condition without the presence of any "munitions and explosives of concern" (MECs), and cleaned of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The presence of MECs and PFAs would cause safety concerns restricting how the land could be used.
Or something like that.
There are parts of this term sheet which do contain run-on sentences, and run-on paragraphs. The result is a document that is laborious to read, and sometime confusing to untangle.
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 6:02 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Laura Nakamura <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Dear Director Bjerke:
The following provision is included in the draft CNWS term sheet that is currently posted online on the Council meeting agenda for Feb. 20. Please advise if this means the City of Concord intends to request the Navy turn over property that has not been fully cleaned or if it is intended to serve a different purpose.
"It is in the Parties’ mutual interest for the First Transfer Parcel to transfer from the Navy to the City as expeditiously as possible without any use or activity restrictions, including with respect to munitions and explosives of concern (“MEC”) and perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), that would materially impede development of the First Transfer Parcel and for subsequent Transfer Parcels to transfer without any use or activity restrictions that would materially impede development of such property as expeditiously as possible thereafter."
Thank you for your assistance. As I mentioned during general public comment on Tuesday of this week, it is not appropriate for the public to have such a short amount of time (less than a week) to review and comment on this lengthy and complicated term sheet that includes a proposal for significant use of our property taxes via CFDs.
Hope Johnson
Concord Resident
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:02 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Dear Mayor Birsan:
Thanks again for following up. My previous question was related to making sure nothing had changed with respect to the current plan set forth at recent Navy meetings for remediation of the land to be turned over in the first phase. Now that Council's consideration of the term sheet has been moved to a later date, I have time to check in with the Navy for any questions.
Thank you for moving the date of the meeting.
Hope Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Sent: Feb 16, 2024 2:59 PM
To: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>, Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Again to make it clear, the focus is that the land be clean for development. So prior to being cleaned the concern is not who owns the land but that it be cleaned.
Do I have this right?
Edi Birsan
If you want to meet let me know.
Please take my independent survey
At www.PulseOfConcord.com
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 6:50:52 PM
To: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Dear Mayor Birsan:
Thank you for following up. This is a concern over the health of residents who live near the CNWS. Development should not begin until each parcel has been cleaned to a clear, understandable, and measurable standard set by the Navy. The City of Concord should not be seeking to cut corners on cleanup at a site designated as a superfund site for any reason, and most especially not for financial reasons or a rush to show on progress on a troubled project.
Hope Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>
Sent: Feb 15, 2024 6:13 PM
To: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>, Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]> Subject: Re: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Thanks for the concerns but can you be more specific, is there a concern that the land transfer would halt remediation efforts that are required or is it a concern over liability while the remediation is in progress ?
Edi Birsan
If you want to meet let me know.
Please take my independent survey
At www.PulseOfConcord.com
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 6:02:01 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Laura Nakamura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Dear Director Bjerke:
The following provision is included in the draft CNWS term sheet that is currently posted online on the Council meeting agenda for Feb. 20. Please advise if this means the City of Concord intends to request the Navy turn over property that has not been fully cleaned or if it is intended to serve a different purpose.
"It is in the Parties’ mutual interest for the First Transfer Parcel to transfer from the Navy to the City as expeditiously as possible without any use or activity restrictions, including with respect to munitions and explosives of concern (“MEC”) and perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), that would materially impede development of the First Transfer Parcel and for
subsequent Transfer Parcels to transfer without any use or activity restrictions that would materially impede development of such property as expeditiously as possible thereafter."
Thank you for your assistance. As I mentioned during general public comment on Tuesday of this week, it is not appropriate for the public to have such a short amount of time (less than a week) to review and comment on this lengthy and complicated term sheet that includes a proposal for significant use of our property taxes via CFDs.
Hope Johnson
Concord Resident
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 12:58 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Roden, Josh <[email protected]> Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Thank you for continuing consideration of the term sheet until March 19. I now have time to review the records and request information from others that may answer questions I would have had to ask hurriedly if the meeting had moved forward the day after a holiday. I'm certain many people and community groups appreciate the extra time. Brookfield has been interacting credibly with the public so far and this continuation appears to keep that going.
Hope Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Feb 15, 2024 7:08 PM
To: Bjerke Guy <[email protected]>
Cc: Birsan Edi <[email protected]>, Obringer Carlyn <[email protected]>, Aliano Dominic <[email protected]>, Nakamura Laura <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]>, Barone Valerie <[email protected]>, Brown Susanne <[email protected]> Subject: Re: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Please note that I have not reviewed the term sheet in its entirety because it is 70 pages long and has many financial calculations to consider, but nice attempt at trying to mitigate the City's failure to allow adequate time for the public to review such a complicated project. I will have many more questions.
I do, however, start with checking first for term sheet items related to cleanup efforts because, unlike you or any of the seated councilmembers, my neighbors and I will be in the direct line of dirt and construction debris from this project.
I appreciate your explanation below but it does not address: "including with respect to munitions and explosives of concern (“MEC”) and perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”)." The provision appears to asking to exclude these contaminates, one of which is a toxic substance still being evaluated for how toxic it might be (for example, the recent concern over cleanup of fire fighting foam). Is the City asking the Navy to
exclude some toxic substances from consideration of what is considered an "appropriate standard?"
Further questions will follow on financial issues once reviewed - the public should have more time to understand this. As you know, backbone infrastructure cannot be financed from taxes generated within the boundaries of the property because it has to be installed before anything will be on the property to tax.
Hope Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Sent: Feb 15, 2024 6:41 PM
To: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>, Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>, Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>, Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]>, Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>, Brown, Susanne <[email protected]> Subject: Re: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
*This email is being shared with all Councilmembers*
Hope-
Thank you for reviewing the Term Sheet so quickly and relaying your concerns and questions.
The Term Sheet provision you cite is an expression of both the LRA and Brookfield’s interest in getting property transferred that HAS been fully cleaned by the Navy – “without any use or activity restrictions” means to the appropriate standard (residential, commercial, or other) as found in the adopted Area Plan and in the Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement covering property transfer.
The proposed CFD would only use property taxes generated from land within the project boundaries. No existing Concord residents will be paying those taxes.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to address your questions.
Guy Bjerke
Director, Economic Development & Base Reuse
City of Concord
(925) 671-3076
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 6:02 PM
To: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Cc: Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>, Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>, Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>, Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: CNWS term sheet (2/20/24 Council Meeting)
Dear Director Bjerke:
The following provision is included in the draft CNWS term sheet that is currently posted online on the Council meeting agenda for Feb. 20. Please advise if this means the City of Concord intends to request the Navy turn over property that has not been fully cleaned or if it is intended to serve a different purpose.
