___________________________________________________________

Concord City Council Unanimously Approves Term Sheet with Brookfield For Naval Weapons Station Development (3/19/24)

by Bill Speir, LWVDV Observer

On March 19, 2024, the Concord City Council, acting as the Local Reuse Authority (City) for the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS), unanimously approved the Term Sheet negotiated between City staff and master developer BCUS Acquisitions LLC (Brookfield) for development of the CNWS site. The Term Sheet describes the parameters of the development and the potential future contracts between the City and Brookfield.  The Term Sheet is not a binding contract per se but is the “outline of the potential future contract” for the development of the property. (Staff Report, first sentence.)  It is a statement of intent of the parties and is the next step in the process of moving from concept to reality.

1. Issues of interest in the Term Sheet include:Timeline for planning phase extended from 24 months to 48 months: The next steps are the most significant.  Binding agreements will be negotiated between Brookfield and the City for conveyance of the parcels and for entitlements to development the property.  Agreements with the Navy will also be reached.  A Specific Plan for the development will be created, including advanced infrastructure analysis and planning, phasing of the development and financial analysis of each step in the process.  An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared identifying impacts of the plan on the environment and community.  These steps had been scheduled to take 24 months, an aggressive schedule, but Brookfield asked for this to be extended to 48 months, and the City agreed.  Brookfield will use this additional time to be more certain that the project not only meets community needs, but will be economically feasible as designed.
2. Twenty five percent affordable housing will be spread throughout the project: Brookfield continues to believe that the project is viable with the number of residential units described in the 2012 Concord Reuse Project Plan.  The Term Sheet proposes 12,272 total residential dwelling units, 25 percent of which will be affordable.  It does not intend to meet its affordable housing goals using Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).  The affordable units will be spread throughout the project, so that each of the five phases of the project will include 25 percent affordable residences.  However, Brookfield retains some flexibility as to locations to assure that it can meet affordable housing funding restrictions that require proximity to transit and services.  In addition to delivering development-ready pads for affordable housing construction, Brookfield will donate $50 million to the City as an affordable housing subsidy.
3. North Concord BART property and Coast Guard property not included in Preliminary Land Use Plan: The land use plan included in the Term Sheet does not include the adjacent North Concord BART property, or the former Navy housing known as the Coast Guard property.  These properties are on the northwest side of the CNWS property and would likely be designated for medium to high density residential if included in the plan.  The Coast Guard property is now in private ownership and a separate development application has been or will shortly be submitted by the owner.  The City would like to include the BART property in a comprehensive plan but at this point, BART has not agreed.
4. The City and BART disagree over payment of planning costs: The Term Sheet states that Transit Oriented Development around the BART station “can occur only after … BART completes its own planning process, … .” (Term Sheet p. 17, sec. 4.f.ii.)  It appears from comments during the hearing that City staff and BART staff have a disagreement and/or misunderstanding regarding BART’s role in the process.  BART has planning control over property it owns and does not need any permits or approvals from the City to develop its parking lots.  However, the infrastructure on and under City streets needed to support a dense development on BART property will need to be planned by the City and built by the CNWS developer.  BART director and Board Vice President Mark Foley appeared during public comment, apparently accompanied by BART staff, and objected to provisions of the Term Sheet referencing the BART site, and to any request that BART contribute to the costs of planning for its property.  No Council member supported BART’s request. The two public agencies will need to cooperate if the BART lots are to be developed. 

The next steps will include community outreach by Brookfield as it works behind the scenes to design the details of the project and fine tune the financial analysis of the development. Quarterly City Council updates are intended but not scheduled.

Term Sheet

___________________________________________________________

Brookfield Selected as the New Naval Weapons Station Developer (8/26/23)

August 26, 2023 meeting

by Bill Speir, LWVDV Observer

On August 26, 2023, the Concord City Council, acting as the Local Reuse Authority for the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS), unanimously selected Brookfield Properties as the new master developer of the 2,275-acre CNWS site. The City had issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in May, after the arrangement with the previous master developer, Seeno related Concord First Partners, was terminated. One other developer responded to the RFQ but it withdrew its application before the meeting. So, the only developer considered at the August 26 meeting was Brookfield.

