, Monument Impact continues to get calls from Concord residents regarding needing housing or needing help paying rent as the pandemic continues to exist. We must help Concord families now instead of letting our communities member go.

Concord has an opportunity to reimagine what a city that prioritizes people first.

Please, we urge you to reject this term sheet until these critical issues are addressed.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Morales

Lead Community Organizer
Cell: (925) 315-5154
Work: (925) 682-8248 Ext. 2160
1760 Clayton Rd. Concord
monumentimpact.org

Page 595 of 712 ends

From: Larry Wizs <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 9:16 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno Now: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire!

Director Guy Bjerke,
FIRE the Concord First Partners now! Do not extend the Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement!
Seeno and their partners have a long and sordid history of shady practices, government investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environmental laws, bullying, threats, and lawsuits! They should never have been given the contract in the first place. It is clear their only interest is in their profits, not the desires of their client, the City, surrounding communities, or the environment.

They shouldn’t have been chosen in the first place, and now they claim they they can’t deliver what they included in their proposal.

Dump Seeno and hire a reputable and trustworthy firm to execute the City’s plan.

Sincerely,
Larry Wise
Larry Wizs
[email protected]
Concord, California 94518

Page 596 of 712 ends

From: Judith Sherwood <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 8:16 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: The Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Should Expire

Director Guy Bjerke,
I am requesting, as a concerned citizen, that you act responsibly vis a vis the development of the Navel Weapons area. Realistically, the City has not demonstrated a sufficient level of competence in managing the acquisition of an appropriate developer. While it would be both expensive and time consuming, it is time to stop, and reset on this whole project; having failed to settle on two reasonably good developers , it’s extremely worrisome to see the Council lurching in the direction of acquiring an infamously bad one.

I do acknowledge however, that it is hardly good enough to say ‘just don’t take that developer’ in the absence of any alternatives. So, as a taxpayer, I’m suggesting devoting more financial resources to the process. From the admittedly uninformed viewpoint of an average resident, this project looks like it was too big for a relatively small city to tackle without extensive prior experience. It’s possible, of course, that some of that experience has been painfully acquired by now; but it will do very little good if it results in our having Seeno as a developer for this project.

It seems to be a good point at which to stop and consider acquiring more expertise, whether from personnel recruitment or partnerships with other cities that have managed to carry out large development projects. Given the current state of affairs, it seems highly unlikely that allowing the agreement to expire will put us in a worse position.

Judith Sherwood
[email protected]
Concord, California 94519

Page 597 of 712 ends

From: Alany Wouters <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 6:58 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: I support Seeno

Director Guy Bjerke,
Though this was meant for opposition, I wanted to express my support for Seeno. The Seeno family brings with them support for our children through a non profit community center that not only has activities but also provides educational support for our children. Their center supported all of my children and even when we went through tough times financially, continued to allow all my children to continue to participate including my disabled daughter.

I think their positive ethics speak volumes for the support of our community. I have met and spent time with this loving family and they are wonderful. I have nothing but a warm heart knowing that they might have the opportunity to do the right thing which I am confident they will.

I think the negative items brought up have nothing to do with how they operate as a business and should be given the chance. Knowing how much they support our community, I think this is a good choice. Not all the family is involved like some would lead you to believe. The family members can only be part of the business if they can prove their success through running nonprofits and proving they can support the community.

I think every family has a bad apple and at times may not make good decisions but sometimes bad choices is what teaches us the most valuable lessons.

My disabled daughter was rejected from all community sports programs and yes we tried.

Cyc was our savior through all the disappointments. The staff were never hesitant about including my daughter no matter her limitations. I spoke to Laura at the center who is part of the family and each of the staff who worked with her spent good time with us.

This family has a big heart and I know they will do the right thing for all of us.

This project has been pending too long, please allow it to start. Anyone who is willing to take on the massive clean up needed shows good ethics for our community.

Alany Wouters
[email protected]
Concord, California 94520

Page 598 of 712 ends

From: NB Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 5:10 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: No Seeno

Director Guy Bjerke,
Your vote should represent the voice of Concord residents.

The majority of Concord residents do not want Seeno.

NB Wright
[email protected]
Concord, California 94520

Page 599 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Elaine Jegi <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 3:10 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]> Cc: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; Elaine Jegi <[email protected]> Subject: Concord Naval Weapons

Dear Members of the Council,
We all have witnessed the distress, uncertainty and divisiveness that occurs when high ranking governmental officials are self serving, manipulative and dishonest. After four years of leadership under our previous US President our country is deeply divided, citizens have lost trust, and our Democracy has been threatened.

The place to start instilling trust in our government can start at the local level with decisions that we as a citizenry make right here in Concord. The issue at hand is the possibility of the Seeno Company moving forward as the Master Developer for the Naval Weapons property.

Please consider the track record of the Seeno family as you make your decision on January 28. To choose a Company with documented records of manipulation, dishonesty, excessive litigation for personal power, and a disdain for environmental issues makes a bold statement: it’s OK to be a little dishonest, a little manipulative, a little self serving,……

I believe that we can do better. And, it is not too late. I’d like to see Concord move forward with a standard of excellence that is reflective of the values of our community. Please vote NO on the acceptance of the Term Sheet on January 28.

Thank you for your service to our City.

Sincerely,
Elaine Jegi
4005 Salem Street

Page 600 of 712 ends

From: Sundar Chari <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:05 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno Now: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire!

Director Guy Bjerke,
I'm a Concord resident, homeowner of a Seeno house, and I am adding my voice to the many who are requesting that you let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

This is a hugely consequential project and decision, and it has been clear that Seeno is not up to the task. You know the history, and you know have a chance to create a better future.

Again, please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire, and then engage with another more capable organization to create something that will truly benefit our city of Concord.

Sundar Chari
[email protected]
Concord, California 94519

Page 601 of 712 ends

From: Jean King <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Do not approve Seeno.

Director Guy Bjerke,
Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

Thank you.

Jean King
[email protected]
Livermore, California 94550

Page 602 of 712 ends

From: Lawrence Kreh <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 1:23 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Today's Legacy (Seeno)

Director Guy Bjerke,
I am sure you and the City Council are aware of the arguments against contracting with Seno.

You are aware of the opposition by many informed people. Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire!

LEGACY AND INTEGRITY
The legacy of our current city leadership will last many decades for good or bad. And any potential conflicts of interest, if there are any, will be a stain on the reputations of those not looking out for the common good.

There must be easy access to BART, less housing density, integrity in construction, and an appropriate preservation of park land and open space.

May you have wisdom and courage.

LK
Lawrence Kreh
[email protected]
Concord, California 94518

Page 603 of 712 ends

From: Mark Share <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 1:17 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: There are too many issues to ignore with Seeno

Director Guy Bjerke,
Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. It seems to me that Seeno has changed the rules and the project scope. The City Council should not allow a developer to dictate the terms, to increase the density, and ignore the prerequisites of the project.

Certainly you have more information than do I, however the only thing that would be lost by letting this agreement expire would be time. There will always be another developer, who will come along and want to truly partner with the City of Concord. Maybe even Seeno will see the light - but I doubt it.

The term sheet is flawed and the City Council should not give in to the demands of a developer. The developer should work for the City - not the other way around.

Thank you.

Mark Share
[email protected]
Concord, California 94518

Page 604 of 712 ends

From: Michael McGloin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:57 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: We must allow the Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire!

Director Guy Bjerke,
Why are we doing business with an unethical company with a history of criminal behavior.

They are failing to keep their commitments.

Besides the long, well-documented history of crime and corner-cutting by Seeno companies and their partners, Seeno's Term Sheet is deeply flawed.

It proposes more than 3,300 additional housing units than originally accepted.

It fails to live up to green space and affordable housing commitments.

It increases car dependence and traffic by failing to take advantage of the North Concord BART Station.

And it offers Seeno and their partners the entire project site at once. 'Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. This project could be the largest development in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region.

Michael McGloin
[email protected]
Concord, California 94521

Page 605 of 712 ends

From: Mel Bearns <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno Now: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire!

Director Guy Bjerke,
I am writing to ask that you please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. I have been a part of the community input process and involved with this project since 2007, and never did I expect it would come to this.

In case a reminder is needed, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you NOT to choose them as the Master Developer. Yet once again, Concord residents were ignored. And Concord First have since admitted that the original plan is not tenable and they couldn’t make the project work, adding more housing than what the area can tolerate. Also, in light of the recent findings about the state of affairs regarding the Seeno crime syndicate, is this really what you want for Concord? We don't.

The fact is, Seeno/Concord First should NEVER have been chosen in the first place. There's no harm or shame in admitting you were wrong however, so PLEASE let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Only then can the city find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord and be a world-class project that embraces sustainability and sets a standard for other to follow.

Do the right thing.

Mel Bearns
Holbrook Heights
Mel Bearns
[email protected]
Concord, California 94519-2141

Page 606 of 712 ends

From: Brad Krebs <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno Now: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire!

Director Guy Bjerke,
Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. It’s the right thing to do for the residents of Concord.