"It is in the Parties’ mutual interest for the First Transfer Parcel to transfer from the Navy to the City as expeditiously as possible without any use or activity restrictions, including with respect to munitions and explosives of concern (“MEC”) and perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), that would materially impede development of the First Transfer Parcel and for subsequent Transfer Parcels to transfer without any use or activity restrictions that would materially impede development of such property as expeditiously as possible thereafter."
Thank you for your assistance. As I mentioned during general public comment on Tuesday of this week, it is not appropriate for the public to have such a short amount of time (less than a week) to review and comment on this lengthy and complicated term sheet that includes a proposal for significant use of our property taxes via CFDs.
Hope Johnson
Concord Resident
From: Wayne Kaminski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 2:36 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Wayne Kaminski <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Considers Concord Development Tomorrow Night
My input on tomorrow's meeting to discuss the Local Reuse Authority’s Acceptance of BCUS Acquisitions LLC's (Brookfield) Term Sheet for the development of approximately 2,300 acres (“the EDC property”) at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station.
Although I do not reside inside Concord city limits, I am directly affected as someone who shops in Concord, eats in Concord restaurants, is a parishioner at Queen of All Saints Church, and uses the medical facilities of John Muir Hospital.
I am a resident of Bay Point, CA and have been following the saga of this development since its start.
I see a very large conundrum with this development. The Concord City planners and Concord City Council seem to want to put on the blinders and circle the boundaries of this project in a way that conveniently ignores the inadequacies of the city's existing infrastructure and specifically two weaknesses on Willow Pass Rd and the same two on Port Chicago Hwy.
How can this project widen Willow Pass Rd within the new development yet completely ignore the bottleneck that is still at the Willow Pass Rd/Hwy 4 interchange on the northeast end and the bottleneck that is still present where Willow Pass Rd enters Concord at the southwest intersection with Landana Dr.?
There must be language in this agreement that stipulates that the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) Redevelopment must negotiate with the State of CA to modernize both the Willow Pass Rd interchange and the Port Chicago interchange with Hwy 4.
1. One cannot drop 33,000+ people into the CNWS yet ignore that Willow Pass Rd only has ONE lane connection to Hwy 4 East and TWO lanes, controlled by STOP SIGNS, where one lane serves as the entrance to Hwy 4 West, or continues on to connect with the Business Park behind the Chevron station with the other lane serving as the right- hand turn onto Evora Rd.
2. Port Chicago is a two-lane street from Concord, past the North Concord BART Station until it splits into two lanes connecting to Hwy 4 East (one lane is a carpool lane) and ONE LANE to connect to Hwy 242 or Hwy 4 West and ONE LANE into Clyde and controlled by STOP SIGNS!
There must be language in this agreement that stipulates that the Concord Naval Station Redevelopment must negotiate with the City of Concord to modernize how the Willow Pass Rd and Port Chicago connect with Concord's existing infrastructure.
1. Willow Pass Rd. has only one lane entering Concord towards the Landana Dr. stop light. That is a huge bottleneck.
2, Port Chicago is an inadequate two-lane street running parallel with the BART tracks.
If the Willow Pass Rd and Port Chicago streets are woefully inadequate to serve 33,000+ new people, what is there to say about the City of Concord being absolutely clueless on the inadequate side streets that connect Concord Blvd with Clayton Rd (Bailey Rd, Thornwood, Denkinger, and West streets!).
The City of Concord seems to think that annexing 33,000+ new people within this new development will have no impact on Concord's existing infrastructure. That is misguided thinking! There must be good traffic flow all throughout the new development and the existing City! These new 33,000+ human beings will not be satisfied by being fenced in by crappy Concord infrastructure. These people will want to go into Concord, and Concord's existing residents will want to check out this new development.
How will the existing 100,000+ Concord residents be able to access the new Park? The new Library, or the new sports arena? The new restaurants?
The City of Concord cannot think that this new Naval Weapons Station Redevelopment will just be a stand-alone isolated annexation to the rest of the city. This means that Concord needs to upgrade its EXISTING infrastructure at the same pace that the Project is being built out.
Right now, attempting to leave California Skyline (Driftwood Dr to Evora) is a complete bottleneck in the morning commute. Vehicles can be backed up from where Evora turns left to reach the Hwy 4 West/242 South highway entrance or continue down Willow Pass Rd. into Concord. As a resident of California Skyline, I want to be able to get into Concord without driving bumper to bumper. And the evening commute can be worse as vehicles attempt to exit Concord using Willow Pass Rd up to Hwy 4. Willow Pass Rd can be backed up all the way from 6th Street inside Concord all the way out to the Hwy 4 interchange! This is today's reality. What the hell will 33,000+ more people bring to the table?
Best Regards,
Wayne Kaminski
On Monday, March 18, 2024 at 01:04:08 PM PDT, Save Mount Diablo <[email protected]> wrote:
Council to review Concord reuse project's template for development
Concord Reuse Project:
City Council to Consider Term Sheet Tomorrow Night
The conceptual draft land use plan of the Concord reuse area development by Brookfield, with phasing.
Click on the image for a larger version of it.
Provided by Brookfield Properties from meeting documents.
The proposed term sheet for the huge Concord reuse project has been released.
A term sheet is important because it’s a template for future binding agreements between Brookfield Properties (the Master Developer of the reuse project) and the City of Concord.
The Concord City Council plans to review the term sheet tomorrow evening, March 19, beginning at 6 PM at 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord.
People can comment in person or via email or just watch the meeting via Zoom, livestream, or TV.
If things go well, other steps that will use the term sheet as guidance, like a specific plan, a disposition and development agreement, and the environmental review for the project, will follow.
More than 12,000 houses, over 800 acres of parks and green space, and millions of square feet of commercial and industrial development are envisioned for the Concord reuse project.
The Concord reuse project will develop about 2,300 acres of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station.
Save Mount Diablo and our allies see this project as a great opportunity for
• green space,
• habitat restoration,
• good jobs,
• public recreation,
• affordable housing,
• climate-smart development, and
• transportation that doesn’t rely on cars.
Done right, it can be a jewel for the region.
MEETING INFO
The former Concord Naval Weapons Station, of which about 2,300 acres will be developed.
Photo by Cooper Ogden
Share This Message
Share
Share
Forward
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 about 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.
Support Our Work
Your support helps further Save Mount Diablo’s land conservation and advocacy efforts across the Diablo region. Make a gift today to help keep our voices strong.
DONATE
Copyright © 2024 Save Mount Diablo, All rights reserved.