Brookfield had submitted a very strong application in 2021 but was beaten out by the Seeno group on a 3-2 vote. When the Seeno group was selected, the Council majority said they wanted to work with “Main Street, not Wall Street.” In selecting Brookfield, the Council will again be working with Wall Street. Brookfield Properties is the multi-billion-dollar subsidiary of the even larger Brookfield Corporation. It appears that Brookfield has the financial resources to develop the property. The project will be led by executives of Brookfield’s northern California operation in San Ramon, and the team of attorneys, designers and consultants identified by Brookfield in its Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) are all local and well regarded in the real estate development community. But Brookfield’s ultimate decision makers on economic feasibility of the project will not be local.

The city had asked questions in the RFQ, described generally in the last Observer Report, designed to anticipate some of the problems raised by previously selected master developers. When Brookfield submitted its responses, it was presumably unaware that it would end up as the only applicant. It is the impression of this observer that Brookfield had tried very hard in its SOQ to get through the interview and get the job, and to do that, it gave the answers it thought the city wanted to hear. Now that it has been selected, comments during the meeting implied that those answers may change over time. Some of the important issues to watch are:

• Union labor will be used. Brookfield and the construction trade unions have entered into a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). Union labor is relatively expensive and is not typically used in housing construction. In response to a question from Councilmember Nakamura, Brookfield Northern California President Josh Roden surprisingly stated that Brookfield has not included the cost of the PLA in its economic pro forma. He stated that Brookfield typically uses union labor for “horizontal development” such as roads, pipes, etc. but not for “vertical development” such as construction of buildings. The site infrastructure will come in the initial stages so using union labor will not be a change. When development gets to the building stage, Mr. Roden stated that Brookfield “will need to take a look at” the impact of the PLA on the economics of the project.
• Additional housing units are not presently anticipated. Concord First Partners had claimed that the project was not economically feasible without modification. To make the project economically viable, it proposed adding 3,323 residential units among other changes. In its SOQ, Brookfield agreed to the 25% affordable housing requirement and said that additional housing units were not needed. In the meeting, Mr. Roden stated that from their “preliminary analysis” it “seemed like” more units would not be needed, but he “did not want to commit either way.”
• First phase of development will include North Concord BART. There had been a question as to whether development around the BART station was economically feasible in the first phase. Brookfield thinks it is.
• Brookfield proposed an 18% rate of return. The previous developer had agreed to an 18% internal rate of return, a below industry standard percentage given the high risk of the project. Brookfield matched that rate. When asked by Councilmember Obringer if this lower than normal rate of return had been approved by Brookfield upper management, Mr. Roden stated that the number had been “passed by” management and that it “can be reasonable, depending on the deal with the Navy.”

As the comments above show, Brookfield is keeping its options open to come back to the City Council and seek modifications to the project and to its proposal. Both previously selected developers, Lennar and Concord First Partners, had sought changes to make the project economically viable. If changes are proposed in the future by Brookfield, it should not come as a surprise.

Although several public speakers and even some councilmembers lamented the fact that other developers had not responded to the RFQ, all acknowledged that the proposal by Brookfield was strong. Mayor Hoffmeister commented that the proposal by Brookfield was the best of all the applications she had reviewed over the years.

Grand Jury Report on Concord Naval Weapons Station (August 2023)

The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury investigated the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) project after receiving a complaint from a Concord resident. Their report, Concord Naval Weapons Station Grand Jury Report: A Promise Unfulfilled, has been submitted to Concord city officials and a response is required by August 14.

Almost twenty years ago, the City of Concord began to study future use of the land available after the decommissioning of the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS). In the intervening years there have been several false starts and the city’s portion of the former base remains undeveloped. Concord is at another crossroads and the civil grand jury makes recommendations to address a series of prior missteps and to adopt measures to advance and accelerate the productive utilization of the area. 

The LWVDV Action-Advocacy Committee has been following the process for the CNWS project. Members discussed the Grand Jury report at the July 29 meeting, and will watch to see how the city responds.

• A flawed Master Developer selection process in 2021/22, including incomplete financial information submitted by the preferred developer applicant as well as misinformation about experience of the partners. (page 13, GJR)
• Lack of transparency, including Brown Act violations by Concord city council members. (pages 16 and 24, GJR)
• Loans from the City of Concord to the Local Reuse Authority (LRA). These loans came from three Concord revenue sources, at least one of which has tight restrictions on loans. There is no documentation on how the loan money was spent nor how the loans will be repaid. (pages 17-18, GJR)

Concord City Council Discusses What to Seek from a New Naval Weapons Station Developer

by Bill Speir, LWVDV Observer

On March 14, 2023, the Concord City Council, acting as the Local Reuse Authority for the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS), discussed what to look for in a new developer of the 2,275-acre CNWS site.  After two false starts, City staff charged with developing the property wanted early input from the Council on several issues which proved problematic in moving forward with the project with developers Lennar (selected in 2016 and terminated in 2020) and Concord First Partners (selected in 2021 and terminated in January, 2023).