Brad Krebs
[email protected]
Pleasant Hill, California 94523

Page 607 of 712 ends

From: Elsie Mills <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:17 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: No to Seeno proposal

Director Guy Bjerke,
Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

When Concord First Partners was competing against other developers to win exclusive bargaining rights, the planned number of housing units for the Concord reuse project was 12,272. After Concord First was chosen, and their competition was eliminated, they claimed they couldn't afford the original deal and must build 16,474 homes to make the project work.

That’s a more than 30 percent increase that dramatically changes the project that the community agreed to.

The new proposal undermines affordable housing. With more than 4,000 new proposed units, the number of affordable housing units has remained the same as the original plan.

Elsie Mills
[email protected]
Concord, California 94520

Page 608 of 712 ends

From: Save Mount Diablo <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 11:00 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: URGENT: Tell City Council to Let Seeno Agreement Expire!

Urge City Council: Drop Seeno!
Send an Email with Our New Action Tool Now

At 9 AM this Saturday, January 28, the Concord City Council will determine the fate of the huge Concord reuse project.

Our main ask is simple: we want the council to let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement they currently have with Seeno/Discovery Builders and their partners expire!

Besides the long, well-documented history of crime and corner-cutting by Seeno companies and their partners, Seeno's Term Sheet is deeply flawed.  It proposes more than 3,300 additional housing units than originally accepted.

Page 609 of 712 ends

 It fails to live up to green space and affordable housing commitments.  It increases car dependence and traffic by failing to take advantage of the North Concord BART Station.
 And it offers Seeno and their partners the entire project site at once.

Please send an email NOW and encourage the Concord City Council to let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire!

We've set up a new tool that will make emailing a lot easier.

EMAIL CITY COUNCIL

Journalists Urge Concord
City Council to Drop Seeno
East Bay Times Articles Criticize Seeno and Their
Partners' Capabilities as Master Developer

In January alone, the East Bay Times published four stories about Seeno and their involvement with the development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

Here are the major takeaways:

Page 610 of 712 ends

 Albert Seeno Jr. has filed several lawsuits against his son Albert Seeno III to fire him as CEO of five family companies. Seeno Jr. claims his son has taken hundreds of millions of dollars from his father, has over $100 million in debt, bullied him into hiring him as CEO, and has been abusive and misogynistic toward employees.
 Because of Seeno's alleged debt, Seeno/Discovery Builders may no longer have the financial resources to meet the obligations of the Concord reuse project.
 When Concord First Partners was competing against other developers to win exclusive bargaining rights, the planned number of housing units for the Concord reuse project was 12,272. After Concord First was chosen, and their competition was eliminated, they claimed they couldn't afford the original deal and must build 16,474 homes to make the project work.

That’s a more than 30 percent increase that dramatically changes the project that the community agreed to.
 The new proposal undermines affordable housing. With more than 4,000 new proposed units, the number of affordable housing units has remained the same as the original plan.

This Saturday, the Concord City Council will decide if they will move forward with Seeno and Concord First Partners—a deal that is expected to last at least 40 years.

Please send an email before Saturday with our new action tool and tell the council to drop Seeno!

EMAIL CITY COUNCIL

Page 611 of 712 ends

Share This Message

Forward

Page 612 of 712 ends

Who Are We?

Save Mount Diablo is a nationally accredited land trust and conservation organization based in the east San Francisco Bay Area. We've been preserving lands on and around Mount Diablo and educating the public to the mountain's natural values since 1971. We are biologists, conservationists, hikers, cyclists, equestrians, bird watchers, and people who just love to look at the mountain.

We work to preserve Mount Diablo’s peaks, surrounding foothills, watersheds, and connection to the Diablo Range through land acquisition and preservation strategies designed to protect the mountain’s natural beauty, biological diversity, and historical and agricultural heritage; enhance our area’s quality of life; and provide recreational and educational opportunities consistent with the protection of natural resources.

You are receiving this email because we thought you should know about these projects that could affect Concord.

Our mailing address is:

Save Mount Diablo
1901 Olympic Blvd., Suite 320
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5078

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Page 613 of 712 ends

From: Mario Scardina <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 2:19 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno Now: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire!

Director Guy Bjerke,
Dear Everyone in Concord,CA,my name is Mario A Scardina,I'm 23 years old and I've got a good idea to go good with housing. It's the 3 new stadiums that are going to be added with the project. They are all going to be indoor because of the weather. The baseball stadium will look like the Astrodome,the football stadium will look like Caesars Superdome and the basketball arena will look like Oakland Arena. Those stadiums will be the Detroit Tigers,Lions and Pistons' new homes who are my favorite teams. I've got the names for the new stadiums,the baseball stadium will be called Tiger Tech Solutions Coliseum,the football stadium will be called Metro Goldwyn Mayer Stadium and the basketball arena will be called Fox Racing Center.

Mario Scardina
[email protected]
Concord, California 94520

Page 614 of 712 ends

From: John Buschiazzo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 11:04 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: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Dear City Council of Concord,

It seems to be in the best interest of Concord to let the ENA with Seeno and Partners Expire.

Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire. The term sheet as I understand it is flawed and skewed to favor the developers.

  It proposes more than 3,300 additional housing units than was accepted for the project in the Area Reuse Plan approved by the council and community in 2012.  It fails to live up to green space and affordable housing commitments that the public were guaranteed in the Area Reuse Plan.
 It increases car dependence and traffic by failing to take advantage of the North Concord BART Station in the first phase of the project.  And it offers Seeno and their partners the entire project site at once rather than seeing how they do with a first piece and going from
Another shortcoming, in my opinion, is the use of ADUs as a planning feature. With a blank canvas of this property, the planning for the necessary variety of housing should be integrated in the design. ADUs are an auxiliary dwelling cities are implementing where existing structures are in place. This seems like another "cut corner" before one shovelful of dirt is even turned.

Yes, it will be arduous to search again for a master developer. But given the scope of the projet, the impact on the city and all of us residents, it is the proper way to proceed.

Please do not continue with this group as our master developer.

Sincerely,

John Buschiazzo
94518

Page 615 of 712 ends

From: Tineke Jacobsen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:17 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno Now: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire!

Director Guy Bjerke,
I am a long time resident and active participant in the Mt Diablo Community. I helped the Gateway Alliance reach the goal of preserving the detention basin, and prevent 41 houses from being developed there.

This project is much more important. Please start over And find a new developer. Why continue negotiating with Seeno who has a poor track record and mostly their own interest in mind.

Tineke Jacobsen
[email protected]
, 94598

Page 616 of 712 ends

From: paul kephart <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 7:22 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Let Seeno and Partners Expire!

Director Guy Bjerke,
As a 40+ year resident of Concord, I think its only the right thing to do and let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

Shady practices, government investigations, fraud arrests, breaking environmental laws, bullying, threats, lawsuits against key partners on this project to be involved etc, etc is not a sound choice and instills no confidence with the public.

In August 2021, more than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you not to choose them as the Master Developer. SO WHY DID YOU IGNORE CONCORD RESIDENTS ?? Even after Seeno admitted they couldn’t make the project work, you still want to use them?? They shouldn’t have been chosen in the first place, they can’t deliver! Concord residents deserve all the community benefits associated with this project which they participated in and chose after MANY public work study sessions! PLEASE let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. And then lets work to find a trustworthy, capable developer to create something that will benefit Concord and be a creation of pride for the community!
paul kephart
[email protected]
Concord, California 94520

Page 617 of 712 ends

From: Mary Sarchett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 12:22 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

I have lived the majority of my 60 years in Concord. To me, the name Seeno is synonymous with the term corruption. These people have no respect for anything other than the mighty dollar. It makes me wonder what deals have been made for Seeno to get the yes votes out of some of our council members. How far does the corruption extend?

Please look for companies that have ethical, law abiding business practices and segment the project so we aren't putting all our eggs in one basket as they say.

Thank You,

Mary E. Sarchett

Dear Concord City Council,

Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

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 let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the City can find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Regards,
Mary E. Sarchett
Concord Resident

Page 618 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Joan Valancy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 7:21 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: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Dear Concord City Council,

Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. 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 let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the City can find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

I was unable to attend the recent meeting but did watch it on Wednesday evening, 11 January. I seem to be in the majority in my feelings about the Seeno family. I am a fifth generation Californian and have lived my entire life in either Walnut Creek or Concord. To say I am disappointed in the changes in both cities would be an understatement. I know we are a much larger city than either Danville or Alamo, but when I drive through those cities, I see that they have retained their small city charm unlike Walnut Creek, where I spent the majority of my life and raised my children. I would hate to see Concord follow in their footsteps. One of my daughters just moved her family back to her husband‘s hometown in Indiana, where they can find affordable housing and good schools, even though they have to compromise their politics. I am devastated. But this is a consequence of living in the Bay Area. It’s time to stop the moral atrophy. As one of your Concord residents so eloquently stated, just google the name A. Seeno. I think that’s all that needs to be said.

Thank you for all the hard work, time and effort that’s been put into this project so far. But let’s listen to all the Concord residents who have also put in time and effort to be listened to in order to make their city the best city to reside in.

