Master Developer Selection 2023
Answers to Questions:
Question #1: Who owns Diablo Creek golf course? It looked like the north portion is owned by City and southern portion by U.S. Government.
Answer: The City owns the back half of the Diablo Creek and leases the front half from the Navy. The front half is due to transfer as part of the 1st Transfer after the City/LRA reach agreement on the terms of the Economic Development Conveyance – at which point the City will control the property and work with the Master Developer to implement the Specific Plan items that impact the golf course.
Question #2: How can we access the Davis Demographic Report?
Answer: Below is the link to the Powerpoint Presentation and Davis Demographic Reports regarding the demographic study for MDUSD.
Question #3: Has the Navy ever considered a formulaic approach to land valuation?
Answer: Yes. The Navy and LRA have previously negotiated a preliminary payment framework that contained a formulaic approach to land valuation. The Navy desires to see the results of the Specific Plan entitlements before agreeing to the variables in the final formula.
Question #4: Do we have any of our consultants who have reviewed the site and have suggestions as to the best starting point for the redevelopment, from an economic perspective?
Answer: No, the LRA consultants have not expressed opinions on where the project should "start." They have only reviewed the two previous Master Developer's proposed Phase 1 concepts which were based on each developer's interpretation of Area Plan goals, infrastructure priorities, and the near term economic conditions.
Question #5: From the published list of attendees to the Pre-Response conference, can you disclose which groups indicated they are considering a Lead Developer role?
Answer: The following companies have indicated they are considering the Lead Developer role: Hines, Freehold Communities, Equipment Share, Brookfield Properties, Trumark Homes, City Ventures, and Pacific Housing West/AKT Development. Other companies who attended the June 1, 2023 Pre-Response conference may also submit an SOQ.
Question #6: During the pre-response meeting there was reference made to Navy response to PFAS. Is there any additional information available regarding characterization or remediation requirements?
Answer: The Navy has identified 8 sites for Site Investigation sampling and conducted those tests in August 2022. Seven of the sites are in the Administrative Area north of State Route 4 and the eighth site is on the Runway Debris Area near Willow Pass Road and Olivera Road. PFAS was found in seven of the sites but not at the Runway Debris Area. A PowerPoint outlining the Navy’s findings was presented to the Restoration Advisory Board on May 24, 2023 and can be found at this link: PFAS SI RAB Presentation May 2023
Question #7: Clarification is needed with respect to RFQ 5.2.4 #12: How would you address the green frame (buffer) expectation of some members of the public, north of Willow Pass Road?
Willow Pass Road runs north/south through the site. Which segment of the green frame is being referenced? The Willow Pass Park Extension?
Is the expectation that respondents address the entire green frame?
Answer: The green frame (buffer) being referenced in the question is the area from the Willow Pass Road/Olivera Road, north to BART, as shown in Section 3.4 of the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Area Plan. Yes, the expectation is that respondents would address that area north of Willow Pass Road.
The following background is provided as context for the City’s response.
During 2018-19, neighborhoods adjacent to the CNWS land between Willow Pass Road and Bailey Road were vocal in advocating for a green buffer to be formalized, consistent with the CRP Area Plan, between their neighborhoods and the CNWS, southeast of Willow Pass Road. This stretch of land also holds the three oil pipelines that extend through the site. As a result, on April 9, 2019, the Council amended the development code to create a new zoning designation – as CRP-GF (Concord Reuse Project – Green Frame) and rezoned the 275-foot wide area, between Willow Pass and Bailey Roads from Study District to CRP-GF.
Residents from the north Concord neighborhoods have also been vocal in lobbying for a similar type buffer adjacent to their areas. The Area Plan (page 64) reflected the buffer along the eastern edge of the Coast Guard site, when the property was still under federal ownership to provide a buffer from the military housing which at that time had been occupied. The Area Plan reflects a green “neighborhood frame” of unknown width on the Open Space Network Map (Figure 3-13) along the west side of the BART site and the eastern edge of the former Coast Guard site, then connecting to the Willow Pass extension. Based upon the language in the table on page 66, estimates can be drawn regarding the width, but no specifics were indicated for these areas.
The City incorporated the former Coast Guard site into their planning efforts with Lennar in 2017. In Lennar’s (March 2019) Administrative Draft Specific Plan document (never published) a 200-foot buffer was indicated along the western edge of the former Coast Guard site, adjacent to existing residents. This was at a time when the City anticipated purchasing the site. Since then, the Coast Guard site is now in private ownership and AB 2923 is now in effect with respect to the BART property, which requires minimum density levels (75 du/ac) at the site, which may limit the size of a green buffer on that site. Residents in the North Concord area have advocated for greater green space in general in the northern area of the plan. The Area Plan does also show a green area extending from the BART area to Mt. Diablo Creek with the intent of providing a connection from BART to the broader regional open space area (EBRPD).
The City expects coordination by the selected Master Developer, in concert with the City, with respect to the other adjacent property owners (former CG site and BART) during the Specific Plan process regarding roadway, trail and transit connectivity and interfaces between those sites and the base.
Question #8: Should the confidential information submitted as part of the SOQ be sent on 7/14 or arrive on 7/14?
"Note: Confidential information will be kept confidential provided it is appropriately identified as described in Appendix F and submitted in hard copy, sent via overnight courier service with signature required to Gerald J. Ramiza, Partner; Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP; 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1650; Oakland, CA 94612-3250" - RFQ
Answer: Respondents should send confidential information to Gerald Ramiza as found in the note above - for Monday (7/17) delivery and provide proof (receipt copy) of having sent the confidential information as part of their Sharefile submittal by the 3 p.m., July 14 deadline.