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
201 N. Civic Drive, Suite 190
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:44 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: RE: comments re Brookfield CNWS term sheet (3/19/24 mtg Item 2a
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 19, 2024 10:42 AM
To: Bjerke Guy <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Roden Josh <[email protected]>, Ryan Joan <[email protected]>, Mora Israel <[email protected]>, McAuley Wendy <[email protected]>, Barone Valerie <[email protected]>, Ezell Justin <[email protected]>, Ortega Jennifer <[email protected]>, Capriola Thomas <[email protected]>, Brown Susanne <[email protected]> Subject: RE: comments re Brookfield CNWS term sheet (3/19/24 mtg Item 2a Thank you for your responses to my comments. Please be advised my initial comments remain unchanged.
I disagree with several of the assertions in your responses and believe Councilmembers should still take my comments under consideration. I do understand that this is an estimate and beginning framework, not a final document and have added notes below that I believe Council should consider (see "HAJ notes" below (in red and italics if those features are enabled on the viewer's email format)).
Hope Johnson
Concord Resident, Sun Terrace
-----Original Message-----
From: Bjerke, Guy <[email protected]>
Sent: Mar 19, 2024 9:03 AM
To: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>, City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Roden, Josh <[email protected]>, Ryan, Joan <[email protected]>, Mora, Israel <[email protected]>, McAuley, Wendy <[email protected]>, Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>, Ezell, Justin <[email protected]>, Ortega, Jennifer <[email protected]>, Capriola, Thomas <[email protected]>, Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: comments re Brookfield CNWS term sheet (3/19/24 mtg Item 2a
*This email is being sent to all Councilmembers*
Hope-
Thank you for sending in these comments. Here are my responses in bullet format. Brookfield may wish to elaborate. Either way, we will be prepared to answer tonight should they be raised in public comment or by Council.
1. Off-Site Backbone Infrastructure
There is private capital to finance backbone infrastructure in Exhibit B. It is a significant amount of the $919.2 million listed as Backbone Infrastructure. Brookfield has already indicated that they intend to invest about $200 million to get infrastructure started in Phase 1. (HAJ note: No private capital is detailed on the Proforma sheet that can be used for start up of off site backbone infrastructure. If it is embedded in a general costs amount so that only staff understands that it is supposed to include private and public funding, it shouldn't be hidden like that. All anticipated and/or estimated financing sources should be listed in "sources" for clarity, not embedded in "uses." If Brookfield has committed to $200M, it should be on the Proforma summary.) Exhibit B is an estimate of the financial status of the project when it is finished (30-40 years from now.) Revenues from the project and private capital can be used to fund off-site infrastructure that serves or mitigates impacts from the project.
(HAJ note: There is backbone infrastructure that must in place before there is any way to generate revenue from the project because nothing can be built on the base before that infrastructure is placed. So, initially, there won't be any project revenue to start. If no public financing is going to be used to place initial start up infrastructure, I look forward to hearing Brookfield's specific plan to do so. In the meantime, Council really should ask Brookfield if it is true no public financing will be used to start the very first backbone infrastructure to maintain transparency rather than assuming when agreeing to the term sheet.)
The LRA and Brookfield have no intention of creating a Community Facilities District that includes existing Concord residents. We will be creating "landowner" CFDs where only the property owners of vacant land are allowed to vote.
The project as currently proposed by Brookfield pays for itself - consistent with LRA policy.
2. Right of Entry
Both Brookfield and staff agree that using right-of-entry is most protective of all parties' interests in the project.
3. North Concord BART and Port Chicago Highway
We have not conducted any studies on traffic impacts or required mitigations beyond those found in the Reuse Plan EIR and Area Plan EIR amendments. All traffic, transportation (BART or buses), and other mitigations will be studied as part of the pending Specific Plan and EIR - considered in public meetings - and decided by the City Council at the time entitlements are considered. (HAJ note: North Concord BART is discussed as a traffic mitigation source at every turn in this project, from high density housing to having a shuttle/bus system run from every direction to that BART station. North Concord neighborhoods and our District 2 elected representative should be asking questions now about the impact on our neighborhood as there is no simple solution. If common sense impact on the area hasn't been considered in advanced of official "studies," then it is an intentional neglect of consideration for existing neighbors.)
4. Green space in North Concord
Brookfield's conceptual land-use plan includes a green-frame buffer, where appropriate, on properties in the project's control between Willow Pass Road and the North Concord BART station. In fact, Brookfield's plan shows more green space in the TOD area around BART than any previous plan. I understand that existing North Concord residents want more. This issue will be addressed in the Specific Plan.
(HAJ note: I understand this is part of the Specific Plan. However, Council has annexed green space for a green frame in other neighborhoods, giving special treatment to what I assume they consider high voter precincts. If existing North Concord neighborhoods don't address this now and continuously, we will be the scapegoat for bearing the burden of the traffic.)
5. Density Distribution
Brookfield's conceptual land-use plan and the Term Sheet commit to distributing affordable housing throughout the project. This issue will be addressed in the Specific Plan.
6. Funding for affordable housing earlier in the project Brookfield's conceptual financing plan is designed to ensure all five (5) phases are successful. To achieve that goal some costs are deferred until the project can financially afford them. The Term Sheet reflects LRA staff's understanding of the City Council's direction regarding community benefits. (HAJ note: IIf Council does not prioritize funding for building of affordable housing, no one will. During the rent control meeting, Mayor Birsan stated Council is not at fault for the housing crisis and can only respond to what others do. Not so - here is an example of a chance to demonstrate a commitment to housing that is actually needed, which is not a bunch of market rate units. Since this term sheet is a first step plan, this is the time to set a policy for that.)
7. Need a CAC
The community outreach proposed by Brookfield is extensive and makes the creation of a Community Advisory Committee unnecessary.
(HAJ note: If Council does not create a CAC, the voters will.)
8. Transfer to vertical developers
Brookfield and the LRA will work to ensure the integrity of future vertical developers. This section of the Term Sheet can be further discussed and refined during the future negotiations of the Disposition & Development Agreement.
9. Project Labor Agreement
The Project Labor Agreement has been incorporated into Brookfield's financial plan (proforma) and is included in several "uses" line items in Exhibit B.
(HAJ note: The PLA has been signed but funding it's costs have not been incorporated into the final plan - because all of this term sheet is a starting point as you note. As the Specific Plan is developed and the market and economy change, so will the plan to finance the PLA change as part of the final Phase 1 project budget. It is common for community benefits to be reduced to accommodate PLAs in other large projects. The point of my comment is that, if community benefits become a consideration for reduction related to the PLA, all of that should be done at public meetings. As detailed in prior staff memos, Councilmembers Obringer and McGaillian previously asked staff to consider reducing community benefits to resolve the Lennar PLA dispute - but they did it behind closed doors under the cloak of an ad hoc committee away from public scrutiny.)