Guy Bjerke, the Director of Economic Development and Base Reuse for the City, informed the Council that he had recently received expressions of interest from several developers, including City Ventures and Brookfield, each of whom had submitted responses to the City’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in 2021, along with others. In responding to these developers, and any others who express interest, Mr. Bjerke asked for feedback from the Council on six issues:

1. Should a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) continue to be required and if so, should it be disclosed to Council and the public? Union labor is relatively expensive and is not customarily used in private housing development. Lennar had balked at a PLA for the entire project. Concord First Partners entered a PLA with the unions but would not disclose the agreement itself. The Council was unanimous that an agreement with the construction trade unions was required before selection, and should be disclosed, although the details of when and how it should be disclosed was not agreed upon.
2. Is the City willing to change the 2012 Area Plan to enhance financial feasibility? Concord First Partners claimed that the project was not economically feasible without modification. To make the project economically viable, it proposed adding 3,323 residential units and satisfying some of the affordable housing commitment by including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an element of the homes to be built. Most of the Council agreed that some changes to the 2012 Area Plan would probably be needed to address changes in the real estate market in the last 11 years. There was no consensus on using ADUs to satisfy some of the affordable housing requirements. Some Council members objected, while others felt that with appropriate conditions, ADUs would be acceptable.
3. Should the first phase of development include development around North Concord BART? Some Council members expressed the preference that transit oriented development around N. Concord BART station be developed first and include significant affordable housing. However, at least one member observed that from a development perspective, this made no sense. Infrastructure would have to be extended all the way from Highway 4 to the BART station to develop that area, which would be economically difficult, and that it made more sense to build infrastructure and development at the same time to the extent possible.
4. What community benefits would be required? A list of community benefits proposed by Concord First Partners was provided with the staff report, and the Council seemed generally satisfied with that list.
5. Should the proposed developer be required to report on litigation? Several members of the Council expressed dismay at learning shortly before the January City Council meeting of litigation pending between Albert Seeno III, owner of one of the partners in Concord First Partners, and Albert Seeno Jr. (See 1/28/23 Observer Report.) The Council generally wanted to know of litigation issues involving any selected developer at the earliest opportunity.
6. Should planning related to the BART property be included with the rest of the CNWS site? Generally, the Council agreed that the BART station should be included.

Concord City Council Terminates Agreement with Developer Concord First Partners

January 7 and 28, 2023 meetings

by Bill Speir, LWVDV Observer

On January 28, 2023, the Concord City Council, acting as the Local Reuse Authority for the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS), ended their nearly 1 ½ year old relationship with developer Concord First Partners (CFP).  It is now back to the drawing board for the City in considering how to develop this 2,275-acre property. 

In August, 2021, the City Council voted 3-2 to select CFP as the preferred developer of the CNWS site.  CFP was the second developer selected to lead the project, after Lennar, the first developer, withdrew from the project citing excessive cost. Concord First Partners is made up of three partners, including a 45% share held by Discovery Builders, a company owned by Albert Seeno III.  In October, 2021, the City and CFP entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement which required both the City and CFP to negotiate in good faith toward finalizing the details of the project.  The first step was to agree on a “Term Sheet” which provides the broad outline of the proposed CNWS development.  The City Council held a public hearing on the Term Sheet on January 7, 2023, and continued its meeting until January 28, 2023. The deadline for the City and CFP to decide on the Term Sheet had been extended until January 31, 2023.

• All 2275 acres of the property are included in the framework development plan.  Development would occur in five phases over 40 years. 
• Residential units would be increased from 12,272 in the 2012 Reuse Area Plan to 15,595 units, plus an additional 879 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) which are not separate parcels but are rentable components of homes, i.e., granny flats or in-law units.
• The 25% affordable housing requirement would be met by 3,020 of the housing units and all the ADUs.  The units would be affordable to those making 80% or below of the area median income.  Median annual household income in Concord in 2021 was $100,011 per the latest U.S. Census.
• The development would provide land and money for parks, a sports complex, library, veterans hall, and other public amenities.

The Term Sheet was endorsed by staff and recommended for approval.  The primary substantive issues were the increase in residential units, and the effort to satisfy some of the affordable housing requirement through ADUs.