Thank you
Regards,
Joan Valancy
Concord Resident

Sent from my iPhone

Page 619 of 712 ends

From: Allison Seavey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 3:09 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Let The Agreement With Seeno and Concord First Expire

Dear Concord City Council,

I was at the meeting last Saturday and I witnessed first hand the intimidation tactics used by Concord First with bringing in Union laborers from all around the Bay Area, setting up tents and making the citizens of Concord walk through all of that to get to the auditorium. They took up all the seats in the main Auditorium and the Concord citizens were left in the Overflow room. The displays of intimidation have already started and the contract has not even gone through yet. They've changed the terms from what was agreed to with the residents of Concord. Adding additional housing that was never agreed to. If they are already asking for these kind of changes and intimidating the citizens to stand down, how bad is it going to get after they get assigned as master developer? How much time, money, and effort will they put into intimidating the council to do their bidding? We ask you please to let the negotiating agreement with Seeno and Concord First expire.

The overwhelming majority of the city of Concord residents have shown that they do not under any circumstances want Seeno as the developer of the Concord Naval weapons station. As Council persons you are there to represent your constituents. And your constituents DO NOT want this. We ask that you please let the term sheet expire with Seeno and Concord First.

Concord First should never have been chosen to begin with. It is not like the reputation of Seeno isn't known. If you have lived in this area you are well aware of the lawsuits, the environmental damage, and shady practices of Seeno. He has already had one lawsuit for killing the red legged frog an endangered species, which is exactly the species we have on the Concord Naval weapons station. We also have the California tiger salamander, and the Golden Eagle both of which are endangered species. What would make you think that those endangered species would be protected when he's already shown a pattern of killing these animals in a project just 10 miles away?

During the meeting the question was asked from the council about the EIR report to be completed and if that would affect the number of housing units in the future if it came back negatively. I was shocked that one of the answers that was given is that the city council could ignore the report and move forward. I have gone through the initial EIR report done years ago, and I am aware that the noise level that currently exists is already considered over acceptable standards. Before the deal is even agreed to, they're already asking you to do something unscrupulous like ignoring this information which is used as a protection to your constituents and the environment.

Other than being intimidated there is absolutely no logical reason to continue this process with Seeno and Concord First.

Once again, the constituents of Concord plead with you to please let the term sheet expire. Please do not move forward with this agreement.

Kind Regards,

Allison Seavey
Concord Resident

Page 620 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Compere <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 2:51 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: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Dear Concord City Council,

Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

Lennar was trustworthy and has a credible reputation. Concord should work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster. Please, let this arrangement with Seeno lapse, and work toward re-establishing the deal with Lennar,

Regards,
Peter Compere
Concord Resident

Page 621 of 712 ends

From: Wayne Kaminski <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 1:28 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] Cc: Wayne Kaminski <[email protected]>
Subject: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Dear Concord City Council,
Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

How are these units going to fit in with the earlier agreed to housing density? This alteration alone should be enough to reject CFP.
 It fails to live up to green space and affordable housing commitments that the public were guaranteed in the Area Reuse Plan.
 It increases car dependence and traffic by failing to take advantage of the North Concord BART Station in the first phase of the project.  And it offers Seeno and their partners the entire project site at once rather than seeing how they do with a first piece and going from there.

Why are Concord residents being asked to make a huge project even more gigantic in exchange for fewer community benefits than what they were already promised?

For example, Concord is being shorted about eight Todos Santos Plazas worth of green space in the current Term Sheet.

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.

The CFP company’s own representatives tried to eliminate the city’s leverage on the project, and even admitted they couldn’t make the project work.

Page 622 of 712 ends

PLEASE let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the City can find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

This project greatly affects all Bay Point residents who prefer to conduct business, use professional services, and enjoy the restaurants in Concord. Willow Pass Road is my conduit into and out of Concord. These are my reasons for adding my comments in this email.

Also, the proposed widening of Willow Pass Rd. does nothing to solve the bottleneck at the one lane connections to Hwy. 4 that are regulated by stop signs and the bottleneck of one lane connections into and out of the entrance into Concord. Have any of you tried to use Willow Pass Rd to Hwy. 4 during late afternoon commute hours? The backup extends all the way to 6th Street in Concord. I think the CNWS Project street connections to existing Concord streets along Concord Blvd. (West, Mendocino, Denkinger, etc.) will not allow safe passage out of the Project.

All those connector streets from Concord Blvd to Clayton Rd, are two lane streets regulated by stop signs and running through neighborhoods. These streets were never designed to safely support increased traffic. Simply put, Concord's existing infrastructure is not designed nor is capable to support the grafting of nearly 60,000 new residents. To think that CNWS residents will stay within their new area and existing Concord residents will stay away may be more of a truth due to inadequate street layouts and traffic capacities.

Regards,
Wayne Kaminski, Bay Point Resident

Page 623 of 712 ends

From: JC JC <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 12:26 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: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Dear Concord City Council,

I have personal experience with the incompetence of Seeno developers.

There were new homes built right next door to me. The land those homes sit on are higher than my property and whenever they water their lawn or it rains, the water drains toward my house.

The back end of my house near the new homes had already sunk 2 inches lower than the front end. My walls were cracking, the slab was cracking and floors were lifting. Doors would not shut.

I had to have piers put under a major portion of my house and over 1000 square feet of slab removed and replaced INSIDE. . I was unable to use any or my bedrooms, bathrooms and laundry room. Unable to live in that portion of the home at all. Had to move all furniture out. Naturally, had to have all new flooring put in.

The work began in October of 2021 and I was not able to use the bedrooms, baths, laundry until February, 2022.

Also had to have a french drain put in to carry the water away from the house.

EXTREMELY expensive. Insurance would not cover.

Thought of suing Seeno but seeing how many other lawsuits against them for shoddy work and they are still in business, could not afford to lose more monies.

With all of the bad history attributed to Seeno, I am surprised the City of Concord would even consider them fit to do more damage to our area.

Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners e xpire. 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 sp ecifically 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 let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the City can find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Regards,
Jeannie Hiatt
Concord Resident

Page 624 of 712 ends

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 10:54 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: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

As a resident for 30 years, I have the following concerns, many of which were raised during the 9hr meeting last week.

First: I find it very difficult to trust Seeno, since they have such a long history of environmental disregard, cheats, and issues. On top of that they actually sued us (City of Concord) to stop this same project while it was out to another developer. And that doesn't touch on the family issues currently being fought out in the company, affects those battles could have on decision-making on a project of this scale. And their recent attempt to develop on top of the hill overlooking the project.

Second: While I can understand the reasons for adding close to 3,000 more homes , the answers given for why had to do with the numbers "not penciling out". They should have known that before bidding. The fact that they came back to the City and said they need to add that many units is the first indicator of how this project will go with them in the lead.

Third: Counting the ADUs as part of low income housing is ridiculous, and the City should neither go for, nor allow it. This is another sign of how Seeno will twist our collective tails to make money on the project.

Either we build the stated units or we don't, but we need to be honest about it. ADUs are a cop-out, a way around the requirement. As clearly admitted during the meeting, there is no way to require or confirm they meet the goal. Nor is there any study showing they have in other cities. Allowing, in fact pushing ADUs is a laudable goal, but not to replace below-market housing requirements. Again, this is a signal of how this project will go with the current developers.

Fourth: This question was not raised. The third partner in this deal is Phil Tagami. He has a track record of development in CA, but is best known currently for fighting the City of Oakland for most of the last decade to put a large coal depot in. With the long list of environmental concerns, both concerning transport of all that coal through our County and the facility itself in Oakland, do we really want to trust his lack of concern for the future health of our residents on a project of this magnitude to Mr. Tagami?? Point of fact the tracks that thousands of those coal cars would run on are within a couple miles of this project!

Dear Concord City Council, Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. 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 residen ts 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 let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the City can find and work with a trust worthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Regards,
John, Tamara & Ellie King

Page 625 of 712 ends

From: Mike Bassett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:37 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: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Please read as this is not the generic mass email response.

Dear Council,

Many of us are not able to attend the meetings due to personal or family issues and/or scheduling. Please consider these emails as if we were in attendance. It’s not fair for unions to blow out the meetings and use up valuable comment time for the Seeno team. For sure Seeno has flooded the unions with financial aid to mobilize their efforts. Don’t let power of money influence your decision. Do the right thing. Let this expire and “search and entertain” other reputable builders or developers.

Regards,
Michael Bassett
Concord Resident and Homeowner

Mike Bassett
Artist • Designer • Illustrator • Cartoonist

Page 626 of 712 ends

From: Rochelle Fortier <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:41 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: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Dear Concord City Council,

Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

The Term Sheet is deeply flawed and should be rejected.  It proposes more than 3,300 additional housing units than was accepted for the project in the Area Reuse Plan approved by the council and community in 2012.  It fails to live up to green space and affordable housing commitments that the public were guaranteed in the Area Reuse Plan.
 It increases car dependence and traffic by failing to take advantage of the North Concord BART Station in the first phase of the project.
 And it offers Seeno and their partners the entire project site at once rather than seeing how they do with a first piece and going from there.

For the cities of Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill, what is going to be done about the increase of traffic on Ygnacio Valley Rd, and Treat Blvd if even more additional 3,300 housing units will be added to the project now?

Let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire.

Sincerely,
Rochelle Fortier
3281 Hudson Ave.