Please contact me if you have any additional questions.
Guy Bjerke
Director, Economic Development & Base Reuse
City of Concord
[email protected]
(925) 671-3076
-----Original Message-----
From: Hope Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 3:38 PM
To: City Clerk ; Birsan, Edi ; Obringer, Carlyn ; Hoffmeister, Laura ; Aliano, Dominic ; Nakamura, Laura Cc: Bjerke, Guy ; Roden, Josh
Subject: comments re Brookfield CNWS term sheet (3/19/24 mtg Item 2a
Dear Concord City Council:
Thank you again for the extra time to review Brookfield’s term sheet for the CNWS project. The ability to hear from the Navy regarding status of remediation prior to consideration of the term sheet was important to me as someone who lives near the CNWS and follows the cleanup efforts closely.
Please find below some comments on the proposed term sheet. I have tried to limit comments to items that are not part of the pending specific plan discussions but there is some crossover.
Thank you,
Hope Johnson
Concord Resident, Sun Terrace Neighborhood
COMMENTS:
Off-Site Backbone Infrastructure Financing Per Section 13b on page 35 of the term sheet, Concord and Brookfield anticipate including private capital to finance construction and installation of backbone infrastructure. However, no private capital sources that can be used for off-site infrastructure are included on the Exhibit B Proforma summary.
Although the developer and city staff have advised the public that the CNWS project will “pay for itself,” that is not accurate because revenues generated from within the boundaries of the base property cannot legally be used to fund the off-site infrastructure required to begin any portion of the project. In addition, even if those revenues could be used to finance off-site infrastructure, other funding sources will be needed because that infrastructure must be installed before anything can be built on the base to generate revenue. Therefore, the likely funding sources will be private capital and/or the property taxes of existing homeowners in the City of Concord. If CFDs are used, this will mean new property taxes on existing residents.
As a good faith gesture, the Proforma summary should include a reference to anticipated private financing of some portion of the initial off-site infrastructure. Taxpayers are already financially burdened with many special property taxes, increasing utility costs, inflation costs, and Concord’s extra sales tax.
Brookfield is worth billions of dollars and should privately finance some portion of the off-site infrastructure.
And this is not a subject that should be ignored. Per staff’s March 19 meeting report: “on- and off-site backbone infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, utilities, etc.) needed to support the entire project is substantial and estimated to cost $1.2 billion in current dollars. A significant portion of the initial backbone infrastructure will need to be installed either before or concurrently with the development of Phase 1.” It is not good representation for Council to enter into an agreement on a project that the public thinks is paying for itself only to then have to explain to constituents that the project really requires public financing as Alameda County had to do with the Oakland A’s proposed waterfront ballpark.
Use grants of right of entry over fee title/quit claim deed I appreciate Brookfield acknowledging in Section 10, page 28 of the term sheet that land can be transferred to the developer for work on backbone infrastructure by quit claim deed or grants of right of entry. Lennar refused to discuss right of entry as an option and, although brought up by myself and former Councilmember Helix, Council allowed the developer to demand taking title. This is risky. If a subsidiary of Brookfield is given title and that subsidiary files for bankruptcy, the land does not transfer back to Concord; it transfers to the parent company as an asset to pay back creditors of the bankrupt subsidiary. This is how the City of Vallejo ended up having to buy back its own and from Lennar at Mare Island.
Concord should maintain control of ownership of as much land as possible during initial backbone infrastructure placement.
North Concord BART and Port Chicago Highway The term sheet and land use maps still rely heavily on the idea that North Concord BART will mitigate new traffic. There is less evidence today than there was in the past that people are willing to rely on the notoriously unreliable BART system. It is no longer a reasonable assumption BART will mitigate traffic. If most low income density housing is built near BART, there is even less of a reasonable assumption. BART is expensive and most lower income occupations are not the types of jobs that make BART a convenient option. Staff, Council, and the Planning Commission are not known to rely on BART so should not expect that others will do what they are not willing to be a role model for doing.
It may be politically correct to push for BART to be the transportation savior of the project but it is unrealistic. There needs to be a reference to a plan for how existing North Concord neighborhoods and Port Chicago Hwy will manage the traffic. Traffic on Hwy 242 comes to a standstill at Olivera Road northbound every weekday by 3:00 pm. My neighborhood is being left out of green space and traffic mitigation in this project.
North Concord residents near the BART station should be considered “key stakeholders” for purposes of the Specific Plan section of the term sheet (Section 8(c)(iv), page 26.
Green space in North Concord
The proposed land use maps need more green space as a buffer for existing residents in North Concord.
There is no reason for the majority of the open space and buffer zones to be made available to residents who already live in single family homes with front and back yards as well as being near the EBRPD land.
In addition, new concrete jungles are not popular destinations as evidenced by Concord BART and the surrounding areas as well as many empty downtown spaces in large cities like San Francisco. I also do
not agree that new low income resident families should have only the option of high density without equal green space.
Density Distribution
Brookfield’s land use maps appear to show a better distribution of density than prior versions. However, the density could be even more distributed throughout the project. Owners of single family homes are constantly being called NIMBYS and blamed for lack of building affordable housing. Yet, this land use plan sets up the same situation – single family homes in their own neighborhoods with special treatment of shuttles if they happen to want to go to BART while affordable homes are bunched up together. If you do not want to continue the NIMBY/YIMBY fight to build homes, don’t vote for a policy that sets up more neighborhoods with that same style.
More community benefits funding for affordable housing earlier in the project.
Nothing is needed more than building housing that is affordable for middle to low income residents. A community benefit of only $5M in the first phase is not enough. We need to ensure affordable units are actually built in the first phase, preferably some units that are for purchase rather than rent so families can build generational wealth again. We all know there is a continuous lack of funding to get these units built. Maybe the Tournament Sports Park doesn’t need more than double the community benefits of the affordable housing. What are your priorities?
Need a CAC
Council should incorporate a requirement for a Community Advisory Committee for this project. The prior CAC meetings were a good place for community members to learn about the project itself, the status of the project, and the status of the Navy’s remediation at the site. Otherwise, the public will be limited to learning more at Planning Commission meetings, which are often canceled, and Council meetings, where discussion is limited. Without a CAC, the public will not be able to make informed comments on the Specific Plan or knowledgeable decisions on public financing. And it may save staff time answering FOIA/CPRA requests from the public.
