Concord City Council
February 1, 2022

1 COUNCILMEMBERS
Dominic D. Aliano, Mayor
Laura M. Hoffmeister, Vice Mayor
Edi E. Birsan
Timothy A. McGallian
Carlyn S. Obringer
Civic Center
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
www.cityofconcord.org
Regular Meeting of the
Concord City Council/City
Council Sitting as the
Local Reuse
Authority/City Council
Sitting as the
Concord/Pleasant Hill
Health Care District
Tuesday,
February 1, 2022
6:00 p.m. - Closed Session
6:30 p.m. - Open Session
7:00 p.m. – Redistricting Public
Hearing
Various
telephonic/electronic
locations
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 21607.1, Item 10.a, which is the public hearing on the redistricting process, has been noticed with a 7:00 p.m. start time. If the Council is addressing another agenda item when that start time occurs, the Council may first conclude the other item, including any associated public comment.

Pursuant to AB 361, the City is authorized to hold public meetings via teleconferencing and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public, without making available any physical location for the public.

City of Concord Rules: The City of Concord has declared a local state of emergency due to COVID-19 and is closed to the public. This Concord City Council meeting is an essential event, therefore it has not been cancelled. However, City of Concord officials and staff will conduct this meeting telephonically or otherwise electronically. The City will not make available any physical location from which members of the public may observe the meeting and offer public comment. Instead, members of the public may observe and address the meeting remotely.

Below is information on how to do that.
2 CLOSED SESSION
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/81825829803?pwd=TmkvMkN2S1gram55d2N3dHRKSDhKZz09 Webinar ID: 818 2582 9803
Passcode: 821885
By phone: US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 348 7799 or 1 253 215 8782 How to Submit Public Comments:

Written: All comments received before 3:00 pm the day of the meeting will be posted on the City’s website as “Correspondence” under the Closed Session agenda item and provided to the City Council prior to the meeting.
Email comments to [email protected].
Please identify your comment as Closed Session Agenda Item.

To Participate in Public Comment for the Closed Session Agenda Item:

Live Remote Public Comments: Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing. Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone. From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/81825829803?pwd=TmkvMkN2S1gram55d2N3dHRKSDhKZz09 oWebinar ID: 818 2582 9803
oPasscode: 821885
oBy phone: US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 348 7799 or 1 253 215 8782 Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this is not required for participation.
Each speaker will be afforded up to 3 minutes to speak. Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Mayor opens the comment period during the Closed Session, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide.
3 CLOSED SESSION

1. OPENING
Roll Call

2. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is a 15-minute Public Comment Period for items within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction that are not on this agenda. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes.

State law prohibits the City Council from acting at this meeting on any matter raised during the Public Comment Period. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above.

3. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: Joshua Robertson v. City of Concord, et al.

United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 19- 01918 SI

4. RECESS TO OPEN SESSION
How to Watch the Meeting:
Watch on TV on Comcast Channel 28, Wave Channel 29, and U-verse Channel 99 Watch the TV broadcast through the City’s website by following THIS LINK Watching Live Streaming of the meeting by following THIS LINK This meeting is being held via Zoom
Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/87036571415?pwd=dUZ0VkV5MGlIN0tpWUJqSm56TjZZQT09 Webinar ID: 870 3657 1415
Passcode: 019173
4 How to Submit Public Comments:

Written: All comments received before 3:00 pm the day of the meeting will be posted on the City’s website as “Correspondence” under the relevant agenda item and provided to the City Councilmembers prior to the meeting.
Email comments to [email protected].
If you are commenting on a particular item on the agenda, please identify the agenda item number and letter.
If you are commenting on an item not listed on the agenda, please identify your comment as a General Public Comment.

To Participate in Public Comment During the Meeting:

Staff Reads Your Comments Aloud: When the Mayor opens the public comment period for the relevant agenda item, please email your comments to [email protected] Prominently write “Read Aloud at Meeting” at the top of the email and your comments will be read into the record (not to exceed three minutes at staff’s cadence). Comments received outside of the public comment period for the relevant item will not be read aloud but will be inserted into the meeting record.

Live Remote Public Comments: Members of the public may submit a live remote public comment via Zoom video conferencing. Download the Zoom mobile app from the Apple Appstore or Google Play. If you are using a desktop computer, you can test your connection to Zoom by clicking here. Zoom also allows you to join the meeting by phone. Join the meeting at any point, but be sure you are in the meeting prior to the City Council consideration of the item on which you would like to provide comments. From a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android:
https://cityofconcord.zoom.us/j/87036571415?pwd=dUZ0VkV5MGlIN0tpWUJqSm56TjZZQT09 oWebinar ID: 870 3657 1415
oPasscode: 019173
oBy phone: US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 348 7799 or 1 253 215 8782 Speakers will be asked to provide their name and city of residence, although providing this is not required for participation.
Each speaker will be afforded up to 3 minutes to speak. Speakers will be muted until their opportunity to provide public comment.

When the Mayor opens a public comment period on the item on which you would like to comment, please use the “raise hand” feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone) which will alert staff that you have a comment to provide.
5 OPEN SESSION

5. OPENING
Roll Call

6. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
This is a 15-minute Public Comment Period for items within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction that are not on this agenda. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes.

State law prohibits the City Council from acting at this meeting on any matter raised during the Public Comment Period. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Written Public Comment

7. PRESENTATIONS
a. Presentation – an Update on the City's Unfunded Liabilities and Other Needs by Karan Reid, Finance Director. Introduction by Mayor Aliano.

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Announcing – a recruitment to fill an unscheduled vacancy for a design professional on the Design Review Board for a term ending February 28, 2025; and setting a deadline of Friday, February 25, 2022, at 5 p.m. as the deadline for receipt of applications by the City Clerk. Report by Joelle Fockler, City Clerk.

9. CITY COUNCIL/LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY (LRA)/CONCORD-PLEASANT HILL

HEALTH CARE DISTRICT (CPHHCD) CONSENT CALENDAR
The public is entitled to address the City Council/LRA/CPHHCD on items appearing on the Consent Calendar before or during the City Council’s/LRA’s/CPHHCD’s consideration of the Consent Calendar. Adoption of the Consent Calendar may be made by one motion of the City Council/LRA/CPHHCD, provided that any Councilmember, individual or organization may request removal of an item from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. If a request for removal of an item from the Consent Calendar has been received, the Mayor may defer action on the particular item and place the same on the regular agenda for consideration in any order s/he deems appropriate. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – adoption of a Resolution to continue conducting City Council, Local Reuse Authority, Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District, standing City Council Subcommittees, and all City board, commission (including the Planning Commission), and committee meetings remotely, pursuant to AB 361.Recommended by the City Clerk.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(3) and/or 15378.
6 7

10. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
Persons who wish to speak on Public Hearings listed on the agenda will be heard when the public hearing is opened, except on public hearing items previously heard and closed to public comment.

After the public has commented, the item is closed to further public comment and brought to the Council level for discussion and action. Further comment from the audience will not be received unless requested by the Council. No public hearing shall commence after 10 p.m. unless approved by majority vote of the City Council. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Considering – draft plans submitted by the public and drawn by the independent demographer for the purpose of redistricting Council election districts, and providing direction on preferred alternatives or refinements. (Public Hearing #3) Report by Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager.

CEQA: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15320, 15378, and 15061(b)(3).

11. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda.

12. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Closed Session Announcements
b. City Manager or Staff Reports
c. Council Reports

13. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Regular Meeting
Date: 2/22/2022 6:30 PM

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders which require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you challenge an action taken by the City Council in court, you may be limited by California law to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in the hearing or in a written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the hearing.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the City of Concord to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with disabilities. If you are disabled and require a copy of a public hearing notice, or an agenda and/or agenda packet in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator Tianjun Cao at (925) 671-3243 or [email protected], at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

From: Daniel O'Rorke <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 3:43 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]> Subject: "Unhoused" in Concord

There has recently been some postings on social media and community boards to try and rally folks around the homeless and #stopTheSweeps etc.

Screw that.

We’ve been in our home almost the entire pandemic and I am appalled at what our community has turned into around us.

I have a great deal of compassion for homeless, but I got to see firsthand that when you offer help to someone help, you have to be quite careful in how it is given or you risk harming their long-term prospects more than offering no help at all.