The increase in the total number of residential units was an effort to make the development economically viable.  Economic viability is necessary for any developer to take on the project.  It is also a requirement of the Navy.  Housing has the most profit potential for real estate development.  Traditional office space is less valuable now as many companies are permitting employees to work from home.  Brick and mortar stores are being replaced by Amazon and other on-line vendors and as a result, retail real estate values are also down.  Housing prices, however, remain high.  In spring, 2022, CFP wrote a letter to the city saying that the project, without modification, did not work from an economic perspective.  The city rejected CFP’s requests but extended the time to propose the Term Sheet.  The substantial infrastructure required to develop this site will be very expensive, and the increase in housing units from 12,272 to 15,595 was a way to make the project economically viable.

However, the approach to affordable housing was controversial  None of the additional units CFP sought to build were designated as affordable.  Instead, it proposed to include 879 ADUs attached to homes which are part of the proposed 15,595 units.  There would be no requirement that those ADUs be rented, only that if they are rented, they must be affordable.  ADUs are not always rented; they are often used by the owner as an office or bonus room, or occupied by an adult family member.  So, although the plan technically met the 25% affordable housing requirement, not all those units would have been available on the housing market.

The public comment at the hearing on January 7 made clear that most of the opposition had nothing to do with the proposed Term Sheet.  The primary opposition was to the involvement of the Seeno family in the project.  Union members continued to support the project and Concord First Partners, as they had when the developer was selected in 2021. Environmentalists and community activists continued to oppose the involvement of the Seeno family in the project. 

An article in the East Bay Times in early January exposed a dispute between Albert Seeno Jr. and his son, Albert Seeno III, regarding control of companies primarily owned by Albert Seeno Jr.  Allegations in the dispute once again placed the Seeno family in a bad light, but really had nothing to do with Discovery Builders, or Concord First Partners.  The East Bay Times published two editorials in January urging that Concord First Partners be jettisoned because of the Seeno family involvement in CFP. 

City Council Rejects Request for Early Right to Property, Extends Time for Outline of CNWS Development Terms (5/24/22)

by Bill Speir

May 24, 2022 meeting - Concord City Council sitting as the Local Reuse Authority

The Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the City of Concord sitting as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) for the Concord Naval Weapons Station, and developer Concord First Partners (CFP) required the parties to negotiate a Term Sheet summarizing the proposed development within 180 days.  That deadline was extended by 30 days and was set to expire on May 25, 2022.  The Term Sheet was to be the first deadline in the development process.  It would be followed two years later by submission of a Specific Plan of Development, an Environmental Impact Report and a Disposition and Development Agreement which would describe the specifics of the proposed project.

On April 27, 2022, Concord First Partners submitted a letter to the City, asking for substantial amendments of the ENA, based on the claim that the project was not economically viable.  (See attachment 4 to Staff Report.)  The letter stated:

“[Our] financial analysis has revealed that the culmination of massive infrastructure costs, strictly assigned land uses outlined in the Reuse Plan, and the substantial environmental mitigation requirements, all cause the project to be impracticable (from an investment standpoint) when considering a project that includes important community benefits such as a PLA [project labor agreement] and the affordable housing obligations.

We have re-examined our assumptions over and over. We are applying actual construction costs based upon our knowledge of the area. We continue to stress test and consider and offer creative and aggressive assumptions and ideas in order to demonstrate what we believe would be a realistic investment return. The conclusion is that the project, as we have analyzed it in its current form, does not work for any responsible development entity.”

With the statement that the project was not economically viable in its present form, CFP asked the City Council to amend the ENA to provide CFP (1) with an enforceable right in the property at the same time as the term sheet, and (2) for the right to be reimbursed its development costs if it is ultimately not permitted to develop the property.  In essence, if CFP spends millions of dollars to design a project that cannot be built, it wants a way to get its money back.  An extension of the ENA would be needed to allow this to occur.  The City Council considered these requests at its May 24, 2022 meeting.

During the hearing, LRA Director Guy Bjerke disclosed that on May 23, 2022, the LRA had received an email from the Navy saying that the Navy would look unfavorably on any change in the negotiation process if the LRA granted an enforceable right in the property to anyone before the LRA has reached agreement with the Navy.  (See recorded meeting at 31:30 and following.)  The Navy said they might consider changing their process, i.e., conveying the property to a different entity, if this were to occur. 