Transfer to vertical developers
Section 11c of the term sheet requires that Brookfield select vertical developers that have “not been suspended, debarred, or prohibited from contracting with the City.” Please consider widening this to cover vertical developers prohibited from contracting with the State of California and to cover vertical developers with pending lawsuits to avoid any situations similar to those ending the negotiations with Concord First Partners.\
Project Labor Agreement
The PLA still must be incorporated into the financial plan. Please add to the term sheet that consideration of reducing community benefits in order to make a PLA “pencil out” must be brought to the council at a public meeting. The public should be aware of what options are available before any community benefits are reduced.
From: Kamala Parks <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 11:52 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Tim Chan <[email protected]>; Carli Paine <[email protected]>; Val Menotti <[email protected]>
Subject: March 19 City Council meeting: Comments to Brookfield Draft Term Sheet for CNWS
Greetings, City Clerk,
Attached, please find a letter containing BART’s comments to the Draft Term Sheet for CNWS. Let us know if you have any issues with opening the attachment.
Thank you.
In office: Monday, Tuesday, Friday
Remote: Wednesday, Thursday
Kamala (“Ka-MA-la”) Parks (she/her)
Principal Planner, Stations Planning Group
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
2150 Webster Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Office: 510-817-5901
Mobile: 510-421-4435
March 19, 2024
City Council Members
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
RE: Former Concord Naval Weapons Station: Brookfield Term Sheet
Honorable Council Members
,
BART appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Term Sheet proposed by Brookfield for the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) that is being considered for adoption by you on Tuesday, March 19.
We are concerned that the draft Term Sheet would make transit-oriented development (TOD) on BART’s land infeasible. Page 24, item d: Upsizing of Infrastructure calls on BART to pay for upsizing the infrastructure to accommodate development on BART land. As a public transit agency with significant financial challenges, BART is not in a position to contribute to such infrastructure costs. No other jurisdiction has required BART to pay for the hard or soft infrastructure costs to enable its TODs. Focused growth at regional transit stations delivers significant economic benefits and reduces overall infrastructure demands and investment. The unique combination of having compact, high-density development near a high-quality, regional transit station offsets the cost of providing and maintaining roadway, water, power, and sewer infrastructure over a larger land area and can represent long-term cost savings for jurisdictions. As we understand it, the proposed Term Sheet would build only the backbone infrastructure unless BART pays for upsizing. This decision would reverberate for decades, leaving BART’s land undevelopable at the densities and land uses that support regional transit service.
Additionally, the dependencies on Page 17, item f. ii. Successful high-density TOD Core development… do not align with BART’s perspective on what the key prerequisites are for TOD on either BART or former CNWS land. The draft Term Sheet states that BART-led planning and other activities are the most important elements to advancing TOD at BART and as a Reuse phase. However, sufficient infrastructure and local zoning that meets or exceeds AB 2923 standards, both of which are under the local jurisdiction’s control, are the most critical elements to enabling TOD. With regard to planning and zoning, city staff had indicated in conversations in the first week of January of this year that BART would have several months after the term sheet’s adoption to request that BART’s land be included in the CNWS Specific Plan process. The draft Term Sheet seems to eliminate the option to for inclusion of BART land in the CNWS Specific Plan process by stating that successful high-density TOD Core development can only occur after “BART completes its own planning process…"
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
2150 Webster Street, P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6000
2024
Bevan Dufty
PRESIDENT
Mark Foley
VICE PRESIDENT
Robert Powers
GENERAL MANAGER
DIRECTORS
Debora Allen
1ST DISTRICT
Mark Foley
2ND DISTRICT
Rebecca Saltzman
3RD DISTRICT
Robert Raburn, Ph.D.
4TH DISTRICT
John McPartland
5TH DISTRICT
Elizabeth Ames
6TH DISTRICT
Lateefah Simon
7TH DISTRICT
Janice Li
8TH DISTRICT
Bevan Dufty
9TH DISTRICT
www.bart.gov
DocuSign Envelope ID: D92EC6BC-8121-4611-A25F-905DE1DCE48C
March 19, 2024
We understand that there is community interest in having BART participate in the CNWS Specific Plan Process and prioritizing development on BART’s land adjacent to the North Concord station. It is surprising, therefore, that the draft Term Sheet seems to foreclose on approaches that would facilitate this.
If you have any further questions, please reach out to Kamala Parks ([email protected]), Principal Station Planner, or Carli Paine ([email protected]), TOD Manager.
Sincerely,
Val J Menotti
BART, Planning and Development Chief Officer
cc: Deborah Allen, BART Director, District 1
Mark Foley, BART Director, District 2
Tim Chan, BART, Station Area Planning Group Manager
Carli Paine, BART, TOD Manager
Kamala Parks, BART, Principal Station Area Planner
DocuSign Envelope ID: D92EC6BC-8121-4611-A25F-905DE1DCE48C
From: Noelani Fixler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 12:49 PM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Zoe Siegel <[email protected]>; Victor Flores <[email protected]> Subject: Feedback on CNWS Term Sheet -- Greenbelt Alliance
Dear Concord City Council, Mayor, and Staff,
We appreciate the work the city and Brookfield Development has done to engage stakeholder feedback for the Concord Naval Weapons Station Site Term Sheet. We are in strong support of the project and are attaching feedback on the proposed term sheet below. We look forward to continuing to engage with the City and the developer throughout this process.
Thank you,
Noelani Fixler
Noelani Fixler (they)
Greenbelt Alliance
827 Broadway Ste 310 | Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone:
greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | X
From Surviving to Thriving: Greenbelt Alliance’s New Strategic Plan Read our vision for the next five years: greenbelt.org/strategic-plan
Mayor Edi Birsan
Vice Mayor Carlyn Obringer
Councilmember Dominic Aliano
Councilmember Laura Hoffmeister
Councilmember Laura Nakamura
Concord City Council
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
RE: Comments on Concord Naval Weapon Station (CNWS) Term Sheet Redlines from Brookfield Properties, March 2024
For over 60 years, Greenbelt Alliance has helped create cities and neighborhoods that make the Bay Area a better place to live—healthy places where people can walk and bike; communities with parks, shops, transportation options; homes that are affordable and resilient to the impacts of climate change.
Greenbelt Alliance’s Climate SMART—Sustainable, Mixed, Affordable, Resilient, Transit-Oriented—Development Endorsement Program provides support for projects that advance the right kind of development in the right places. We are in support of the redevelopment of the Concord Naval Weapons Station Site and have some general comments regarding the proposed term sheet between the City and Brookfield Development.