We live on San Carlos Ave, just by Concord Blvd. Far enough from Bart to miss out on the real “fun”, but still close enough to all the offerings of downtown. We moved here because I was enchanted with Todos Santos, the convenience of the movie theater, places to eat, and the grocery store.

On a recent weekday my girlfriend and I went for a walk to get dinner. A long-overdue date night as things have begun to ease and we wanted to rejoin the local community/economy. In the shopping center nearest our house is a Papa Johns, CVS, a sporting goods store, as well as a few good places to eat. More recently, this seems to have become a homeless stronghold with people shouting and the smell of urine near our neighborhood eateries and drug-store. Some of them have unsurprisingly closed for good and there is a guard posted at the entrance to the drug store.

People with shopping carts crowded the walkway next to shop entrances. A larger store-front has been unable to find a tenant for over 2 years. My girlfriend opted we go somewhere else. As we pushed on towards downtown, the parking lot near Safeway seems to have sprouted junkers, broken-down RVs, and tents. Isn’t that a staff lot? Who would feel safe parking their car there while working an 8h shift?

We gave up on date-nite in Concord. The mood had left us and we returned home, jumped in the car and drove to Taco Bell in Walnut Creek.

My “nature walks / runs” along The Iron Horse Trail, or connecting trails went from a source of zen to a source of rage when I saw how people were literally trashing the little nature we had left.

Not just with litter, but toxic waste. I had to give them up because they had the opposite of the desired effect.

Its not just because I’m sick of car batteries, lawn mowers, burning tires, and junk / stolen electronics being dumped in our creeks and waterways. Its not because I can’t go to bed at night without worrying about whatever noises I hear in the yard and across the street. Its

6.a

not jus t because I’m tired of our city & community being someone else’s trash pile and toilet, much to the detriment of our fragile local economy.

But I honestly think that allowing these tent cities isn’t doing any service to those who folks who they think they are helping.

Think about it. It is frequently 30*F or below at night and the tent isn’t any warmer. On their own (or worse, in communities with no examples to follow), no one is getting the help they need to get sober, look for work, get mental health treatment, get reconnected with relatives who might care about their current situation.

The last flash-flood probably took more than a few lives as entire creek-side communities were swept out to sea.

Not to mention the environment we care so much about.

I support you in cleaning up our streets, our communities, our environment! Think about the equivalent of how many plastic straws keeping that TV, generator, and lawn mower out of our creeks are - or worse water supply (Contra Costa Canal) is.

I support you in keeping our neighborhood safe for women and children.

I support you in keeping local business open.

I support you in keeping Concord a place where we feel safe to walk at night.

I support you in getting folks off the street and into a program where they stand a chance of improving their long-term outcomes!
Sometimes when you love someone with a problem, the most caring thing to do is to make it hard to keep doing what landed them there in the first place.

I know its hard when not everyone understands.

I’m proud of what you’re doing for Concord.

Respectfully Yours,
Daniel

From: Lisa Dellanno <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 2:11 PM
To: Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Subject: A comment for National Gun Violence Survivors Week

Dear Mayor Aliano and City Councilmembers,
In honor of National Gun Violence Survivors Week, I plan to read a 3 minute public comment during tonight’s February 1 council meeting. You may remember that I contacted you all last fall via the email below, and also had further correspondence with some of you.

I am copying a draft of my public comment words here, and you have my permission for the clerk to read it in case I have any technical issue joining the meeting.

Hello everyone,

My name is Lisa Dell’Anno. I am a resident of Concord, and I am a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

This week is important. It is National Gun Violence Survivors Week.

The U.S. has a gun death rate 13 times greater than other high-income nations. By early February, more people are killed with guns in the U.S. than are killed with guns in high-income countries in an entire calendar year.

Behind every gun violence statistic, left behind are distraught parents, fatherless children, disabled victims, and entire families heartbroken by a gun suicide.

During this Week, we recommit ourselves to honoring survivors with action.

Concord can elevate awareness about gun violence, and promote firearm safety in two ways.

First, you can issue a Proclamation for the first Friday of June as National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Walnut Creek did this last June. The Proclamation reads in part:
"We renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledge to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands, and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our children safe."

Lighting up an important landmark (like a fountain, or a tall building) with the color orange also draws awareness to the issue of gun violence.

Second, you can adopt a Safe Storage Ordinance which would require all firearms in a residence be securely stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.

One child dies almost every day in this country after finding an unsecured firearm in their own home or in a relative’s home or while playing at a friend’s house.

Two children, particularly teens, die every day in this country by suicide from an unsecured firearm.

80% of school mass shootings are done by current or former students using an unsecured firearm.

A Safe Storage Ordinance has become more urgent than ever during COVID, given the dramatic rise in gun sales. Do you know that in America, there are more guns than there are people?

Research shows that keeping guns securely stored does NOT hinder self- protection- a gun can be accessed within seconds- but it DOES prevent unintentional deaths of children and teen suicides by as much as 85% depending on the type of storage.

Many cities in California have passed a Safe Storage Ordinance, Pleasanton most recently - I can send you a complete list.

Please consider both of these suggestions. I ask you to give us time in a future agenda to present this information in more detail.

It is National Gun Violence Survivors Week; let us honor Survivors with Action.

Let’s reduce gun violence in Concord.

I hope you will "honor with action" by inviting us to give a longer presentation at a future city council meeting.
"See" you on Zoom tonight!

~Lisa
Lisa Dell'Anno
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
925-956-9496
[email protected]

Local Cities Efforts to Reduce Gun Violence Sept 10, 2021 LRD The City of Walnut Creek:
● Walnut Creek declared June 4th Gun Violence Awareness Day in honor of Wear Orange with an official proclamation.
● Mayor Wilk joined Everytown’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. ● Walnut Creek produced two firearm safety video PSAs.

Cities of Orinda and Moraga:
● Both have passed secure storage ordinances.

The City of Antioch:
● Adopted an official proclamation against gun violence. ● Establishing a task force for youth gun violence prevention. ● Working on a safe storage ordinance.

City of Brentwood:
● Working on a safe storage ordinance.

City of San Ramon:
● San Ramon declared June 4th Gun Violence Awareness Day in honor of Wear Orange with an official proclamation.

City of Dublin:
● Passed a safe storage ordinance
● Made a Wear Orange Proclamation
● PD distributed trigger locks for free, and created a demo video on use.

Cities of Pleasanton and Livermore:
● Working on BeSMART messaging districtwide.
● Working on a safe storage ordinance
MDUSD:
● Included a Firearm Safety Reminder in the weekly parent newsletter.

SRVUSD:
● Working to end the active shooter drills for the grade schools.

RESPONSIBLE STORAGE
WHEREAS, unsecured guns may increase the likelihood of crime and violence through an increased risk of gun theft;
WHEREAS, each year, an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 guns are stolen, and many are funneled into the underground market;
WHEREAS, access to unsecured firearms contributes to gun violence among children and teens; WHEREAS, despite the safety risks, the majority of gun owners do not secure all of their firearms;
WHEREAS, contrary to popular belief, locking devices do not prevent owners from readily accessing their firearms;
WHEREAS, we are all safer when guns are stored unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition.

Sec. 1.
(a) As used in this section:
(1) “Firearm” means [state code reference].
(2) “Locked container” means a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device. “Locked container” shall not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle. (3) “Locking device” means a trigger lock or other designed to prevent a firearm from functioning and, when applied to the firearm, renders the firearm inoperable. (4) “Unloaded” means without a cartridge
(i) in the chamber of the firearm;
(ii) in the cylinder of the firearm, if the firearm is a revolver; or (iii) in the magazine of the firearm, if any part of the magazine is in or affixed to the firearm.

(b) It shall be an offense for a person to store or keep any firearm on any premises unless the firearm is:
(1) Unloaded and in a locked container, or unloaded and affixed with a locking device; or (2) carried on the person, or is otherwise in the immediate possession, of an individual in accordance with all applicable laws.
(c) Subsection (b) shall not apply to:
(1) A firearm stored or kept on premises owned by or under the control of a law enforcement agency.
(2) A firearm stored or kept on the business premise of federally licensed firearms dealer. (d) A violation of subsection (b) is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000.