Walnut Creek, California

Page 627 of 712 ends

From: Kevin McGahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 9:13 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: Let the exclusive negotiating agreement with Seeno expire

PLEASE let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. There are too many concerns related to mismanagement, corruption, and financial irregularities for Concord residents to feel comfortable with them being awarded this project. The fact that family members are currently in litigation against one another is a reflection of the amount of instability going on internally at Seeno at this time. It would be irresponsible to move forward with them at this time.

Thanks,
Kevin McGahan
Concord resident

Page 628 of 712 ends

From: Spalding Ashley <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 10:20 AM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: Drop Seeno Now

Director Guy Bjerke,
Though I'm not currently a resident of Concord, this project affects all of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area region.

Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire.

More than 90 percent of public comments specifically asked you not to choose them as the Master Developer. Concord residents were ignored.

Don't let this dishonest and unethical developer have the keys to Concord's kingdom.

Let the agreement with Seeno expire, and find a developer that will respect the ENVIRONMENT, Concord & Contra Costa County.

Thanks!
Spalding Ashley
[email protected]
Alamo, California 94507

Page 629 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Holden <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 10:25 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] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Diane Beyer Scott <[email protected]>
Subject: Let Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and Partners Expire

Dear Concord City Council,

I have been a Martinez resident for the past seven years, have lived in Walnut Creek for about 10 years and am currently considering residency in Concord. As a resident Contra Costa County, I believe I have a direct stak e in how land is developed on the skirts of the East Bay’s most visible and profound monument to beauty and life —it is one of the key reasons I continue to live nearby. I have served on a design review committee for a major development in Elk Grove—Laguna West—from 1992-2006 and understand the importance of balancing housing with beauty and regional environmental concerns. I am also the vice -president of my HOA and deal with that balance of interests as our landscape changes due to climate change.

I am deeply disturbed about the direction of the Faria Project, as proposed by the master developer because of the costs it imposes on the region and the adjacent regional and state parks. If it is built, there will be a multi - generational loss to the entire county and the region and a windfall gain to the developers. As leaders, you will have missed an opportunity to continue grow the region in a way that benefits all the citizens of Contra Costa County—it will have left a scar that will remind CoCo County residents everyday of the values lost to self-interested developers. As leaders of the largest city in the county, you have utmost responsibility for making sound decisions that affect current and future generations of the county’s citizenry.

Therefore, please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. 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 partn ers 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 leve rage 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 let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement expire. Then, the city can find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord and all of Contra Costa County instead of creating a disaster.

Kind Regards,

Richard Holden

Martinez Resident
PH 916-690-0175

Page 630 of 712 ends

From: Scales, Shanelle <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 10:04 AM
To: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; Ananthan, Stefanie <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter from Congressman Mark DeSaulnier

Hello Joelle,

Hope you’re having a great day!

Please share attached letter from Congressman Mark DeSaulnier with the City Manager, Director of Community Reuse Planning, Mayor and Councilmembers.

If you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate contact me on my cell at (925) 698-1613 cell#.

Warmest regards,
Shanelle

Shanelle Scales-Preston
District Director
Office of Congressman DeSaulnier (CA-10)
3100 Oak Road, Suite #110
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
[email protected]
Tel: (925) 933-2660 | Cell: (925) 698-1613 | Fax: (925) 933-2677

Page 631 of 712 ends

Page 632 of 712 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.

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:

# First Name Last Name Zip Code
1 Antoine Carruth 94591
2 Joseph Hendricks 94533
3 Lamont Hall 94585
4 Robert Lucas 95240
5 Jedediah Goddard 94501
6 Xavier Castillo 95351
7 David Orlandi 94550
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.

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.

Page 633 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name Zip Code
8 Ricardo Cervantes 94603
9 Dave Meehan Jr. 95758
10 Donald Bogard 94531
11 Donald Cruz 94533
12 Luis Molina Maravilla 94541
13 Jose A Villegas Lupercio 95330
14 David Bartolome 94587
15 John Almogela 94547
16 Hector Salcedo 94525
17 Frank Capenhurst 94585
18 Giovanni Mora Galvez 90715
19 Angel Greer 94509
20 Tammae Ross 94565
21 Kevin L Ray 46307
22 Alex Garcia 94553
23 Mike Jones 94123
24 Lee Martinez 94521
25 Anthony Moreci 95834
26 Jared Vance 93422

Page 634 of 712 ends

The following people submitted the above email:

# First Name Last Name City
1 Emily Fowler Concord
2 Debbie Lamph Concord
3 Channa Olson Pittsburg
4 Jody Smith Concord
5 Ellen Koukis Concord
6 Gustavo Guardado Concord
7 RE Burg Concord
8 Rocko Brown Pittsburg
9 Chandra Collins Concord
10 Lida Gifford Concord
11 Joe Gaviria Pittsburg
12 Molly De La Rosa Concord
13 George Scott Concord
14 Kristina Zewig Martinez
Director Guy Bjerke,
Please let the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Seeno and their partners expire. This project could be the largest development in northern California, and definitely the largest one in our region.

Then, the city can find and work with a trustworthy, capable entity to create something that will benefit Concord instead of creating a disaster.

Page 635 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name City
15 Robin Sexton Concord
16 Ginger Megley Walnut Creek
17 Jeremy Talarico Concord
18 SW Daniels Concord
19 Marlene Davis Concord
20 Mayra Melville Concord
21 Tanya Rae Pittsburg
22 Maren Stanczak Concord
23 Diane Scott Concord
24 Edward Bailey Pittsburg
25 Mayette Bailey Pittsburg
26 Jesus Banuelos Concord
27 Nadia Joseph Pittsburg
28 Tim Stewart Lafayette
29 Richard Hedvall Concord
30 Matthias Mccall Concord
31 Fro Schmidt -
32 Marcia Matthiesen Concord
33 Christin Vuong Concord
34 rhletourneau - -
35 Nancy Snyder Pleasant Hill
36 Shirley Huie Concord
37 Valerie Melville Concord
38 Sherri Rogers Concord
39 Carlos Collins Martinez
40 Julio Guillen Concord
41 Meredith Hall Berkeley
42 Patty Parodi Concord
43 CM Cussary Concord
44 Ronette Jennings Antioch
45 Jason Baskett Orinda
46 Terri Lusk Concord
47 Guenter Hofstadler Concord
48 Amanda Ashton-Sager Concord
49 Leyanne Amos Concord
50 Elaine Jegi Concord
51 Travis Tanovitz Concord
52 Viicki Philan Concord
53 Bryan Walley Concord
54 Susanne Walley Concord
55 Summer Siino Concord
56 Mike Small Concord

Page 636 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name City
57 Sonja Wilkin Clayton
58 Phyl Van Ammers Concord
59 Raquel Contreras Concord
60 Ward Hinds Concord
61 Matt Clark Concord
62 Jeannie Hiatt Concord
63 Beverly Loomis Concord
64 MaryAnn Carnahan Concord
65 Marion Roccanova Concord
66 Douglas Cardamone Concord
67 LaVerne Lethaby Pittsburg
68 B Hailey -
69 Donna Cook Concord
70 Hilary Hecht Concord
71 Gini Roberti Concord
72 Lindsay Mugglestone Berkeley
73 Dennis Weidenbach Concord
74 Shane McKinley Concord
75 Jami Martinez Concord
76 Alice Lynn-Wilkinson Walnut Creek
77 Jerry Page Concord
78 Linnea Wigren Concord
79 Karin Deas Walnut Creek
80 Deanna Simmons Concord
81 Bretton Rideau Concord
82 Audrey Tawney Concord
83 Christian Grames Concord
84 Bob Bloom Concord
85 Brett Boldrini Concord
86 Allison Rideau Concord
87 Ann Burnett Concord
88 Bev Maccario Concord
89 Benjamin Bomberry Concord
90 Carey Rekedal Martinez
91 Sheila Dixon Concord
92 Katherine Utchen Concord
93 Edgar Navarro Concord
94 Candace Cahill Concord
95 Janice Andrews Pittsburg
96 Julia Flinker Concord
97 Rex Bothell Concord
98 Elisabeth Tuiasosopo Pittsburg

Page 637 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name City
99 Ernie Stock Concord
100 Ray Chavez Concord
101 Elaina Martin Concord
102 Nathaly Lilia -
103 Annette Benton Pittsburg
104 Griselda Quezada Concord
105 Kara Mullane Clayton
106 Roc Dzikielewski Concord
107 Tatiana McHUgh Clayton
108 Katie Steiner Concord
109 Ruthie Norton Lafayette
110 Kristen Van Dam Port Costa
111 Marha Land Concord
112 Rob Knowles Concord
113 Mary Ann Holmes Pittsburg
114 Kendall De Jong Walnut Creek
115 Jake Delatorre-Reimer Concord
116 Charles Rickenbacher Concord
117 Phing Thong Concord
118 Raj Krishnamurthy Concord
119 Karl Pister Concord
120 Ivan Bueno Concord
121 Alex Davis Concord
122 Clarisse Ruszel Concord
123 Maureen Riggs Concord
124 Gaye McDuff Concord
125 Kody Jones Concord
126 Tasha Tyler Concord
127 lcasti4557 - -
128 Mario Balestrieri Concord
129 Jane DeYoung Concord
130 Nilson Papa Pittsburg
131 Louise Mcguire Concord
132 April Kee Concord
133 Masi James -
134 Kaylie Hagen Concord
135 Connor Rugaard Walnut Creek
136 Jessika Hoffman Concord
137 Kristin Hicks Walnut Creek
138 Vicki Potts Concord
139 Roy Branda Concord
140 Kate redoakrealty -