Affordable Housing (pg 12-17)
a. We appreciate the explanation of how affordable housing will be distributed throughout the phases of the project, and the inclusion of language regarding funding sources for affordable housing.
i. Question: Are there specific state and federal programs the developer will be applying to?
b. Regarding the distance of these units from public transit, we recommend you add language about a specific distance be added, for example 0.5 miles from public transit c. Is there any information about the nonprofit developers being considered, aside from Habitat for Humanity?
d. We recommend adding a portion of affordable housing development to be undertaken by standalone affordable housing developers.
e. The process by which veterans will be integrated into housing units remains unclear. It would be great to clarify this. Specifically, will it be included in the count of total affordable units?
Additional Concerns:
1. We are concerned with how the proposed development will affect park space per person.
2. On page 34, 16b., we appreciate the specific language regarding the phasing of creek restoration efforts and the prioritization to begin this process in earlier phases. Adding Walnut Creek watersheds is essential for comprehensive environmental considerations.
We appreciate the City Council's dedication to transparent and community-oriented decision-making, and look forward to further engaging with both the City of Concord and Brookfield Development regarding this transformative project.
Sincerely,
Noelani Fixler
Greenbelt Alliance
Zoe Siegel
Greenbelt Alliance
From: Colleen Awad <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 1:28 PM
To: Nakamura, Laura <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>
Cc: Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Subject: CNWS - City of Concord Hearing on Term Sheet - March 19th - 6pm
Dear Mayor Birsan, Vice Mayor Obringer, Councilmember Aliano, Councilmember Hoffmeister, Councilmember Nakamura, and Ms. Barone,
Good afternoon! Please see the attached letter from Supervisor Carlson.
Sincerely,
Colleen Awad
Communications Director (She/Her)
Office of Supervisor Ken Carlson
Contra Costa County, District IV
P: (925) 655-2350
Sign up to receive updates from Supervisor Carlson here.
This message is being sent on a public e-mail system and may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act
From: Natalie Bonnewit <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 2:55 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Ruth Marks <[email protected]>
Subject: March 19, 2024 - Item 2a public comment/support letter on behalf of Mercy Housing
Dear City Clerk,
Attached please find public/comment support letter on behalf of Mercy Housing.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Natalie Bonnewit
on behalf of Mercy Housing
--
Natalie Bonnewit, she/her/hers
Bonnewit Development Services
510.325.3601
[email protected]
bonnewit.com
March 19, 2024
To: Edi Birsan, Mayor
Carlyn Obringer, Vice-Mayor
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laura Hoffmeister, Councilmember
Valerie Barone, City Manager
Guy Bjerke, Director, Economic Development and Base Reuse Josh Roden, President, Norcal Land & Housing Development, Brookfield
RE: Proposed Brookfield CNWS Term Sheet
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the latest iteration of the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) Reuse Area Term Sheet with Brookfield.
Mercy Housing has participated in the CNWS Base Reuse process since its inception as members of both the Homeless Collaborative and the Concord Committee of the East Bay Housing Organizations.
The CNWS is a project of regional significance and we have spent over 15 years getting to the point where we are today. We urge you to vote to approve so the development process can restart.
Mercy Housing has had the opportunity to meet the Brookfield team and City staff in anticipation of the current iteration of the Term Sheet. Overall, we are happy to support the proposed Term Sheet with a few minor adjustments that are outlined in the EBHO support letter.
We would like to emphasize that in order to be in compliance with the Homeless Collaborative’s Legally Binding Agreement the term Sheet needs to correct the reference to “transitional housing” in favor of “permanent supportive housing”.
We would also like to acknowledge that if the affordable housing is going to be truly delivered, the city and developer will need to actively work to help identify additional local funding sources that will be needed in order to leverage county, regional, state and federal funding. The current $50 million proposal over all phases is insufficient and we welcome the city’s leadership and partnership to identify additional sources so that the affordable housing will be delivered.
Otherwise, we are pleased to note that this plan moves the development process forward and the planned 3,000 affordable homes over the life of the development could not arrive soon enough. We look forward to working together to see this project come to fruition as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Doug Shoemaker, President
Mercy Housing California
Consideration of
Brookfield Term Sheet
GUY BJERKE, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND BASE REUSE
MARCH 19, 2024
1
Tonight’s Agenda
1. Staff Presentation
2. Brookfield Presentation
3. City Council Questions
4. Public Comment
5. Council Consideration
2
Staff Presentation
1. Project History Summary
2. What is a Term Sheet?
◦ What comes after acceptance of the Term Sheet?
3. Brookfield Term Sheet Highlights
4. LRA/City Protections
5. Alternative Actions
3
Project History Summary
2006 – Base Closure
2007 - 2009 – Community/Regional Outreach
2010 – Reuse Plan – Clustered Villages with EIR
2012 – Area Plan adopted with EIR amendments
2014 - 2016 – Master Developer Selection #1 – ENA/Term Sheet 2017 – 2019 – Drafting of Specific Plan
March 2020 – ENA Expiration
4
Project History Summary (continued)
2020 – Project Reset
◦ Discussion with developers/stakeholders on project success factors 2021 - 2023 – Master Developer Selection #2
◦ Project Labor Agreement > Streamlined RFQ for entire EDC ◦ ENA adopted > Term Sheet Negotiations
◦ January 7/January 28, 2023 – City Council considered Term Sheet ◦ City Council rejects Term Sheet (3-2)
◦ January 31, 2023 – ENA Expiration
5
Project History Summary (continued)
2023 – Master Developer Selection #3
◦ May 15, 2023 – LRA issues Request for Qualifications
◦ August 26, 2023 – Council selects Brookfield as Master Developer ◦ September 19, 2023 – LRA and Brookfield enter ENA to negotiate Term Sheet
◦ February 15, 2024 – Term Sheet and First Amendment to the ENA released for public consideration
◦ Community Outreach
March 19, 2024 – City Council consideration of Term Sheet 6
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-use plan – types of
development, infrastructure and public facilities
Based on a conceptual financial plan demonstrating
estimated revenue and costs of the conceptual project
7
8
Brookfield Term Sheet Highlights
Goal: To meet community expectations while insuring the financial feasibility of the Project
1. All approximately 2,300 acres of the EDC in 5 phases over 40 years.
2. Land-use plan is consistent with the adopted Area Plan’s 12,272 residential units including the 25% affordable housing goal
3. Approximately 6 million square feet of commercial space; estimated to allow the creation of up to 16,356 jobs
4. Approximately 886 acres of parks, greenways and the phased restoration of the Mt. Diablo Creek corridor
9
10
Brookfield Term Sheet Highlights
(continued)
5. Entire project is subject to a Project Labor Agreement with the CC Building & Construction Trades and Nor Cal Carpenters Union
6. Pads and infrastructure for 3,068 units of affordable housing will be provided at an estimated cost of $146 million; additional $50 million contribution to affordable housing projects.