Secure Storage Ordinance

It would require all firearms in a residence to be securely stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.

Research shows that keeping guns securely stored does
NOT hinder self-protection- a gun can be accessed within seconds- but it DOES prevent unintentional deaths of
children and teen suicides.

These types of devices are not costly.

What Is a Secure Storage Ordinance?

●Almost every day in this country one small child
unintentionally dies after finding a gun in the home.
●Two children, often teens, die each day by gun suicide all due to an unsecured firearm.
●80% of school shootings are also due to unsecured firearms. ●During first few months of Covid
○Unintentional child deaths increased by 43%
○Teen gun suicides increased by 9%
●Easily stolen in home burglaries
Why is a Secure Storage Ordinance Needed?
Consequences of an unsecured gun:

●It does not define how to safely store a gun.
●It doesn’t apply to all homes.

Why California Penal Code (25100) is Not Enough

●We suggest a fine or community service - no criminal penalties. ●Most firearm owners are law abiding and will follow the law if it is simply in place.

Suggested Penalty for Violating Ordinance

Which Towns already have a Secure Storage Ordinance?
San Francisco- 2007Redwood City- 2019Millbrae-2020
Sunnyvale-2013San Carlos-2019Alameda-2020
Santa Cruz-2015Burlingame- 2019Dublin- 2020
Oakland-2016Los Angeles-2019Hillsborough- 2020
Tiburon- 2016Foster City-2019San Mateo- 2020
Belvedere- 2016Portola Valley- 2019Belmont- 2020
Palm Springs-2016Solana Beach-2019San Mateo- 2020
San Jose-2017Del Mar-2019San Marino-2020
Berkeley-2018San Diego-2019Colma-2020
Morgan Hill-2018Calabasas-2019South SF- 2021
Moraga-2018Santa Clara County-2019San Bruno-2021
Saratoga- 2018San Mateo County-2019Orinda-2018
Encinitas-2019Culver City-2019Cudahy-2018

These towns are in the process of drafting an ordinance:
●Palo Alto
●Los Altos Hills- unanimously passed first reading
●Los Altos
●Monte Sereno
●Mountain View
●Hermosa Beach
●West Hollywood

Update on City’s
Unfunded Liabilities and
Other Needs

KARAN REID, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
FEBRUARY 1, 2022

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1 7.a

Agenda

1. Update on Personnel Liabilities

2. Other Unfunded Needs

3. Funding Considerations and Next Steps
2

Personnel Liabilities
3

Overview of Post-Employment Liabilities
Overview and Definitions
Benefit Liabilities:
o California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) o Retiree Medical (OPEB)
o City of Concord Retirement System (CCRS) – c losed pension plan 4

Steps Taken to Reduce Liabilities
 2014 – E liminated pension and retiree medical benefits for elected officials
 2014 – P assed Fiscal Sustainability Ordinance
• Prioritized one-t ime funds for unfunded liabilities
 2015 – F ully funding CCRS ADC
 2016 – S ignificant changes to Employee Benefits
• Reduced retiree medical liability by $16 million
• Fully funding retiree medical ADC
 Additional Discretionary Payments
• Prepay annual UAL payment
5

CalPERS
Annual Valuation as of June 30, 2020
Funded at 62% (best practice 80-100%
funded)
 Current budget and 20-y ear forecast
includes full funding
◦ FY 2020/21 Employer Contribution: $19.3M
◦ FY 2020/21 Employee Contribution: $ 3 .4M
◦ Total Liability: $567M
6 $348.7
Million
62%
funded
$218.2
Million
38%
unfunded
$- $200 $400 $600
44012
Millions
Funded (Assets) Unfunded
Total Liability $566.9Million

CalPERS Board Actions
Funding Risk Mitigation Policy triggered
 June 30, 2021 return = 21.3%
 Discount rate lowered from 7.0% to 6.8% automatically July 1, 2021 New Strategic Asset Allocation
 Added 5% leverage (borrowing money to buy assets)
 Increased allocation to private assets (21% 33%)  Reduction of public equity exposure
New Actuarial Assumptions adopted
 Anticipate negative impact from demographic upda tes
Changes will be reflected in FY 2023/24 rates
7

Challenges to Achieving TargetReturns
US TreasuryYields Reduced to Near Zero
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
10Y Treasury
Low Risk
Assets
Higher Risk
Assets
PERF 10Y Rolling Return
Discount Rate
Rate & Return %
Asset Allocation

Projected Impacts: Discount Rate Change/Performance
9 55.6% Baseline at 7.0%

52.6%

30.1%
Projection at 6.8%

52.4%

45.2%

24.6%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
Employer Rate

CalPERS
June 30, 2021 recalculated plan status
Unfunded liability drops by $18 million
Funded status increases with lowering of
di
scount rate
Estimated at 68% (compared to 62% in
th
e most recent valuation)
10 $419.6
Million
68%
funded
$184.3
Million
32%
unfunded
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700
Millions
Funded (Assets) Unfunded
Total Liability $603.9 Million

11 $0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
Millions
Projected CalPERS Payments
Total Employer Cost at 7.0% Total Employer Cost at 6.8%

Retiree Medical
 Valuation Report as of June 30, 2020
 Currently funded at 49%
(
best practice 75-80%)
 Current budget and 20-y ear forecast
includes full funding
◦ Annual Employer Contribution: $4.3M
◦ Total Liability: $66M
12 $32.6
Million
49% funded
$33.3
Million
51%
unfunded
$- $20 $40 $60 $80
44012
Millions
Funded (Assets) Unfunded
Total Liability $ 65.9 Million

CCRS
Valuation Report as of June 30, 2020
Currently funded at 57% (target 90%
f
unded)
 Current budget and 20-y ear forecast
includes full funding
◦ Annual Employer Contribution: $2.4M
◦ Total Liability: $53M
13 $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60
Millions
Funded (Assets) Unfunded
$30.5 Million
57% Funded
$22.6 Million
43% Unfunded
Total Liability: $53.1 Million

Other Unfunded Needs
14

Other Unfunded Needs

1. Roads and Streets

2. Parks and Facilities

3. Equipment Replacement
15

Roads and Streets
16

Roads and Streets
 Good News
◦ Critical New Roadway Investment made possible by Measure V ◦ $114M in infrastructure funding for roadways over 5 years ◦ Additional annual Measure V revenues to address residential roadways ◦ Five-Y ear Pavement Expenditure Plan stops decline in Concord’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and projected to improve PCI
 Challenge in the Future
◦ After Five-Y ear Plan, annual funding drops to $12M vs. $23.6M needed to maintain PCI
◦ Funding gap by FY2025-26 o f approximately $11.6M
17

Parks and Facilities
18

Parks and Facilities
 Parks & Medians Backlog Assessment
◦ Worked with consultants to identify needs in FY 2014/15 ◦ Needs include: refurbish athletic fields, playgrounds, sports courts, fences, o
utdoor lighting, parking lots, pathways, benches, etc.
 Facility Needs
◦ Staff assessed upcoming needs: HVAC replacements, roofing, painting and s
tructural repairs
◦ Need $1.1 M per year and currently fund $500,000 annually 19

Parks and Facilities
20 Description Deferred Maintenance Total Annual AdditionalNeed Parks & Medians $ 24.2M $ 2.4M
Building Facilities 6.4M 0.6M
Tot al $ 30.6M $ 3.0M

Equipment
Replacement Needs
21

Equipment Replacement
 Types:
◦ Furniture and Equipment for public facing facilities
◦ Public Safety Equipment
 Past funding:
◦ Purchase replacement equipment out of current operating budget ◦ Large dollar replacements either deferred or result in budget spikes  Backlog Assessment
◦ Worked with consultant to identify needs
22

Equipment Replacement
23 Description Annual Funding Need
Furniture and Equipment $165,000
Public Safety Equipment 550,000
Tot al $715,000

Conclusion
24

General Fund Budget Challenges
Unfunded Personnel Liabilities: $ 240. 2M Total
CCRS $ 22.6M
OPEB $ 33.3M
CalPERS $ 184.3M
Unfunded Capital and Equipment Needs: $ 3.7M Annually ◦ Annual Parks and Medians $ 2.4M
◦ Annual F acility Maintenance $ 0.6M
◦ Annual R eplacement Equipment Needs $ 0.7M
Future Roads and Streets Needs > FY2026 $ 11.6M Annually 25

Funding Considerations
Utilize one-t ime funds to make additional contributions  Mid-y ear budget update
Dedicate all or a portion of funding from new development  Hotel tax from hotel currently under construction
 Dedicate a portion of funding from Cannabis revenue
Issue Pension Obligation Bonds
26

Next Steps
Mid-y ear budget update March 2022
 Council will consider recommendations to allocate one-t ime funds Staff will return to Council in May/June with options to pay down UAL faster 27

Questions?
28

Staff Report
Date: February 1, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Joelle Fockler, MMC, City Clerk
[email protected]
(925) 671-3390
Subject: Announcing a recruitment to fill an unscheduled vacancy for a design professional on the Design Review Board for a term ending February 28, 2025; and setting a deadline of Friday, February 25, 2022, at 5 p.m. as the deadline for receipt of applications by the City Clerk.