LRA staff opposed the developer’s request.  Mr. Bjerke expressed concern that if the developer had a claim to an interest in the property, it could result in litigation which would derail or further delay development of the property.  The threat of litigation could also compromise the public benefits of the project.  The combination of an enforceable right to the property together with a potential right to be reimbursed millions of dollars of development costs could be used as leverage to eliminate components of the project which do not generate a financial return. 

In the letter quoted above, CFP complained that high project costs caused the project to be “impracticable” as an investment.  The letter specifically identified the Project Labor Agreement requiring the use of relatively expensive union labor, and the affordable housing requirements of the project, as contributing to that high cost.  During the hearing, CFP Project Manager Jeb Elmore walked back the statements in the letter by claiming that using union labor and including affordable housing were both important components of the project that would not be changed.

Mr. Elmore was asked directly whether CFP would continue as developer if the ENA was not modified as requested.  After a few evasive answers, Mr. Elmore eventually stated that CFP would continue as developer.  It was apparent from the discussion, however, that if CFP truly believes that this project is not economically viable, further requests for modification of the ENA will be submitted before it expends any significant money on the project.

The City Council ultimately voted 4-1 to deny the request to modify the ENA but agreed to extend the deadline to finalize the Term Sheet until January 31, 2023.  This was a much longer extension than had been requested. 

City Council Approves Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Concord First Partners (10/26/21)

by Bill Speir, Colleen Coll, Dave Requa, LWVDV Observers

The Concord City Council sitting as the Local Reuse Authority unanimously approved the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Concord First Partners, LLC, confirming its selection as the new master developer for the Concord Naval Weapons Station (Base Reuse Project.) Concord First is a limited liability company formed by Discovery Builders (a Seeno related company), Lewis Concord Member (a Lewis Planned Communities related company) and California Capital and Investment Group.  Discovery and Lewis each hold a 45% interest in the LLC, and California Capital holds a 10% interest.  There was significant continued public opposition to the selection of a Seeno related group as master developer, but when none of the three Council members supporting Concord First moved to reconsider the August selection of the developer, the Council focused on the terms of the ENA.

1. Right to Acquire Property: Concord First has the exclusive right to negotiate to acquire the 2350-acre CNWS property.
2. Schedule: Expected timeframes are: 180 days to prepare conceptual development plans and Term Sheet outlining terms for the property acquisition; 24 months after Term Sheet acceptance to completion of the project’s specific plan.  Extensions are permitted and should be expected during the Specific Plan stage of the process.
3. Payment of City Costs: Concord First will reimburse the city for its development processing costs, other than negotiating costs.
4. $600,000 Payment of City Negotiating Costs: Concord First will pay $600,000 for City costs in negotiating the agreements.
5. No Disparaging Statements: Specific key individuals with each of the member companies of Concord First agree not to disparage the city or its representatives.
6. No Campaign Contributions:  Concord First and its principals, representatives and contractors are prohibited from making campaign contributions to Council members, those running for City office, or to political action committees supporting any council member or candidate for office.
7. Term Sheet Preliminary List: Exhibit B to the ENA lists items to be included, or at least considered, as part of the Term Sheet.

The next step is for Concord First Partners to prepare conceptual plans and the Term Sheet.  The Term Sheet will form the basis of the binding Disposition and Development Agreement between the City/Local Reuse Authority and Concord First, which will be, in essence, the formal purchase agreement for the property. 

Discovery/Seeno Group selected as preferred developer of CNWS (8/21/21)

by Bill Speir, Colleen Coll, Dave Requa, LWVDV Observers

After an all-day meeting on Saturday, August 21, 2021, the Concord City Council sitting as the Local Reuse Authority for the redevelopment of the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) selected a group led by the Seeno Companies of Concord to be the preferred developer.  The Statement of Qualifications submitted by Discovery/Seeno, Lewis Planned Communities and California Capital Investment Group beat out a competing proposal by Brookfield Properties and Sunset Development by a 3-2 vote.  Mayor McGallian, Vice Mayor Aliano and Council Member Birsan supported Discovery/Seeno, while Council Members Hoffmeister and Obringer supported Brookfield.  A third developer candidate, City Ventures, was not supported by any of the council members.

The prior developer, Lennar, had pulled out of the project when it could not reach a Project Labor Agreement with local building trades labor unions.  Before submitting their Statement of Qualifications, the Discovery/Seeno group had negotiated and signed a Project Labor Agreement with the unions.  Although the other developer candidates had also entered into Project Labor Agreements before the August 21 meeting, it was clear from the public comment that labor strongly supported the Discovery/Seeno application. Discovery/Seeno also received support from local veterans groups.