7. Legally Binding Agreement parcels for Food Bank (10 acres) and Permanent Supportive Housing (16 acres)
8. Four-acre parcel for future Veteran’s Hall in Phase 1. 11
Brookfield Term Sheet Highlights
(continued)
9. A $65 million project contribution towards a Library/Community Center
10. A $100 million project contribution towards the Tournament Sports Complex/City Park
11. Widening of Willow Pass Road to four lanes in phases with removal of Kinne Bridge in Phase 1
12. Extension of Evora Road; from Kinne Blvd to Port Chicago Highway and Golf Course Repair in Phase 1
13. Two $10 million project contributions for the construction of a Fire Station in Phase 2 and another in Phase 4
12
Brookfield Term Sheet Highlights
(continued)
14. Contribution of 55 acres for school sites in Phases 2 – 5.
15. Expedited repayment of City Loan to project in Phases 1 & 2
16. Brookfield’s acceptance of Internal Rate of Return of 18%
17. City participation in project returns greater than 18% ◦ City share 40% - returns between 18 – 20%
◦ City share 50% - returns 20% or greater
18. Estimated payment(s) to Navy for EDC included in Conceptual Financial Plan
13
LRA/City Protections
A. Horizontal infrastructure to be installed in sub-phases (50 to 100 acres) through property transfer or right-of-entry after Brookfield provides evidence of capability and bonds to City to ensure performance
B. Brookfield has agreed to a schedule of performance milestones to ensure the phased delivery of backbone infrastructure within certain time limits
C. Brookfield acting as Master Developer for backbone infrastructure and public amenities.
14
LRA/City Protections (continued)
D. Sale of land to affiliated builders must be at a residual land value formula reviewed and approved by LRA in the DDA.
E. Brookfield agrees to Open Book Accounting between Brookfield and the LRA. The LRA has inspection and audit rights, and an annual report will be issued to the City Council and public.
F. Changes in the control of the project to a non-Brookfield entity requires LRA consent.
15
Alternative Actions:
1. Choose to approve the Term Sheet as drafted (LRA staff’s recommendation); or
2. Provide additional direction to LRA staff and Brookfield regarding additional or change provisions for
consideration in the Term Sheet and continue this
meeting to a date certain; extending the Preliminary
Stage negotiation period, or
3. Reject the Term Sheet; direct LRA staff to let the ENA with Brookfield expire on March 30, 2024.
16
Brookfield Presentation
Council questions to either LRA staff or Brookfield will follow Brookfield’s Presentation
17
One Team.
A Partnership to
Build the Vision,
Together.
Concord Naval Weapons Station
Community Reuse Project
+
Our Commitment to Future Concord Communities
2 Our submitted Term Sheet focuses on ensuring the necessary planning and infrastructure are in place so all phases of development can successfully be completed.
Brookfield Term Sheet
3 Our Term Sheet includes:
25% Affordable Housing
886 acres dedicated to parks, recreation and trails space Restoration of the Mount Diablo Creek Corridor and trail creation over all phases A Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with local unions and local hiring priority, training programs and opportunities for local businesses
Brookfield Term Sheet
4 Over the lifetime of this project, and through each phase, we aim to bring to life the vision the Concord community has shared for these future communities.
Our Term Sheet highlights:
o 120 acres for campus district
o 55 acres for school sites
o 10 acres for Food Bank expansion
o 16 acres o f permanent supportive housing
o 4 acres for a Veterans Hall
o More than $495 Million in Brookfield contributions t owards Tournament Sports & City-Wide park, Library & Civic Center, Schools, Fire Stations and affordable housing subsidy
o $1.67 Billion planned investment in infrastructure and e
nvironmental remediation for the project site
o $336 Million dedicated to hab itat mitigation and Mt. Diablo Creek restoration
Building a Place that Enhances the
Identity of Concord
5
Site Constraints
6
Backbone Infrastructure
7
Landform
8
Reoriented Campus
9
Open Space & Community Facilities
10
Parks Distribution
11
Conceptual Project Phasing
12
Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan
13
Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan
14
Aerial Looking South
15
Conceptual Land Use Plan – TOD Detail
16
17 Outreach Sentiment
Look How Far We’ve Come
2006-2010
WHERE WE
STARTED
2011-2012
2024-2027
WHERE WE ARE
Planning and Zoning
This process brings the Area Plan to life by advancing community engagement while designing the layout, uses and features of the development. The Specific Plan (Zoning) will provide detailed guidance for how the project will look and feel, including architectural character, public spaces and community facilities as well as transportation.
Area Plan | COMPLETED & APPROVED
This plan captures the community’s vision and translates it into policies and standards for land use, transportation, environmental protection, labor agreements, affordable housing, and public safety.
Reuse Plan | COMPLETED & APPROVED
This plan articulated the community’s idea for the land uses and development program to convert the CNWS to civilian use. Involved extensive community participation, site analysis and studies, and the environmental review process.
OPPORTUNITY TO
ENGAGE & SHAPE
18
2024 2025 2026 2027
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
CNWS Specific
Plan/EIR Period
Local Reuse
Authority/City Council
Community Listening
and Engagement -
Ongoing
Community-wide
Events and
Workshops
Resources and
Information
Additional Feedback
Channels
Timeline is conceptual and subject to change based on project milestones and community input Community Engagement Timeline
19 Approved
Term
Sheet City Council Hearing
Planning Commission Hearing
Stakeholder meetings and listening sessions
Neighborhood meetings
CBO and civic group engagement
Booths at farmers’ markets and public gatherings
Ongoing sharing of community resources and information through website updates, quarterly newsletter, regular social media updat es and other progress updates in multiple languages
Rapid response to email inbox and information line
Conduct community surveys
Community open houses/Virtual meetings
Advanced Infrastructure and Phasing, Specific Plan Development EIR Development
City Council updates
Focused workshops
Engagement Opportunities Beginning in 2024
20 Open Houses (e.g., focused on
affordable housing, open space,
trails, parks, sports fields,
traffic/mobility, commercial
uses)
Community members and stakeholders will be able to learn about the project, discuss the latest plans and provide feedback through:
Connecting with our project
team via phone and email
Focused Workshops (e.g.,
inviting feedback from the
community on Open House
topics)
Thank you for your time!
The Future is Bright.
We’d love to hear from you!
925-430-7378
[email protected]
+
Exhibit A-5 Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan Phasing Summary 22 LAND USE CATEGORY Approx.
GSF
Approx.
Jobs
Approx.