Page 638 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name City
141 Caroline Stephens Walnut Creek
142 Nikki Moffett Walnut Creek
143 Tanner Frey Pittsburg
144 Hans Lumi Concord
145 Renny Lumi Concord
146 Caleb Hutapea Concord
147 Orlando Ruben Concord
148 Febrina Lumi Concord
149 Quin Sales-Lee Pittsburg
150 Shereen Motarjemi Pleasant Hill
151 Cordero Michael Concord
152 EJ Pricco Concord
153 Brenda Clark Concord
154 Anastacia Scammell Concord
155 Carly Clements Owens Alamo
156 Tineke Jacobsen Walnut Creek
157 Max Pricco Concord
158 Vincent Hangman Fairfield
159 Carl Tilchen Dublin
160 Georgia Rowe Concord
161 Martin Gibb Pleasant Hill
162 Jorge Balderrama Concord
163 bassoon66 - -
164 Fiorella Russo-Jang Martinez
165 Steve Lathrop Lafayette
166 Edwin Osada Concord
167 Jeanie Morrow Walnut Creek
168 Jean King Livermore
169 Gordon Monroe Concord
170 Don Dudan Walnut Creek
171 Marie Davenport Walnut Creek
172 Laura Kindsvater Antioch
173 Kenneth Fine Pittsburg
174 Samuel Ghorbani Walnut Creek
175 Ross Fisher Concord
176 Brittani Pygeorge Concord
177 Meghan White Concord
178 Grandma White Concord
179 Wesley Sarchett Concord
180 Steven C. Lopez Concord
181 Moses J Domingo Concord
182 Bryce Sarchett Concord

Page 639 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name City
183 Luis Valera Concord
184 Rev. Deborah E. Bullard Concord
185 Roxanne Bigham Pleasant Hill
186 Lamphdeb - Concord
187 Thomas R. Ring Concord
188 Sharon Ring Concord
189 Sher W Concord
190 Marc Caredio Concord
191 Debra Penovich Concord
192 Vivki L Philan Concord
193 John J. Robinson Concord
194 Betty Dankas Concord
195 Daniel A. Howard Concord
196 Francis A. Barrett Concord
197 Sebastien Letessier Concord
198 Lorena Rodriguez Concord
199 Citlalli - -
200 Ariadne Prater Walnut Creek
201 Ronald Potts Concord
202 Tomas Kasan Concord
203 Marika Dragotti -
204 dmunson175 - Concord
205 Stacey Chastain Concord
206 Lyudmil Grigorov Concord
207 Christianne Parotti Concord
208 Lawrence Striley Concord
209 Sylvia Gonzalez Concord
210 Ruth Bella Concord
211 Michael J. Blackwell Concord
212 Carol Ann Quigley Martinez
213 Jill Parke Concord
214 Melinda Silva Concord
215 Christie Heide Concord
216 Gail Mores Concord
217 Maria Caredio Concord
218 Marty Fabianek Concord
219 Kristoffer Valera Concord
220 Rodrigo Baltazar Concord
221 Desiree Bisconer Concord
222 Cherryl Gray Concord
223 Lynna Allen Pinole
224 Theresa Grikalva Pittsburg

Page 640 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name City
225 Colin Safreed Concord
226 Melissa Foreman Concord
227 AM Hodgkinson Concord
228 Andrew Abbett Pleasant Hill
229 Holly Pereira Concord
230 Peter DeGennaro Pittsburg
231 Margaret Bermingham Concord
232 Briana Harrison Concord
233 Ron Hollis Martinez
234 Rick Crowell Concord
235 Joyce Leveque Clayton
236 Gina Worsham Concord
237 Scott Dinsdale Concord
238 Sherry Al-Mufti Concord
239 Thomas Kasan Concord
240 Patrick Sousa Oakley
241 Kent Ramirez Concord
242 Jonathan Winter Moraga
243 Brad Blevins Concord
244 Timothy Burgess Concord
245 Suzanne Mahoey Pleasant Hill
246 Lois Riddle Brentwood
247 Myra Delzeit Concord
248 Karla Duncan Concord
249 Peggy Aluna -
250 Juan Mercado Pittsburg
251 Nicholas Maufe Walnut Creek
252 Cheryl Schmidt Lafayette
253 Anna Halberson Walnut Creek
254 Sandi Morey -
255 Jeffrey Williams Concord
256 Kelly Kruse Concord
257 Kim Christiana Concord
258 Stephanie Cruz Concord
259 Bill Viola Concord
260 Sara Baca Concord
261 Ken Back Concord
262 Rachel Eaton Concord
263 Julie Hayes Concord
264 Pamela Potts Concord
265 Petra Kasan Concord
266 Libuse Kasan Concord

Page 641 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name City
267 Barbara George Concord
268 Larry Loomer Concord
269 Diana Mason Clayton
270 Luke Grigorov Concord
271 Danielle Salet Concord
272 Patricia Walt Concord
273 Deb Marshall Concord
274 Joel Rentner Concord
275 Kathleen Parker Concord
276 Miguel Gonzalez Concord
277 Joy Blanc Concord
278 Sandy Parbury Concord
279 Alicia Oceguera Concord
280 Jack Enright Concord
281 Cindy Brittain Walnut Creek
282 Paula Reilly Concord
283 J Horner -
284 Cynthia Striley Concord
285 Daniel Puertas Concord
286 Alison Hill Lafayette
287 Joan McDaniel Concord
288 Steven Duncan Concord
289 Bernard Smith Concord
290 Linda Haycox Pittsburg
291 Sarah Harris Concord
292 Martha Breed Walnut Creek
293 James Hoffman Concord
294 Doug King Concord
295 Bonnie Phillipo Concord
296 Jennifer Avalos Martinez
297 Jessica Johnson Concord
298 Jim McEachran Concord
299 C Lindberg Concord
300 Carol Lane Concord
301 Dorothy Hoadley Concord
302 Sandra Slater Concord
303 Frederick Letessier Concord
304 Dan Pollak Concord
305 Tom Lathrop Concord
306 Jeff Nixon Concord
307 Lynne Williams Concord
308 John Slater Concord

Page 642 of 712 ends

# First Name Last Name City
309 Christine Howard Pleasant Hill
310 Mary Minutoli Concord
311 David Belli -
312 Elizabeth Connolly Concord
313 Michael Carter Concord
314 Mark Spellman Concord
315 Greg Allen Concord
316 Susan Weyl Concord
317 Robert Underwood Concord
318 Paul Fiedler Concord
319 Karen Siverson Concord
320 Klaus Kutz Walnut Creek
321 John Karachewski Walnut Creek
322 Michelle Barrett Concord

Page 643 of 712 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Subject: reject CFP term sheet

Dear Mayor Hoffmeister, Councilmember Obringer, and Councilmember Nakamura:

Each of you previously expressed concerns over Concord First Partners (“CFP”) becoming MasterDeveloper for the Concord Naval Weapons project. Please acknowledge that those concerns have proven accurate, and use your majority three votes this Saturday to reject CFP’sproposed term sheet and let the exclusive negotiating agreement expire.

The term sheet proposed changes that so significantly alter Concord’s long standing specific plan forthe project, Concord needs to have a competing bid from a competitive developer to make certain the city is getting the best deal possible. Please use your majority three votes to prevent Concord from repeating the same mistake made with Lennar.

This is not the time to rush forward in effort to save time. Creating the best contract for this project is far more important than a rush to start a project that will change Concord forever. CFP wants to increase housing units by over 30% and change Concord’s definition of affordable housing in an effort con the city into accepting what is now really 19% affordable housing. And CFP is doing this despite being unable todemonstrate it can fulfill even the most basic of contractual promises to get this done.

CFP partner Seeno made contractual PLA promises to the construction trades back in May 2020 that it cannot now fulfill without having Concord compensate for its shortcomings. Then CFP made representations to Concord City Council in April and October 2021 in order to secure an exclusive negotiating contract. All three of you expressedconcerns about CFP at that time. Vice Mayor Birsan told the media, the concerns over CFP were just “Seeno hate.” But we know that your concerns were far more substantive. In addition to its past actions creating a poor reputation with Concord residents, Seeno had sued the Navy over the project in 2018 and sued to stop the East Bay Regional Park in 2020.

Not surprisingly, CFP came back to the Council in May 2022 and asked for an extension of its exclusive negotiating agreement because it couldn’t get a term sheet together. It had to finally admit it made promises itcould not keep. Worse yet, CFP wantedConcord to bear the risk for its failure to truthfully and accurately make promises. It asked Concord to give it early property rights. Early property rights even thoughit couldn’t even get a term sheet plan together to present to Council by theagreed upon deadline! At that time, CouncilmemberObringer voted against the extension. She told the media she was concerned CFP would return later with moredemands. And she was dead right as here we are again with CFP making moredemands.