Report in Brief
In accordance with Policy and Procedure No. 89, this announcement initiates a recruitment to fill an unscheduled vacancy for a design professional on the Design Review Board for a term expiring February 28, 2025.

Recommended Action
Announce a recruitment to fill an unscheduled vacancy for a design professional on the Design Review Board; and set Friday, February 25, 2022, at 5 p.m. as the deadline for receipt of applications by the City Clerk.

Background
Due to the resignation of Ross Wells on January 10, 2022, there is an unscheduled vacancy on the Design Review Board. This recruitment is for a design professional to complete Mr. Well’s term that expires February 28, 2025. Pursuant to Government Code section 54974 (the Maddy Act), a Notice of Vacancy for the unscheduled vacancy was posted by the City Clerk on January 10, 2022.

The five member Design Review Board consists of three design professionals, at least one of whom must be a licensed architect, a public member with experience in design concepts, and one member of the Planning Commission. Members serve a staggered four-year term and must be residents of Concord. The Board is requested to review the

8.a8.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.a
February 1, 2022
design of any development for which design review is required by City ordinance and any matter referred to the Board by the Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Manager. Members meet at 5:30 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of the month.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted. A news release will be issued and distributed and the current members will be notified. The announcement will be televised on the Concord TV Cable Channel 28 (Comcast) and Channel 29 (Astound) Community Bulletin Board. The news release will be posted at the Concord Senior Center, Concord Police Department, the Concord Library, in the City’s agenda display case, on the City’s website, and via social media.

Attachment

1. CMC Excerpt for Design Review Board

Attachment 1

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Chapter 2.20

2.20.210 Established; membership.

The Design Review Board of the city, created by Ordinance No. 926, is hereby continued in existence and shall consist of no more than five members. At all times, the Board shall consist of one member of the city Planning Commission, appointed by the Planning Commission; three design professionals, e.g., architects, landscape architects, urban designers, building designers, at least one of whom shall be a professional licensed architect, appointed by the City Council; and one public member, who shall be a resident of the city, with experience or training in design concepts, appointed by the City Council.
(Code 1965, § 2422; Code 2002, § 2-381. Ord. No. 86-22; Ord. No. 92-19; Ord. No. 05-7; Ord.

No. 10-2)

2.20.220 Terms of members; absence from meetings.

Members shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council for staggered terms of four years. The City Council reserves the right to make appointments for an adjusted term period to maintain a staggered term structure. Any member who absents himself from three meetings of the Design Review Board within a fiscal year without being excused will be deemed to have resigned from his appointment, and the City Council may appoint a new member to serve in place of the resigned member.
(Code 1965, § 2423; Code 2002, § 2-382. Ord. No. 86-22; Ord. No. 10-2; Ord. No. 15-3, § 5)

2.20.230 Purpose and intent.

The Board shall meet not less than once a month at the F. A. Stewart Civic Center, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, at a time and date to be designated by the Board. The Board shall appoint a chair and vice-chairman for a term of one year or until the successor of each is appointed and takes office. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the Board and shall perform the duties necessary or incidental to the office. The vice-chair is chair in the absence of the chair or in case of the inability of the chair to participate in the proceedings. (Code 1965, § 2424; Code 2002, § 2-383. Ord. No. 86-22; Ord. No. 05-7; Ord. No. 10-2)

2.20.240 Compensation of members.

The basis and amount of compensation to be paid to members of the Design Review Board shall be established by resolution of the City Council.
(Code 1965, § 2425; Code 2002, § 2-384. Ord. No. 86-22; Ord. No. 94-5; Ord. No. 10-2)

2.20.250 Rules of procedure; designation of committees and task forces.

The Board shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business. The Board shall be served by a Secretary of the Board who shall record official actions by the Board, maintain records and perform such other duties as assigned. The Board shall keep a public record of its resolutions, transactions, findings, and determinations and may establish subcommittees as needed to fulfill its duties.
(Code 1965, § 2426; Code 2002, § 2-385. Ord. No. 86-22; Ord. No. 05-7; Ord. No. 10-2)

Staff Report
Date: February 1, 2022
To: City Council/City Council Sitting as the Local Reuse Authority/City Council Sitting as the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Joelle Fockler, MMC, City Clerk
[email protected]
(925) 671-3390
Subject: Considering adoption of a Resolution to continue conducting City Council, Local Reuse Authority, Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District, standing City Council Subcommittees, and all City board, commission (including the Planning
Commission), and committee meetings remotely, pursuant to AB 361.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(3) and/or 15378.

Report in Brief
Adopt a Resolution to continue conducting City Council, Local Reuse Authority, Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District, standing City Council Subcommittees, and all City boards, commissions (including the Planning Commission), and committees remotely, pursuant to AB 361.

Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution to continue conducting City Council, Local Reuse Authority, Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District, standing City Council Subcommittees, and all City boards, commissions, and committees remotely, pursuant to AB 361.

Background
On March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California (“Governor”) issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency due to COVID-19. Such proclamation remains in effect, as are the facts, circumstances, and emergency under which it was issued.

9.a9.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 9.a
February 1, 2022
On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 allowing local legislative bodies to hold meetings via teleconference and to make meetings accessible electronically without violating the open meeting laws found in the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., “Brown Act”).

On March 19, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-12 ratifying the City of Concord Director of Emergency Services Proclamation of Local Emergency dated March 13, 2020.

Since the enactment of the Executive Order, local legislative bodies in California have been able to hold public meetings by “teleconference” (a term that includes video conferencing) without complying with all the following Brown Act requirements for teleconference meetings.
 Give notice of each teleconference location from which a member will be participating in a public meeting and each teleconference location must be specifically identified in the meeting notice and agenda, including full address and room number;
 Each teleconference location must be accessible to the public;  Members of the public must be able to address the body at each teleconference location;
 Post agendas at all teleconference locations; and
 During teleconference meetings, at least a quorum of the members of the local body must participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local body exercises jurisdiction.

In March 2020, staff transitioned meetings to TEAMS and then Zoom for all City meetings. Zoom meetings have allowed the City Council, City Council Committees, and the City’s boards, commissions, and committees to continue to conduct City business from the safety of their homes. The usage of Zoom for public meetings for the last 18 months has allowed the City to ensure the public’s continued access to meetings while also ensuring the public’s safety.

On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which, among other things, rescinded his prior Executive Order N-29-20 and set a date of October 1, 2021, for public agencies to transition back to public meetings held in full compliance with the Brown Act.

On September 20, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of Contra Costa (“Health Officer”) issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings, including strongly recommending teleconferencing meetings as those meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and further

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 9.a
February 1, 2022
recommended social distancing and face masking of all Attendees:
https://cchealth.org/covid19/pdf/recommendations-for-safe-public-meetings.pdf.

Additional requirements are being imposed due to the recent Omicron variant surge:

Home | Coronavirus (cchealth.org).