Local environmental groups, including Save Mt. Diablo and Greenbelt Alliance among others, opposed Discovery/Seeno.  Some comments supported Brookfield, but most just took an “anybody but Seeno” approach.  The Seeno Companies have a long history of disputes and litigation with environmental groups and public entities. 

The members of the Council supporting Discovery/Seeno emphasized the fact that the group was local, was private, and that the City would be dealing directly with the principals of the companies, not with local representatives of a national company.  The Mayor noted that after the city’s experience with Lennar, a national company, he wanted to work with a company on “Main Street, not Wall Street.”

The City and Discovery/Seeno will now begin negotiating an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement and related Term Sheet for the development.  At the same time, the Discovery/Seeno group will finalize the details of the arrangements among themselves.  During questioning from Council Member Hoffmeister, it was acknowledged that while there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among Discovery/Seeno, Lewis and California Capital, no formal binding agreement among them has been signed.  The MOU gives Discovery/Seeno and Lewis equal interests in the project, and California Capital has a lesser interest.  The Discovery/Seeno representative stated that the parties would finalize this agreement within the next thirty days and provide a copy to the City.  This agreement will be important as it will tell the city how decisions within the group are made, and whether Discovery/Seeno will have decision-making control, or if they must act in concert with their partners.  Council Member Birsan noted during his comments that this was important, and that he would not have supported Discovery/Seeno if they were not acting with partners.

CNWS Community Forum (8/12/21)

by Dave Requa

The forum was two hours via Zoom.  Each of the three groups that submitted proposals to the City of Concord to lead the development of the CNWS were allotted 30 minutes to answer nine pre-selected questions and any participant follow-up questions that time allowed.  Several of the questions related directly to current League priorities including affordable housing, homelessness, climate change, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. There were no actions taken or follow-up identified.

• Seeno Companies: The interview team consisted of four hands-on managers from firms in the subject areas of the questions.  No Seeno principals participated. Various individuals took the lead on the various questions, but other managers also contributed to most questions.  Little time remained for follow-up questions but were also answered by one or more participants.
• City Ventures: The interview team consisted of two individuals, both managers from City Ventures.  All questions were answered by one person with no input from the second individual.  This group completed the questions most quickly, allowing for more follow-up questions of which there were few and all answered by the one staff person.
• Brookfield Development: The interview team consisted of seven individuals, one principal from Brookfield and six hands-on managers from firms in the subject areas of the questions.  Each question was answered by one of the six managers without any direction, like the responses to the questions were pre-rehearsed.  No other manager commented on the question answered by the lead responder.  There was time remaining for some follow-up questions, all answered by the Brookfield principal.

INTERVIEW RESPONSES OF INTEREST

• Both Seeno and Brookfield intend to seek Federal, State grant monies and to work with nonprofit affordable housing contractors. 
• City Venture provided sample projects for which they were responsible.
• Brookfield add the possibility of potential impact fees to fund affordable housing. 

• Seeno noted that half of the Concord homeless require special needs considerations. 
• City Venture presented an example of a project where they provided homeless facilities.

• Seeno noted the importance of recycled water to the project. 
• Brookfield noted the need to assess the solar planned options for structures.  They also noted planning to minimize concrete and asphalt in the construction as the manufacturing of those two products is a major contributor to greenhouse gases.

Diversity Equity and Inclusion – This topic was woven through many of the questions and much of the discussion and was mainly focused on the lower income and undocumented. All the firms acknowledged the good planning to date that has commercial and multi -family housing near the BART station and bus stops to facilitate mobility. 

• Seeno proposed regularly scheduled monthly or quarterly, depending on the status of the project, to meet with the communities of interest. They are also going to hire locally with training as required through the union agreements.
• City Venture proposed having a web site, email address and phone number that the communities of interest could contact any time.  As well as local hires, they will have a liaison to assist with transportation to the job.
• Brookfield also proposed a periodic get-together with the communities of interest.  Local hiring is also a goal through their local partnerships.

• Seeno:  Because of the hazardous materials history of the site and long-term concerns, Seeno plans continuous monitoring during all excavation and grading activities.
• Brookfield noted the importance of keeping traffic, bikers and pedestrians separated to encourage mobility.  They also emphasized the importance of convenient access to the EBRPD open space.
• City Ventures suggested a community garden and orchard.  They also noted the importance of bicycle facilities, a storage location in each home, short term racks in the commercial area and lockers at the transportation hubs.