The history of tryingto select the developer shows we need Council to be able to select from atleast two competing term sheets with at least two qualified developers. We do not need to settle for secondbest.

Page 644 of 712 ends

We cannot merely rely on city staff and consultants to view records outside of the public view and then tellus to accept these significant changes sight unseen. Council needs to compare a term sheet fromanother developer. Staff is notqualified to tell Council to accept CFP’s term sheet without comparison. For example, we need to recall now that theprior exerts hired by staff advised the City Manager that current Director Bjerkewas not qualified to be hired as reuse director in 2015 but he was hired anyway. And the process has been a problem ever since.

The three of youhave an opportunity to keep this project what Concord wants it to be. Use your three majority votes to reject this unacceptableterm sheet on Saturday and open the process for much need competitive comparisonbased on CFP’s demand to change the specific plan.

Thank you.

Hope Johnson
Concord Resident

Page 645 of 712 ends

Consideration of
Concord First Partners
Term Sheet

GUY BJERKE, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AND BASE REUSE
JANUARY 7, 2023
1

Page 646 of 712 ends

Today’s Agenda

1. Staff Presentation

2. Concord First Partners Presentation

3. City Council Questions

4. Public Comment

5. Council Consideration
2

Page 647 of 712 ends

Staff Presentation

1. Project History Summary

2. What is a Term Sheet?
◦ What comes after acceptance of the Term Sheet?

3. CFP Term Sheet Highlights

4. LRA/City Protections

5. Alternative Actions
3

Page 648 of 712 ends

Project History Summary
2006 – B ase Closure
2007 - 2009 – C ommunity/Regional Outreach
2010 – R euse Plan – Clustered Villages with EIR
2012 – A rea Plan adopted with EIR amendments
2014 - 2016 – M aster Developer Selection #1 – ENA/Term Sheet 2017 – 2019 – D rafting of Specific Plan
March 2020 – E NA Expiration
4

Page 649 of 712 ends

Project History Summary (continued)
2020 – P roject Reset
◦ Discussion with developers/stakeholders on project success factors 2021 – M aster Developer Selection #2
◦ Project Labor Agreement > Streamlined RFQ for entire EDC ◦ RFQ issued in April 2021
◦ Three respondents in June 2021
◦ August 2021 – C ouncil votes 3 for CFP, 2 for Brookfield ◦ October 2021 – C ouncil votes 5-0 to enter ENA with CFP 5

Page 650 of 712 ends

Project History Summary (continued)
2022 – M aster Developer Selection #2
◦ January 2022 – L RA staff and CFP start Term Sheet negotiations ◦ May 2022 – C ouncil votes 4-1 to extend ENA to January 31, 2023 ◦ June - N ovember 2022 – Term Sheet negotiations
◦ November 30, 2022 – T erm Sheet released for public consideration ◦ December 1 and 15, 2022 – C ommunity Presentations
◦ Agency/Stakeholder/Organization Briefings
January 7, 2023 – C ity Council consideration of Term Sheet 6

Page 651 of 712 ends

What is a Term Sheet?
An outline of the potential future contract between LRA and Master Developer
Framework to be further negotiated into the future
Disposition & Development Agreement and Specific Plan
Based on a conceptual land-us e plan – types of
development, infrastructure and public facilities
Based on a conceptual financial plan demonstrating
estimated revenue and costs of the conceptual project
7

Page 652 of 712 ends

8 Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Concord First Partners ENA Land-use
Plan
Pro-
forma
$$
Term
Sheet
EIR
Specific Plan
Pro-
forma
$$
DDA/DA
October 2021
Extended by Council
January 2023
January 2025
24 Months
Clears
Conceptual
Mitigation $
Benefits $
Costs $
Term Sheet and Conceptual documents
provide guidance to the drafting of the
SP , EIR, and DDA/DA, and Area Plan
Amendment which will document
community benefits.

City/Navy
Payment $
Developer
Profit $
Navy wants to see near final version of
the Pro-forma before agreeing to the final
terms of any EDC Agreement.

EDC
Agreement
w/Navy
Legend
ENA – Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Land-use Plan – Uses, sq. ft., units, density
Pro-forma – Financial Plan
Term Sheet – Preliminary Deal Points
EIR – Environmental Impact Report
Specific Plan – Zoning, Design, Infrastructure
Area Plan Amendment – General Plan Changes
DDA – Disposition & Development Agreement
DA – Development Agreement
EDC – Economic Development Conveyance = City Council/LRA Decisions November 30, 2022
Area Plan
Amendment

Page 653 of 712 ends

CFP Term Sheet Highlights
Goal: To meet community expectations while insuring the financial feasibility of the Project

1. All 2,275 acres of the EDC in 5 phases over 40 years.

2. Increases residential unit count from Area Plan’s 12,272 to 1 5,595, using Junior Accessory Dwelling Units to meet a portion of the 25% affordable housing goal

3. Approximately 6 million square feet of commercial space; e
stimated to allow the creation of up to 16,920 jobs

4. Approximately 856 acres of parks, greenways and the phased r
estoration of the Mt. Diablo Creek corridor
9

Page 654 of 712 ends

Page 655 of 712 ends

CFP Term Sheet Highlights (continued)

5. Entire project is subject to a Project Labor Agreement with the CC B
uilding & Construction Trades

6. At least 50% of market-r ate residential units will be offered to unaffiliated vertical developers with a local preference

7. Pads and infrastructure for 3,020 units of affordable housing will b
e provided at an estimated cost of $187 million; additional $50 million contribution ($10 million per phase)

8. Legally Binding Agreement parcels for Food Bank (10 acres) and P
ermanent Supportive Housing (16 acres)
11

Page 656 of 712 ends

CFP Term Sheet Highlights (continued)

9. Four-a cre parcel for new Veteran’s Hall

10. A $65 million project contribution towards a Library/Community C
enter

11. A $100 million project contribution towards the Tournament Sports Co
mplex/City Park

12. Widening of Willow Pass Road to four lanes in Phase 1

13. Extension of Evora Road to Port Chicago Highway and Golf Course R
epair in Phase 1

14. Delta-D eAnza trail connection and Regional Park access in Phase 1 12

Page 657 of 712 ends

CFP Term Sheet Highlights (continued)

15. Expedited repayment of City Loan to project in Phases 1 & 2

16. CFP’s acceptance of Internal Rate of Return of 18%

17. City participation in project returns greater than 18% ◦ City share 40% - r eturns between 18 – 20%
◦ City share 50% - r eturns between 20 - 22%
◦ City share 60% - r eturns 22% or greater

18. Estimated payment(s) to Navy for EDC included in Conceptual F
inancial Plan
13

Page 658 of 712 ends

LRA/City Protections
A. Property to transfer in sub-p hases (50 to 100 acres) after CFP provides evidence of capability and bonds to City to ensure performance
B. CFP has agreed to a schedule of performance milestones to e
nsure the phased delivery of backbone infrastructure within certain time limits
C. CFP acting as Master Developer for backbone infrastructure and publ
ic amenities.
14

Page 659 of 712 ends

LRA/City Protections (continued)
D. Sale of land to affiliated builders must be at value reviewed and a
pproved by LRA
E. CFP agrees to Open Book Accounting with LRA inspection and a
udit rights, and annual reports
F. Changes in the composition of CFP requires LRA consent. 15

Page 660 of 712 ends

Alternative Actions:

1. Choose t o approve the Term Sheet as drafted ( LRA staff’s recommendation); or

2. Provide ad ditional direction to LRA staff and CFP
regarding additional or change provisions for
consideration in the Term Sheet and continue this
meeting to January 28, 2023, or

3. Reject th
e Term Sheet; direct LRA staff to let the ENA with
CFP expire on January 31, 2023.
16

Page 661 of 712 ends

CFP Presentation
Council questions to either LRA staff or CFP will follow CFP’s Presentation
17

Page 662 of 712 ends

MASTER DEVELOPER
Presentation By

CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION

TERM SHEET AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN

PRESENTATION

Page 663 of 712 ends

2 EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING PARTNER - CONCORD FIRST PARTNERS

PRESENTED BY JEB ELMORE, VICE PRESIDENT , CONCORD FIRST PARTNERS • Lewis Management Corp / Discovery Builders / California Capital Investment Group • Lewis Management Corp is the Managing Member
• Privately held – M ain Street not Wall Street
• Demonstrated Record of Accomplishments (RFQ selection of CFP) • Over 176 years of combined development experience
• Delivery of over 50M s quare feet of Retail, Commercial, and Industrial space • Delivery of over 120,000 homes
• Locally Owned – H eadquarters in Concord, and California • Base Reuse Experience – O akland Army Base, Mather Air Force Base, March Air Force Base 2Conceptual only

Page 664 of 712 ends

3 ROLE OF CONCORD FIRST PARTNERS AS MASTER DEVELOPER
• Planning and Development Ex pertise
• Stakeholder Collaboration to develop Specific Plan
• Implement a Project materially consistent with 2012 adopted Area Plan • Finance and Manage the Entitlements and Backbone Infrastructure • Assist City with N avy Conveyance Negotiations
• Deliver build-r eady sites for affiliated or unaffiliated end users • Most non-r esidential spaces - sold / leased to unaffiliated 3rd parties • 50% of m arket rate housing - sold to unaffiliated 3rd parties • Affiliate transfers require LRA approval of land values Conceptual only
3