On September 28, 2021, the City Council adopted City Council (CC) Resolution No. 21- 52, Local Reuse Authority (LRA) Resolution No. 21-27, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District (CPHHCD) Resolution No. 21-019 enabling the City to continue holding public meetings by teleconference through October 28, 2021 (30 days). On October 26, 2021, CC Resolution No. 21-58, LRA Resolution No. 21-28, and CPHHCD Resolution No. 21-020 were adopted enabling the City to continue holding public meetings by teleconference through November 25, 2021. On November 9, 2021, CC Resolution No. 21-62, LRA Resolution No. 21-30, and CPHHCD Resolution No. 21-021 was adopted, enabling the City to continue holding public meetings by teleconference through December 9, 2021. On December 7, CC Resolution No. 21-64, LRA Resolution No. 21-31, and CPHHCD Resolution No. 21-022 was adopted, enabling the City to continue holding public meetings by teleconference through January 6, 2022. Because the City Council was not going to meet again until January 10, 2022, the City Council adopted CC Resolution No. 21-64, LRA Resolution No. 21-32, and CPHHCD Resolution No. 21-023 on December 14, 2021, to continue holding meetings by teleconference through January 13, 2022. On January 10, 2022, the City Council adopted CC Resolution No. 22-2, LRA Resolution No. 22-33, and CPHHCD Resolution No. 22-024 was adopted, enabling the City to continue holding public meetings by teleconference through February 9, 2022. The City Council sitting as the City Council, Local Reuse Authority, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District must adopt a Resolution at tonight’s meeting to continue holding public meetings by teleconference for the next 30 days, which is March 3, 2022.

Analysis
AB 361 provides that, if the state of emergency remains active for more than 30 days, a local agency must make the following findings by majority vote every 30 days to continue using the bill’s exemption to the Brown Act teleconferencing rules.  The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the emergency; and  Either of the following circumstances exist: The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members to meet safely in person, or State or local officials continue to impose or recommend social distancing measures.

The City Council must make findings regarding the circumstances of the emergency and vote to continue using the law’s exemptions every 30 days. Resolution No. 22-2, LRA Resolution No. 22-33, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District Resolution No. 22-024, adopted on January 10, 2022, enabled the City to continue holding public meetings by teleconference through February 9, 2022. To continue holding meetings by teleconference through March 3, 2022, the City Council must adopt a Resolution to

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 9.a
February 1, 2022
continue using AB 361’s exemption, and the conditions under which such Resolution was passed are and remain in effect as of the date hereof.

The stated aim of AB 361 is “to improve and enhance public access to local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future applicable emergencies, by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options” consistent with Executive Order N-29-20. The bill sunsets as of January 1, 2024.

Environmental Determination
This action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and/or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

In addition, this action is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), “Review for Exemptions” of the CEQA Guidelines because there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and no further environmental review is required.

No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Financial Impact
There is no fiscal impact.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. Resolution declaring the need to continue to meet remotely, pursuant to AB 361

Res No. 22-X
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD, CITY COUNCIL SITTING

AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS THE

CONCORD/PLEASANT HILL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Declaring the Need for the City Council,
Local Reuse Authority, Concord/Pleasant Hill Health
Care District, Standing City Council Subcommittees,
and all City Boards, Commissions, and Committees to
Continue to Meet Remotely Pursuant to AB 361
City Council Resolution No. 22-XX
Local Reuse Authority Resolution No. 22-XX
Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District Resolution No. 22-XX /
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California (“Governor”) issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency due to COVID-19. Such proclamation remains and is in effect as of the date of this Resolution, as are the facts, circumstances, and emergency under which it was issued; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, pursuant to Resolution No. 20-12, the City Council of the City of Concord (“City Council”) ratified the City of Concord Director of Emergency Services Proclamation of Local Emergency dated March 13, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Health Officer of the County of Contra Costa (“Health Officer”) has issued various health orders and updates designed to slow the spread of COVID-19 (including variants thereof) such as vaccinations, quarantines, face covering requirements, and social distancing recommendations designed to protect public health. The health orders and recommendations can be found on the Contra Costa Health Services website: https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/health- orders; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2021, the Health Officer issued recommendations for safely holding public meetings, including strongly recommending teleconferencing meetings as those meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and further recommended social distancing and face masking of all Attendees: recommendations-for- safe-public-meetings.pdf (cchealth.org); and
Attachment 1

Res No. 22-X
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 2
WHEREAS, Contra Costa Health Services recommends masking for all, social distancing, and avoiding crowded places, close contact settings, and confined places with poor airflow:
https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/safer-social-interactions; https://www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/prevention; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to spread, the Delta and Omicron variants (highly- infectious COVID-19 strains) are prevalent in the Bay Area; in January 2022 at least nine Contra Costa County residents died from COVID-19 (source: https://www.c oronavirus.cchealth.org) and the
Omicron variant is surging (source:| Coronavirus (cchealth.org)); and WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 allowing local legislative bodies to hold remote meetings via teleconference and to make such meetings accessible electronically without violating the open meeting laws found in the Ralph M. Brown Act Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., “Brown Act”); and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2021, the Governor issued Executive Order N-08-21, which placed an end date of September 30, 2021 on such authority; and WHEREAS, since the issuance of Executive Order N-08-21, the Delta variant has emerged, causing a spike in COVID-19 cases throughout the state; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-08-21, the legislative bodies of the local agency City of Concord (“City”) including its City Council, standing Council subcommittees, Local Reuse Authority, Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District and all City boards, commissions (including the Planning Commission), and committees) and the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District (collectively, “City Bodies”), have been holding remote meetings using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology in an effort to help protect the public, members of City Bodies, and City staff attending such meetings (“Attendees”) from COVID-19; and WHEREAS, due the rise in COVID-19 case, including due to the Delta and Omicron variants, the City continues to be deeply concerned about protecting the health and safety of Attendees, particularly given that even fully vaccinated people have contracted the Delta and Omicron variants, people may have and transmit the virus before knowing they are infected and/or if they are

Res No. 22-X
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 3
asymptomatic; meetings of City Bodies often last several hours, and City meeting facilities are limited in space with seats are close together, and City facilities have restricted air flow; and WHEREAS, the California state legislature adopted AB 361 as an urgency measure that was signed by the Governor on September 16, 2021, effective immediately. AB 361 amends the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue meeting remotely using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology as long as there is a gubernatorial “proclaimed state of emergency” upon the local legislative body finding that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing or that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of Attendees; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to continue holding public meetings of the City Bodies remotely using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology in order to avoid the imminent risk to the health and safety of Attendees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District passed Resolution No. 22-2, Local Reuse Authority Resolution No. 22-33, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District Resolution No. 21-024 on January 10, 2022, in compliance with AB 361. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(1)(B), such meeting was held during a proclaimed state of emergency, each of the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District determined, by majority vote, 5-0, that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of Attendees; this January 10, 2022, meeting of the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority; and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District was held remotely using teleconferencing pursuant thereto; and WHEREAS, the facts, circumstances, and emergency under which such determination was made and Resolution No. 22-2, LRA Resolution No. 22-33, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District Resolution No. 22-024 was adopted continue to exist as of the date of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District after giving all public notices required by State Law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed joint public meeting on February 1, 2022; and

Res No. 22-X
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 4
WHEREAS, at such public meeting, the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District considered all pertinent oral and written information, exhibits, testimony, and comments received during the public review process, including, without limitation, information received at the public meeting, the oral report from City staff, the written report from City staff dated February 1, 2022, this Resolution, and all other information on which each of the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District has based its decision (collectively, “Remote Meeting Information”).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS

THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY, AND THE CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS THE

CONCORD/PLEASANT HILL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. Each of the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District hereby finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct; the recitals are hereby incorporated by reference into each of the findings as though fully set forth therein. The recitals and the information below constitute findings in this matter, and together with the Remote Meeting Information, serve as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the findings and actions set forth herein. The exhibits attached to this Resolution are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. CEQA. This action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Reg. Section 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and/or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, this action is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), “Review for Exemptions” of the CEQA Guidelines because there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment, and no further environmental review is required. No unusual circumstances exist and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
//

Res No. 22-X
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 5
Section 3. AB 361 Findings. Each of the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District hereby finds the following:
a. A state of emergency remains active.
b. State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
c. Each of the City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District have reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency. d. The following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of Attendees to meet safely in person.
(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

Section 4. As of February 1, 2022, meetings of City Bodies will continue to be conducted remotely using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology for the next 30 days in compliance with AB 361. The City Council, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District will revisit the need to so conduct meetings of City Bodies within 30 days of the adoption of this Resolution.