Market
Rate Units
Approx.
Affordable
Units (inc.
transitional
housing)
Approx.
Number of
Residents
Approx. Gross
Acres
PHASE 1 - Infrastructure
Backbone Streets
Housing & Commercial
53.4 Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed-Use
High Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Commercial/Village Center
Inclusionary Housing
500,000
120,000
1,111
267
686
215
535
176
1,887
591
1,471
484
116.3
10.0 50.2
8.9 16.0
Affordable Housing
Transitional Multifamily Housing (LBA)
Community Facilities & Set-Asides
472
65 1,298
179
9.1 4.0
Veterans Land Set-Aside
Conservation, Open Space, & Rec. Lands
4.0 Conservation Open Space (Primarily Mt. Diablo Crk)
Greenways
Citywide Parks
Other Parks & Open Space
42.6 5.3
10.4 17.9
PHASE 1 Total 620,000 1,378 1,612 537 5,910 348.1
Exhibit A-5 Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan Phasing Summary 23 LAND USE CATEGORY Approx.
GSF
Approx.
Jobs
Approx.
Market
Rate Units
Approx.
Affordable
Units (inc.
transitional
housing)
Approx.
Number of
Residents
Approx. Gross
Acres
PHASE 2A - Campus District, Special Districts
Campus Districts (net acres)
Community Facilities & Set-Asides
3,000,000 8,250 85.3
School Site
Library/Community Center
Conservation, Open Space, & Rec. Lands
186
10 10.0
3.0 Conservation Open Space
Greenways
Other Parks & Open Space
3.5 9.0
9.4 PHASE 2A – Campus District Total 3,000,000 8,446 0 0 0 120.2
Exhibit A-5 Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan Phasing Summary 24 LAND USE CATEGORY Approx.
GSF
Approx.
Jobs
Approx.
Market
Rate Units
Approx.
Affordable
Units (inc.
transitional
housing)
Approx.
Number of
Residents
Approx. Gross
Acres
PHASE 2B & 2C - Infrastructure
Backbone Streets
PG&E Substation
Housing & Commercial
44.7 5.0
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed-Use
Special Districts
1,004
211
173
2,761
580
476
151.4
14.6 13.5
Innovation District – Commercial Flex (net acres)
Inclusionary Housing
1,700,000 3,778 63.6
Affordable Housing
Transitional Multifamily Housing (LBA)
Habitat for Humanity
Community Facilities & Set-Asides
382
65 20
1,051
179
55 11.2
4.0 2.0
Food Bank (LBA)
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands
10.0 Conservation Open Space (Primarily Mt. Diablo Crk) Greenways
Citywide Parks
Other Parks & Open Space
34.8 75.9
42.4 7.8
PHASE 2B & 2C Total 1,700,000 3,778 1,388 467 5,101 480.9
Exhibit A-5 Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan Phasing Summary 25 LAND USE CATEGORY Approx.
GSF
Approx.
Jobs
Approx.
Market
Rate Units
Approx.
Affordable
Units (inc.
transitional
housing)
Approx.
Number of
Residents
Approx. Gross
Acres
PHASE 3 - Infrastructure
Backbone Streets
Housing & Commercial
29.3 Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed-Use
High Density Mixed-Use
Hotel
Inclusionary Housing
560,000
120,000
1,708
70 506
458
542
778
1,392
1,260
1,491
2,140
79.5 19.0
21.5 17.2
2.0 Affordable Housing
Transitional Multifamily Housing (LBA)
Community Facilities & Set-Asides
697
65 1,917
179
10.0 4.0
School Site
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands
372 25.0
Conservation Open Space
Greenways
Citywide Parks
Other Parks & Open Space
0.0 28.3
62.1 12.0
PHASE 3 Totals 680,000 2,150 2,284 762 8,377 309.9
Exhibit A-5 Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan Phasing Summary 26 LAND USE CATEGORY Approx.
GSF
Approx.
Jobs
Approx.
Market
Rate Units
Approx.
Affordable
Units (inc.
transitional
housing)
Approx.
Number of
Residents
Approx. Gross
Acres
PHASE 4 - Infrastructure
Backbone Streets
Housing & Commercial
34.3 Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Commercial/Village Center
Inclusionary Housing
100,000 222
990
449
296
2,723
1,235
814
163.2
30.3 21.9
14.0 Affordable Housing
Transitional Multifamily Housing (LBA)
Community Facilities & Set-Asides
516
65 1,419
179
11.2 4.0
Fire Station
School Site
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands
10 186
1.0 10.0
Conservation Open Space (Primarily Mt. Diablo Crk)
Greenways
Citywide Parks
Other Parks & Open Space
52.2 53.2
0.0 22.7
PHASE 4 Totals 100,000 418 1,735 581 6,369 418.0
Exhibit A-5 Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan Phasing Summary 27 LAND USE CATEGORY Approx.
GSF
Approx.
Jobs
Approx.
Market
Rate Units
Approx.
Affordable
Units (inc.
transitional
housing)
Approx.
Number of
Residents
Approx. Gross
Acres
PHASE 5 - Infrastructure
Backbone Streets
Housing & Commercial
35.1 Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Mixed-Use
Inclusionary Housing
1,032
940
213
2,838
2,585
586
152.7
63.8 8.5
Affordable Housing
Community Facilities & Set-Asides
721 1,983 17.2
School Site
Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands
186 10.0
Conservation Open Space (Primarily Mt. Diablo Crk)
Greenways
Citywide Parks
Other Parks & Open Space
56.1 99.9
0.0 10.2
PHASE 5 Totals 0 186 2,185 721 7,992 453.5
Other Conservation, Open Space & Rec. Lands
Tournament Sports Park & Citywide Park 175.0
Other Totals 0 0 0 0 0 175.0
Exhibit A-5 Conceptual Preliminary Land Use Plan Phasing Summary 28 LAND USE CATEGORY Approx.
GSF
Approx.
Jobs
Approx.
Market
Rate Units
Approx.
Affordable
Units (inc.
transitional
housing)
Approx.
Number of
Residents
Approx.
Gross Acres
Estimated
Jobs to
Housing
Ratio
GRAND TOTALS* 6,100,000.0 16,355.6 9,204.0 3,068.0 33,748.0 2,305.6 1.33 Notes: Commercial Residential
*Approximate number of residents based on 2019 Housing Element Average Household Size (Appendix B, Table 10). Area Plan, page 4, assumed approx. 2.34 pp/unit. Approximate number of residents can be further considered in Specific Plan. ** Project includes two fire stations, one in Phase 1 that is north of Hwy 4 (off-site) and one in Phase 4 (on-site).