Page 665 of 712 ends

4 DEDICATION TO PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
• Initiated work on Day One after selection
• Over 150 meetings with LRA / LRA Consultants
• 4 C ommunity “at large” Meetings
• Identified challenges / Produced solutions
• Promot e Financial Feasibility
• Underwriting Transparency
• Shared Success Program / City Profit Sharing
• Make it work with City as One Team, now, and in the future Conceptual only
4

Page 666 of 712 ends

5 PROMOTE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
• Recommended enhancements to promote financial feasibility • Increase the number of potential residential units (12,272 to 15,575) • Collaborated with LRA on pathways to expedite planning a
nd development timing
• Proposed Affordable Housing Programming
• Promote flexibility in land uses to support current/future markets • Implement Project-s pecific special financing districts • Orderly and practical project phasing
• Coordinated pursuit of public grant opportunities
Conceptual only
5

Page 667 of 712 ends

6 LABOR POLICIES AND LOCAL HIRE
• Proactive Engagement of Labor Partnership (Nov 2020)
• Project Labor Agreement
• Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades
• Fair Wages and Benefits
• Local Hire– 4 0% of construction workforce prioritized to City 1st, County 2nd
• Apprenticeship Programming / Job Training / Job Fairs 6Conceptual only

Page 668 of 712 ends

7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• 25% Affordable Housing @ 80% or below Area Median Income • Legally Binding Agreements
• Resolution 2012
• Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units • Developer requirements for pad delivery
• Orderly and balanced siting and implementation
• Related California as Affordable Partner
7Conceptual only

Page 669 of 712 ends

8 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) / JUNIOR

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (JADU)
• Studio/one Bedroom apartment included in home / lot
• Proven method for providing affordable housing
• Assembly Bill 671 – p romotes ADU’s at affordable rents • ADU’s satisfy RHNA Affordable Unit requirements
• Housing Element p rioritizes ADU’s (Program 1 of 25 Programs) • Surrounding Cities utilize ADU’s to fulfill affordable requirements • Promote Project Financial Feasibility
8Conceptual only

Page 670 of 712 ends

9 IMPLEMENTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Related California
• Over 18,000 Affordable units built
• Administrator –pr omote implementation / reduce City burden • Administrator- s ite selection; assist City in competitive bidding 100% • Opportunities for non-P rofits – Build, Own, Operate *25% • Partnerships with other non-P rofits – Build, Own, Operate *40% • Developer – B uild, Own, Operate *35%
9Conceptual only
*Allocations above proposed in balanced application by phase, not in order of priority

Page 671 of 712 ends

10 ENVIRONMENT / OPEN SPACE
• Public Benefit Conveyance of 2,539 Ac res – East Bay Regional Parks District • Parks and Greenways 386 A cres
• Onsite Wetland Preservation 35 A cres
• Recreation 174 A cres
• Greenframe Pa rk 82 Acres
• Mt. Diablo Creek Restoration 179 A cres
Total Parks / Recreation / Open Space Acres: 3,395 Acres 10Conceptual only

Page 672 of 712 ends

11 ENVIRONMENT / OPEN SPACE
• Expedited delivery of Habitat Mitigation
• Creation / Enhancement of Biological Mitigation
• Orderly and Balanced delivery of Habitat Mitigation Phases I-V • Impacts for Development mitigated through procurement of on and o
ff-site habitat conservation at a 2:1 ratio
• Full Transparency - C ity Retains full oversight and management of Environmental Permitting and Mitigation throughout Project 11Conceptual only

Page 673 of 712 ends

12 COMMUNITY BENEFITS
• Contribution of $100 Million toward Tournament Sports Park / Citywide P
ark starting in Phase I
• $5 Million Contribution in Phase I
• $95 Million contributions in Phases II-IV
• Contribution of $65M toward Community Center / Library in Phases II-III • Contribution of $50M towards Affordable Housing in Phases I-V • Expedited Repayment of City’s Loan of approximately $15M in Phases I-II • Delta-D e Anza interim trail connection Phase I – WPR to CCC • Expedited delivery of Neighborhood Serving Retail in Phase I • 10,000 square feet of building built by CFP in Phase I 12Conceptual only

Page 674 of 712 ends

13 CONCEPTUAL LAND USES / PHASING
• Project anticipated to be developed in 5 major phases over a 40-y ear timeline • Balanced delivery of mixed land uses, including open space • Proposing 16,920 Jobs w/ 6.1M SF at Buildout (Area Plan: 26,530 w/ 6.1M SF ) • Modernization of Residential Programming
• Promotion of market-r ate attainable housing / higher density • Responding to market demands – l ow maintenance
• Commitment to deliver New Willow Pass Road in Phase I • Commitment to deliver Recycled Water to the Project
Conceptual only 13

Page 675 of 712 ends

14 PHASE 1 – PROGRAMMING
14Conceptual only
• Financial Feasibility
• I
nfrastructure Phasing
• Willow Pass Road / Utilities
• Public Accessibility to Regional Park
• Readily Marketable Land Uses
• Early activation of Job Center
• Activation of Recreation/Sports Park
Continued exploration BART Accessibility/Transit
Connectivity during Specific Plan

Page 676 of 712 ends

15 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
• City retains full oversight of Environmental Permitting • City retains negotiation authority with Navy (EDC Agreement) • CFP offers Open Book Accounting for City verification • Joint pursuit of public financing opportunities
• Performance Milestones
• Conveyance Milestones (City to CFP)
• CFP agreement to operate at a below industry standard rate of return (18%) • Public Private Partnership – O ne Vision, One Project, One Team Conceptual only
15 Concord First Partners has done everything asked of us by the City to show our commitment to our Partnership and this Project

Page 677 of 712 ends

A WORLD CLASS

PROJECT

PRESENTED BY BRIAN JENCEK, FIRM-WIDE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, HOK

Page 678 of 712 ends

17Conceptual only 17

A WORLD CLASS PROJECT
Equitable and
Inclusive
• Promote a diversity of
businesses
• Provide for distinct identity
within neighborhood spaces
• Promote community-driven
development
• Wide housing type mix
Health and Wellness
through Open Space
• Diversity of open spaces
• Connected park network
• Walkable neighborhoods
Multi-Generational
• Foster a diverse, mixed -income
and multi-generational
community
• Promote opportunities for inter-
generational living
• Provide housing affordability
• Promote a range of housing
options
Universally
Accessible Active
Mobility
• Provide transportation
alternatives
• Higher intensity of uses
around transit station
• Complete Streets
• Biking and walking trails
Environmentally
Regenerative and
Net-Zero
• Capitalize on the BART station
to reduce car usage and carbon
emissions
• Promote low -carbon mobility
alternatives
• Renewable energy generated
on-site

Page 679 of 712 ends

18Conceptual only 18

LAND USE PLAN WITH PHASING

Page 680 of 712 ends

19Conceptual only 19
LAND USE PLAN: PHASE 1

Page 681 of 712 ends

20Conceptual only
20 PLAN HIGHLIGHTS
A transit-oriented district with the flavor of city life Neighborhoods with character and convenience A commercial district providing opportunities for
investment and job growth
Convenient, multi-modal transportation system
Action on climate change
Open spaces that provide for conservation and
recreation

Page 682 of 712 ends

21Conceptual only

SHARED GOALS
21 *Source: Plan Bay Area 2050

Page 683 of 712 ends

22Conceptual only
22

Page 684 of 712 ends

OPEN SPACES, RECREATION

AND TRAILS

Page 685 of 712 ends

24Conceptual only 24

OPEN SPACE & TRAILS CONCEPT
• Ensure c ontiguous open space networks and a variety of variety of parks.
• Provide connections to regional parks.
• Protect significant views.
• Connect the north-s outh Contra Costa Canal Trail with the Delta / De Anza Trail.