Section 5. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Concord, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District on February 1, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
//
//
//

Res No. 22-X
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 6
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 22-XX, Local Reuse Authority Resolution No. 22-XX and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District Resolution No. 22- 0XX, were duly and regularly adopted at a regular joint meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord, the Local Reuse Authority, and the Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District on February 1, 2022.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

Staff Report
Date: February 1, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3155
Subject: Considering draft plans submitted by the public and drawn by the independent demographer for the purpose of redistricting Council election districts, and providing direction on preferred alternatives or refinements. (Public Hearing #3)
CEQA: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15320, 15378, and 15061(b)(3).

Report in Brief
On January 10, 2022, the City held the second public hearing (Public Hearing #2) to receive input on the composition of voting districts based on the 2020 Census data prior to maps being considered for revision. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 21607.1, tonight’s hearing is one of at least four legally-required public meetings to inform the public about the redistricting process and receive community input on how to redraw the boundaries of the voting districts. During tonight’s public hearing, the City Council will view the draft plans submitted by the public and drawn by the independent demographer. At the conclusion of tonight’s public hearing, the City Council will provide direction to the City’s independent demographer on preferred alternatives or refinements, for discussion during Public Hearing #4 scheduled for March 1, 2022.

Recommended Action
Hold the public hearing to receive input on draft plans drawn by the independent demographer and the public for the purpose of redistricting Council election districts, and provide direction to staff and to the City’s independent demographer on preferred alternatives or refinements.

10.a10.a10.a10.a10.a10.a10.a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
February 1, 2022
Background
On January 2, 2018, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention to transition from at-large to by-district elections. The final district-based maps were adopted on February 27, 2018; the adopted ordinance included five new Council districts and a phase-in election schedule from 2018-2020. At this point in time, all five Councilmembers have been elected to their Council seats through a district election.

After each decennial census, the City must conduct a process whereby the City Council adopts districts using new census data. The process is called redistricting, and it must be completed by April 17, 2022. The City Council desires to conduct five public hearings1 during the redistricting process. The first public hearing occurred on November 2, 2021, and the second public hearing occurred on January 10, 2022.

The City has also hosted two public workshops to receive community input and to explain how to use the available online tools to provide additional input. These workshops were held over zoom on November 15 and 172 and led by staff and the City’s independent demographer. Staff also hosted a virtual drop-in meeting and has been responsive to individual outreach by interested parties.

Public Engagement
A significant amount of public outreach has occurred with the goal of gathering as much public input on the process as possible. These efforts include a combination of directly mailed and electronically mailed materials, social media posts and City website information, virtual engagements, and public hearings. A full listing of engagement efforts is included in the attachments.

Public Input
During Public Hearing #1 on November 2, one member of the public spoke on the topic.

The speaker advocated to keep District 3 intact as it is currently drawn. The same speaker provided slightly revised comments in an email dated November 29 by suggesting that Reganti Place be included in District 3, given that the street is comprised of high-density apartment complexes.

Two workshops were held via Zoom on November 15 and 17. The purpose of holding these workshops was to provide an informal setting where participants could receive information about the redistricting process and demonstrations of how the map drawing tools work. Despite extensive outreach, which included a direct mailing to all Concord 1 For convenience, the Council-led public hearings are referred to in this staff report as Public Hearing #1, Public Hearing #2, Public Hearing #3, etc.
2 Although one of those staff/consultant-led workshops legally qualifies as a public hearing pursuant to Elections Code Section 21607.1(e), this staff report does not identify it in the Council-led Public Hearing count referenced in the preceding footnote.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
February 1, 2022
postal customers (approximately 51,502 addresses) and use of social media, both workshops were lightly attended, yielding approximately 14 participants in total.

During Public Hearing #2 on January 10, six speakers provided the following summarized comments: one speaker reinforced their desire to see Reganti Place included in District 3; two had comments and questions regarding the process and thoughts on election procedures; and three expressed a desire to see redrawn districts which better represent minorities and low income households.

On January 11 City staff held a virtual “office hour” from 12 pm to 1 pm. The goal of the informal session was to further help interested persons participate in the redistricting process. Three participants attended the session and asked various questions of staff.

The public was informed of these office hours through social media posts, the City’s e- newsletter, website, and through oral presentation at Public Hearing #2.

During this redistricting process, City staff have and continue to be available to meet with interested individuals and community groups such as HOAs, businesses or service organizations, faith-based groups, and other community organizations. Interested persons or groups wanting to schedule a briefing with staff should do so utilizing the below contact information. This ability for community members to meet with staff has been communicated in all outreach materials, including mailings, social media posts, e- newsletters, website, etc.

In addition to the ability to receive information at the various informal meetings and provide testimony during public hearings, the City has developed several other ways to allow residents to submit input on the City’s redistricting process. These include:

1. Sending an e-mail to [email protected]

2. Mailing or dropping off comments and/or map submission forms at 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA 94519

3. Emailing or calling the City Clerk at [email protected] or (925) 671- 3390.

As mentioned throughout this report, a webpage on redistricting has been created at:
www.cityofconcord.org/redistricting. All information related to the City’s process is on this webpage, including opportunities for when and how the public can contribute to the decision-making process. The webpage and supporting materials have been translated into Spanish, and those are posted on a dedicated web page linked to the main redistricting page.

Analysis
In September 2021 the U.S. Census Bureau released the official data necessary for the City to begin the redistricting process. This data must be used to be in compliance with the Fair Maps Act, which was adopted by the California Legislature as AB 849 and took

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
February 1, 2022
effect January 1, 2020. Under the Act, any changes in district boundaries shall be drawn and adopted using the following criteria in the listed order of priority pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601:

1. Comply with the federal requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act

2. Be geographically contiguous

3. Keep neighborhoods and “communities of interest” (socio-economic geographic areas) together

4. Use easily identifiable and understandable boundaries

5. Be drawn so that districts are relatively compact (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people)

6. Neither favor or discriminate against a political party By law, the City must hold at least four public hearings that enable community members to provide input on the drawing of district maps:
 At least one hearing must occur before the City Council draws draft maps  At least two hearings must happen after the drawing of draft maps  City staff or consultants may hold a public workshop instead of one of the required pre-map public redistricting hearings
In accordance with state law, there are additional requirements related to the mandated public hearings. Each is discussed below:
 At least one hearing must occur on a Saturday, Sunday, or after 6 p.m. on a weekday
o Each of the public hearings, including the November 15 and 17 workshops, have or will be held at or after 6 p.m. on a weekday  If a redistricting hearing is consolidated with another local government meeting, the redistricting hearing portion must begin at a pre-designated time that is noticed to the public
o Each of the public hearings, including the November 15 and 17 workshops, have or will be held at pre-designated times that were noticed to the public
 Local public redistricting hearings should be made accessible to people with disabilities
o The City of Concord offers its public programs, services, and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including those with

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
February 1, 2022
disabilities, in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act and California Law
Changes from the 2010 Census Data
When City Council district-based maps were adopted in 2018 they had a total population deviation of 4.3%. The 2020 census identifies the demographic makeup of the districts having changed slightly, with the population deviation increasing to a total of

7.6%, which would still fall within a justifiable range if the districts were to remain as they are. Demographic data of the existing districts is included in Attachment 1.

Tonight’s Public Hearing
The purpose of tonight’s public hearing, Public Hearing #3, is to review the draft and public plans and for the City Council to provide additional direction to the City’s independent demographer on the composition of revised draft maps.

As a reminder, communities of interest may be taken into consideration while drawing council district boundaries. A community of interest under the relevant Elections Code for cities (Elections Code Section 21601(c)) is “a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.”
Possible features defining community of interest might include, but are not limited to:
 Shared interests in schools, housing, community safety, transit, health conditions, land use, environmental conditions, and/or other issues;  Common social and civic networks, including churches, mosques, temples, homeowner associations, and community centers, and shared use of community spaces, like parks and shopping centers;
 Cultural identities, including households that predominantly speak a language other than English;
 Similar socio-economic status, including but not limited to income, home- ownership, and education levels.

Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

Council shall also consider other traditional redistricting criteria such as:
 Compactness of districts, including their shape and appearance.  Keeping communities of interest, such as neighborhoods, school district boundaries, etc., undivided by a district boundary, to the extent feasible.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
February 1, 2022
 Using understandable natural and man-made geographical and topographical boundaries as much as possible.

Plans for Consideration
Attachment 2 contains draft plans for consideration by Council and the community; staff published these plans on the City’s redistricting webpage on January 19, 2022. That same day, staff distributed an e-newsletter to the public with information about the availability of the plans and a reminder about this Public Hearing. Staff also distributed an email to community-based organizations alerting them to the publishing of the draft plans and information about this Public Hearing on January 19. Staff posted the information on Nextdoor, Facebook and Twitter on January 21.

A general description of the draft plans are as follows:
- Current Districts. The existing City Council district boundaries have a total population deviation of 7.6%.
- Blue Plan. The Blue Plan has a total population deviation of 7.6%. The minor difference between current boundaries and this draft is a slightly cleaner boundary along Cowell Road by moving slice 60 from District 2 to District 4. - Purple Plan. The Purple Plan has a total population deviation of 2.5%. This draft further delineates Cowell Road as a boundary, and moves the area of San Vincente Drive from District 1 to District 2. Finally, this version extends District 3 through the downtown to roughly the BART tracks and Almond Avenue, an area that is currently within District 2.
- Red Plan. The Red Plan has a total population deviation of 7.6%. This plan utilizes Cowell Road as a distinct boundary to District 4. The plan spits existing District 3 along the 242 corridor, with the western half moving into District 2, and the eastern half extending into existing District 2 to include the downtown, Willow Pass Safeway, and the neighborhood around The Alameda.
- Green Plan. The Green Plan has a total population deviation of 5.4%. This plan alters current District 3 by moving the portion north of Clayton Road and west of 242 into District 2. It also moves the area bounded by Oak Grove, Apple Drive, and Mohr Lane from District 4 to District 3.
- Public Plan 1. The plan submitted by D’Marco Anthony has a total population deviation of 5.6%. This plan utilizes Cowell Road as a distinct boundary to District 4, and moves the area of San Vincente Drive from District 1 to District 2.

The plan also extends current District 3 into the westerly portion of District 2 that runs from 242, to Solano Way, to Highway 4.
- Public Plan 2. The plan submitted by Edi Birsan has a total population deviation of 9.8%. This plan utilizes Cowell Road as a distinct boundary to District 4 by swapping portions of existing boundaries with Districts 2 and 5.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
February 1, 2022
- Public Plan 3. The plan submitted by Alex Navarro has a total population deviation of 4.3%. This plan is very similar to the Green Plan described above.

The differences are that the northerly boundary of District 3 would extend to Willow Pass Road, leaving out Renaissance and Park Central apartment complexes. It would also generally follow Peach Place off Oak Grove instead of following Apple Drive, and include an area between the Walnut Creek Channel and Mohr Lane.

Next Steps
Council may choose a preferred plan, or provide additional direction to the City’s independent demographer on composition of revised draft maps. If the City Council directs staff to develop additional alternatives, they will be published and posted on the City’s redistricting webpage prior to the fourth public hearing. The public will then be able to provide input and comment on the new alternatives during the public hearing on March 1 (Public Hearing #4), at which time any final revisions may be made. Adoption of the final map is scheduled for the April 5, 2022 public hearing (Public Hearing #5).

The remaining schedule of public hearing dates for this effort is presented below. There will be Spanish translation services provided at each public hearing.

Hearing Date Description
March 1, 2022 Public Hearing #4: Review the draft plans, take public testimony, and select one map to introduce as part of the district elections ordinance.

April 5, 2022 Public Hearing #5: Adopt the updated district elections ordinance.

All public comment received on this topic by the time of producing the agenda is included as Attachment 3. Any public comment received after this date will be benched for the Council and public at the meeting.

Financial Impact
There is a financial impact on the City’s General Fund to cover staff time and cost of an outside demographer, special legal counsel associated with the redistricting process, and translators. These costs are estimated to not exceed $150,000. These costs were included in the adopted budget.

Environmental Determination
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15320, 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it is an organizational structure change and does not have the potential to result in either a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 10.a
February 1, 2022
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. Demographic Data of Current and Draft Plans

2. Draft Plans

3. Public Outreach

4. Correspondence

Name # Total Deviation % Dev Latino Asian Black NH
White
Total Latino Asian Black NH
White
Total Latino Asian Black NH
White
Current 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% Current 2 25,152 22 0.1% 33.8% 15.3% 4.3% 41.6% 20,343 30.8% 15.4% 4.2% 45.2% 17,428 24.3% 12.6% 3.9% 56.2% Current 3 23,995 -1,135 -4.5% 55.7% 15.9% 5.8% 19.1% 17,914 51.4% 16.9% 6.3% 22.1% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4% Current 4 25,237 107 0.4% 25.8% 16.9% 3.8% 49.5% 20,405 23.1% 17.0% 3.9% 52.4% 18,467 17.5% 14.2% 5.4% 62.9% Current 5 25,894 764 3.0% 18.7% 20.8% 3.6% 52.3% 20,654 17.2% 20.4% 3.4% 54.8% 19,735 13.4% 14.3% 1.8% 68.0% Blue 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% Blue 2 24,761 -369 -1.5% 33.8% 15.2% 4.3% 41.8% 20,028 30.8% 15.3% 4.1% 45.4% 17,051 24.2% 12.2% 3.7% 56.8% Blue 3 23,995 -1,135 -4.5% 55.7% 15.9% 5.8% 19.1% 17,914 51.4% 16.9% 6.3% 22.1% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4% Blue 4 25,628 498 2.0% 25.9% 17.0% 3.8% 49.2% 20,720 23.3% 17.1% 3.9% 52.1% 18,844 17.7% 14.6% 5.6% 62.3% Blue 5 25,894 764 3.0% 18.7% 20.8% 3.6% 52.3% 20,654 17.2% 20.4% 3.4% 54.8% 19,735 13.4% 14.3% 1.8% 68.0% Purple 1 24,929 -201 -0.8% 22.4% 17.3% 4.3% 51.9% 20,087 20.2% 17.2% 4.1% 54.7% 18,337 15.4% 12.0% 2.9% 67.4% Purple 2 24,864 -266 -1.1% 34.1% 15.0% 4.3% 41.8% 20,025 31.0% 15.0% 4.2% 45.3% 17,135 25.0% 11.7% 4.0% 56.6% Purple 3 24,956 -174 -0.7% 54.5% 15.9% 5.8% 20.2% 18,767 50.1% 16.9% 6.2% 23.3% 11,790 30.1% 21.7% 9.6% 35.8% Purple 4 25,409 279 1.1% 25.9% 17.3% 3.8% 49.0% 20,546 23.2% 17.3% 3.8% 51.9% 18,584 17.5% 14.8% 5.3% 62.1% Purple 5 25,492 362 1.4% 18.7% 20.8% 3.6% 52.5% 20,320 17.1% 20.5% 3.4% 54.9% 19,439 13.3% 14.2% 1.8% 68.2% Red 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% Red 2 24,410 -720 -2.9% 33.8% 13.5% 4.2% 43.6% 19,731 30.7% 13.7% 4.1% 47.1% 16,697 23.0% 11.5% 3.6% 58.9% Red 3 26,139 1,009 4.0% 53.0% 17.1% 5.7% 20.4% 19,674 48.7% 18.0% 6.2% 23.5% 12,842 31.6% 21.3% 9.5% 34.8% Red 4 24,237 -893 -3.6% 26.2% 17.6% 3.8% 48.4% 19,591 23.6% 17.6% 3.8% 51.5% 17,529 17.0% 15.0% 5.6% 62.2% Red 5 25,492 362 1.4% 18.7% 20.8% 3.6% 52.5% 20,320 17.1% 20.5% 3.4% 54.9% 19,439 13.3% 14.2% 1.8% 68.2% Green 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% Green 2 24,438 -692 -2.8% 33.4% 15.2% 4.6% 41.7% 19,880 30.3% 15.3% 4.4% 45.3% 16,949 24.6% 12.0% 3.9% 56.9% Green 3 25,790 660 2.6% 56.8% 16.2% 5.5% 18.2% 19,109 52.9% 17.1% 6.0% 20.8% 11,726 32.9% 21.8% 9.7% 32.5% Green 4 24,558 -572 -2.3% 23.0% 16.9% 3.7% 52.2% 20,007 20.6% 16.9% 3.7% 55.1% 18,393 15.5% 14.8% 5.5% 64.0% Green 5 25,492 362 1.4% 18.7% 20.8% 3.6% 52.5% 20,320 17.1% 20.5% 3.4% 54.9% 19,439 13.3% 14.2% 1.8% 68.2% Plan Population Voting Age Population Citizen Voting Age Population Concord Redistricting: February 1, 2022
Dr
aft and Public Plans
Attachment 1