Page 686 of 712 ends

25Conceptual only

OPEN SPACE TYPES
25 Conservation nature park
Central greenway
8 7
4 1
1 2
4 3
5 6
7 8
2 5
Neighborhood parks Transit center plaza Recreational field

URBAN STREETSCAPES
Regional park & nature trails
Preservation of Mt. Diablo Creek corridor
and conservation trails
6 Source: David Aughinbaugh II david.aughinbaug h.com
Celebrate views to Mt. Diablo
3 Contra Costa Canal trail
Delta / De Anza trail

Page 687 of 712 ends

26Conceptual only 26

COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Neighborhood-Serving Retail
Delta-De Anza interim trail connectionTournament Sports Park

Page 688 of 712 ends

27Conceptual only
27 COMMUNITY CENTER / LIBRARY
Library
Community Center

Page 689 of 712 ends

28Conceptual only 28

SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES
• Sm art Waste
M a n agement
• Geothermal heating &
cooling
• Smart Water Meter
Sensors
• R ecycled Water Use
• District Thermal Energy
• Transportation Demand
Management to reduce
vehicle trips, vehicle
em issions, and traffic
congestion.
• Preferential parking for
car -share, carpool
• Tier 2 EV Charging
facilities
• Smart traffic
m anagement
• Af fordable Housing
• R oad connections
b etween the plan area
and surrounding
neighborhoods
• W alkable neighborhoods
• Sm art irrigation-
controlled sprinklers
• Increased use of
Recycled waters as the
p rimary supply source for
outdoor irrigation of
p ublic space, open
sp ace, and parks.
• Rainwater Capture
• Photovoltaic Electric
Generation
• Process towards Zero-
Gas community to reduce
GHG emissions
• Distributed Micro-grid
• Electric Energy Storage

Page 690 of 712 ends

29Conceptual only 29

SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES
• Utilization of Intelligent
Building Systems
• Automatic Waste
Collection Systems
( AWCS) improv es
cleanliness and reduces
truck traffic
• All -electric buildings,
elimination of natural gas
• Increased access to jobs
f or local residents
• Opportunities for
residents to source Farm-
to -Table produce
• Siting of educational
institutions and parks
within walking distance of
r e sidents
• Af fordable housing
attainable to range of
i n c omes
• Parks designed to
accommodate flood
events
• Rainwater capture or
harvesting
• W ater conserving
grasses, shrubs and
ground covers as an
alternative to turf for
residential yards
• C onnect to creek
corridors and regional
parks
• Provide wildlife viewing
areas for visitors
• Network of agrarian
p arks and community
gardens co -located
along greenways
• Enhance local ecology,
incorporate local flora, and
augment ecological value of
op en space
• Use of native plant
m aterials and drought
tolerant species to minimize
water use
• Habitat areas to promote
b iodiversity, attract local
p ollinators

Page 691 of 712 ends

EQUITABLE & INCLUSIVE

Page 692 of 712 ends

31Conceptual only 31
A WORLD CLASS PROJECT: EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE
• Promote Diversity of Businesses: Encourage small businesses. • Enable Ne ighborhood Identity Spaces: Public spaces, images, symbols, and landmarks provide a way to bind people together around a shared identity. • Promote community -driven development.
• Housing Type Mix: A mixture of housing types, sizes, and tenures, both single- family and multi-family.
• Foster a diverse, mixed -income and multi-generational community. • Promote p ublic space to develop social bonds between different groups in the community.
• Promote range of housing options that allow for people of different family types, ages and incomes to co-exist in the same neighborhood.
• Promote opportunities for inter -generational living through senior housing. • Create affordable housing opportunities for seniors, veterans and individuals with special needs.

Page 693 of 712 ends

32Conceptual only
32 JOB GENERATORS
Campus
6,338 Jobs

2.3M Gross Square Feet

0.35 / 0.7 FAR
Innovation District
5,276 Jobs

2.2M Gross Square Feet

0.65 FAR
Village Centers
340 Jobs
169,884 Gross Square Feet

0.3 FAR
Transit Oriented District
4,182 Jobs
940,896 Gross Square Feet

3.0 FAR

Page 694 of 712 ends

33Conceptual only

UCSF MISSION BAY CAMPUS, SAN FRANCISCO
33

Page 695 of 712 ends

34Conceptual only 34

HOUSING GENERATORS
Village Neighborhood –
Low Density*
4,638 Units
13,636 Residents
Transit Oriented District
Core
513 Market Rate Units
513 Affordable Units
1,898 Residents
Transit Oriented District
Neighborhood
385 Market Rate Units
570 Affordable Units
1,767 Residents
Village Neighborhood –
Medium Density*
7,039 Units
14,852 Residents
*Including 879 Affordable ADUs / JADUs Page 696 of 712

MEMORABLE PLACES

Page 697 of 712 ends

36Conceptual only 36

DISTRICTS
Transit-Oriented District Innovation District
Campus District Village Neighborhoods Page 698 of 712
37Conceptual only
37 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DISTRICT

Page 699 of 712 ends

38Conceptual only
38 INNOVATION DISTRICT

Page 700 of 712 ends

39Conceptual only
39 CAMPUS DISTRICT

Page 701 of 712 ends

40Conceptual only
40 VILLAGE CENTERS

Page 702 of 712 ends

41Conceptual only 41
CONCEPT PLAN: ACTIVITY CENTERS
• Provide activities centers within a
5-m
inute walking distance to the
majority of residents.

Page 703 of 712 ends

42Conceptual only
42 Source: https://lmcexperience.com/news/2018/ 10/31 /redeve lopme nt-idea s-be ing-floate d-for-concord- naval-w e a po ns-station/

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PLAN
• A transit-oriented district with vibrancy and activation • Neighborhoodswith character and convenience
• A commercial district offering flexibility and
opportunity for investment and job growth
• Open spaces that provide for conservationand
recreation
• Action on climate change
• Convenient, multi-modal transportation system
• Foster a diverse, mixed-income and multi-generational community

ACHIEVING YOUR GOALS
• Provide a dense mix of uses, good balance of live, work and play, with 24/7 vibe
• Provide a variety of housing types with accessibility to transit and amenities that feels uniquely Concord
• Flexibility to accommodate multiple types of businesses and create a road map for greater job density
• Protect sensitive habitat and enhance open space
through parks, recreation and trails.
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy
efficient transportation and maximizing bicycling and
walkability
• Provide a variety of travel modes, including walking, bicycling, micro mobility and transit circulator
• Promote range of housing options, including affordable housing
56

Page 704 of 712 ends

Imagine
BY EDWARD F. DEL BECCARO

Page 705 of 712 ends

- This is an exciting project that is proposed by Concord First Partners - 15,595 residential units including 25% affordable
- 6.1 million sf of commercial space
- Opportunity is to create approximately 17,000 diverse paying jobs by creating the ecosystem to
attract the jobs of the future
- There is a major need for housing for middle class work force to attract those jobs. - Concord cannot depend upon workers commuting 45 to 60 minutes one way to work in the pr
oposed employment centers

Page 706 of 712 ends

- One reason for the over 20 % office vacancy in the N680 corridor is the changing tenant pr
ofile who used to lease this space i.e.: Financial, Insurance, Back Office, Engineering who have migrated out of area to Sacramento or out of state - Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Park are tearing down office buildings and rezoning of
fice commercial land to housing to attract “The New Employers” - Why? To create workforce housing near and next to the Employment Centers. - The 60-a cre Chevron Park after Chevron left for Texas is proposed to be 70 to 80% residential - Each city as we know is required to implement a “Sustainability Plan” reducing car traffic to r
educe emissions with workforce housing next to employment centers - The new housing will create nearby jobs in retail, entertainment, service jobs and medical

Page 707 of 712 ends

- For the proposed Innovation and commercial zoned parcels, I recommend the m
aximum zoning and use flexibility designations with streamlined approvals - Remember Concord is competing with many other cities and states for the new jobs - How do we predict what employment uses will be in 30-40 years let alone 5? - The I Phone was invented in 2007. No one who drafted a zoning specific plan in 2000 a
nticipated the new job sectors and how space would be used in their 2000 general plans
- There is enough office space in Concord right now that it will take 8 to 10 years to lease up a
t current annual lease absorption rates.
- Average office rents are $2.18 per sf per month, and it takes $5.00 per sf to build a new o
ffice building that meets the new seismic standards for medical and life science uses. - Retail and buyer trends are drastically changing and reducing the amount of space r
etailers need. Bed, Bath and Beyond to announce BK next few weeks

Page 708 of 712 ends

The Project will create Various Districts for future employment sector growth jobs:

The Concord Blue Ribbon Committee of which I was a member, envisioned that the Concord Naval Weapons Station , because of its Central Location, large campus land sites and access to nearby educated workforce, would be in a position to attract :

Academic and Research institutions, R & D labs and or satellite campuses in the Cyber Security, Advanced Food Production, Medical Research, Robotics, Advanced Construction materials, Logistics, Clean Tech, Clean Energy and Medical Instrument Manufacturing sectors similar to what Fremont and Vacaville have recently achieved .

The Campus ,Innovation District and Transit Oriented Districts will benefit from the marketing strategies of the Diablo Valley Tech Initiative and Northern Waterfront Initiative ( note the City of Concord is a member of both) along with the Concord Buchanan Airport which have as their mission attracting these future companies to the North 680 and Highway 4 Corridors.

Page 709 of 712 ends

Imagine a new city with Needed Middle Class Work Force Housing along with Affordable Housing
Imagine World Class Educational Research Institutes, Parks, and Schools Imagine New Jobs created in Life Science, Medical, Advanced Manufacturing, Biotech, AI & Robotics
Imagine Concord as the Major Regional Employment Center in the Bay Area Imagine starting today with approving this Term Sheet

Page 710 of 712 ends

49Conceptual only 49
CONTACT US!
twitter.com/Concord_First
instagram.com/concordfirstpartners
facebook.com/people/Concord-First-Partners-LLC/100083582312148/ [email protected]
www.concordfirstpartners.com

Page 711 of 712 ends

WE ARE 100% COMMITTED TO THE CITY & LRA
ONE VISION, ONE PROJECT, ONE TEAM!

Page 712 of 712 ends

Concord City CouncilJanuary 28, 2023

Concord City Council
January 28, 2023