Name # Total Deviation % Dev Latino Asian Black NH
White
Total Latino Asian Black NH
White
Total Latino Asian Black NH
White
Plan Population Voting Age Population Citizen Voting Age Population Concord Redistricting: February 1, 2022
D
raft and Public Plans
Public 1 1 24,929 -201 -0.8% 22.4% 17.3% 4.3% 51.9% 20,087 20.2% 17.2% 4.1% 54.7% 18,337 15.4% 12.0% 2.9% 67.4% Public 1 2 25,640 510 2.0% 32.3% 15.1% 4.3% 43.3% 20,740 29.3% 15.2% 4.1% 46.8% 17,753 22.6% 12.7% 4.0% 58.1% Public 1 3 25,352 222 0.9% 55.4% 15.6% 5.7% 19.8% 19,007 51.0% 16.6% 6.2% 22.9% 12,227 33.4% 19.9% 9.1% 34.7% Public 1 4 24,237 -893 -3.6% 26.2% 17.6% 3.8% 48.4% 19,591 23.6% 17.6% 3.8% 51.5% 17,529 17.0% 15.0% 5.6% 62.2% Public 1 5 25,492 362 1.4% 18.7% 20.8% 3.6% 52.5% 20,320 17.1% 20.5% 3.4% 54.9% 19,439 13.3% 14.2% 1.8% 68.2% Public 2 1 25,372 242 1.0% 22.8% 17.3% 4.3% 51.6% 20,429 20.6% 17.2% 4.1% 54.4% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1% Public 2 2 25,578 448 1.8% 33.5% 15.1% 4.3% 42.2% 20,687 30.5% 15.2% 4.2% 45.7% 17,774 24.1% 12.1% 4.0% 57.0% Public 2 3 23,995 -1,135 -4.5% 55.7% 15.9% 5.8% 19.1% 17,914 51.4% 16.9% 6.3% 22.1% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4% Public 2 4 24,237 -893 -3.6% 26.2% 17.6% 3.8% 48.4% 19,591 23.6% 17.6% 3.8% 51.5% 17,529 17.0% 15.0% 5.6% 62.2% Public 2 5 26,468 1,338 5.3% 18.7% 20.4% 3.6% 52.8% 21,124 17.1% 20.1% 3.5% 55.2% 20,327 13.9% 14.1% 1.8% 67.9% Public 3 1 24,896 -234 -0.9% 22.5% 17.4% 4.3% 51.9% 20,060 20.2% 17.2% 4.1% 54.7% 18,315 15.4% 12.0% 2.9% 67.3% Public 3 2 25,374 244 1.0% 33.2% 15.4% 4.7% 41.6% 20,697 30.1% 15.5% 4.6% 45.1% 17,766 24.9% 12.2% 4.0% 56.8% Public 3 3 25,803 673 2.7% 57.4% 16.0% 5.5% 17.9% 18,994 53.5% 17.0% 6.0% 20.4% 11,698 33.6% 21.4% 9.9% 31.7% Public 3 4 24,728 -402 -1.6% 22.4% 17.0% 3.7% 52.6% 20,195 20.2% 16.9% 3.6% 55.4% 18,451 15.2% 14.6% 5.2% 64.5% Public 3 5 24,816 -314 -1.2% 18.7% 20.7% 3.4% 52.7% 19,772 17.1% 20.4% 3.3% 55.1% 19,033 13.2% 14.4% 1.8% 68.4% * Population and Voting Age Population from 2020 Census Redistricting data. Adjusted for incarcerated populations. * Citizen Voting Age Population from adjusted 2015-2019 American Community Survey Special Tabulation. * Racial/Ethnic data calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN NO. 00-02.

^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 25,152 +0.1% 17,428 24.3% 12.6% 3.9% 56.2%
3 23,995 -4.5% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4%
4 25,237 +0.4% 18,467 17.5% 14.2% 5.4% 62.9%
5 25,894 +3.0% 19,735 13.4% 14.3% 1.8% 68.0%
T otal125,650 7.6% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Current Districts
Prepared by
Attachment 2

^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 24,761 -1.5% 17,051 24.2% 12.2% 3.7% 56.8%
3 23,995 -4.5% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4%
4 25,628 +2.0% 18,844 17.7% 14.6% 5.6% 62.3%
5 25,894 +3.0% 19,735 13.4% 14.3% 1.8% 68.0%
T otal125,650 7.6% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Blue Plan
Prepared by

^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 24,929 -0.8% 18,337 15.4% 12.0% 2.9% 67.4%
2 24,864 -1.1% 17,135 25.0% 11.7% 4.0% 56.6%
3 24,956 -0.7% 11,790 30.1% 21.7% 9.6% 35.8%
4 25,409 +1.1% 18,584 17.5% 14.8% 5.3% 62.1%
5 25,492 +1.4% 19,439 13.3% 14.2% 1.8% 68.2%
T otal125,650 2.5% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Purple Plan
Prepared by

^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 24,410 -2.9% 16,697 23.0% 11.5% 3.6% 58.9%
3 26,139 +4.0% 12,842 31.6% 21.3% 9.5% 34.8%
4 24,237 -3.6% 17,529 17.0% 15.0% 5.6% 62.2%
5 25,492 +1.4% 19,439 13.3% 14.2% 1.8% 68.2%
T otal125,650 7.6% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Red Plan
Prepared by

^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 24,438 -2.8% 16,949 24.6% 12.0% 3.9% 56.9%
3 25,790 +2.6% 11,726 32.9% 21.8% 9.7% 32.5%
4 24,558 -2.3% 18,393 15.5% 14.8% 5.5% 64.0%
5 25,492 +1.4% 19,439 13.3% 14.2% 1.8% 68.2%
T otal125,650 5.4% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Green Plan
Prepared by

^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 24,929 -0.8% 18,337 15.4% 12.0% 2.9% 67.4%
2 25,640 +2.0% 17,753 22.6% 12.7% 4.0% 58.1%
3 25,352 +0.9% 12,227 33.4% 19.9% 9.1% 34.7%
4 24,237 -3.6% 17,529 17.0% 15.0% 5.6% 62.2%
5 25,492 +1.4% 19,439 13.3% 14.2% 1.8% 68.2%
T otal125,650 5.6% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Public Plan 1
Prepared by

^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 25,372 +1.0% 18,778 16.1% 11.8% 2.8% 67.1%
2 25,578 +1.8% 17,774 24.1% 12.1% 4.0% 57.0%
3 23,995 -4.5% 10,877 31.0% 22.3% 10.2% 33.4%
4 24,237 -3.6% 17,529 17.0% 15.0% 5.6% 62.2%
5 26,468 +5.3% 20,327 13.9% 14.1% 1.8% 67.9%
T otal125,650 9.8% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Public Plan 2
Prepared by

^ 2020 Census Redistricting Data.

Adjusted for incarcerated populations
+ 2015-2019 American Community
Survey Special Tabulation
* Calculated pursuant to OMB BULLETIN
NO. 00-02
#
Population^ Citizen Voting Age Population+
Total Deviation Total Latino * Asian* Black* NH-
White
1 24,896 -0.9% 18,315 15.4% 12.0% 2.9% 67.3%
2 25,374 +1.0% 17,766 24.9% 12.2% 4.0% 56.8%
3 25,803 +2.7% 11,698 33.6% 21.4% 9.9% 31.7%
4 24,728 -1.6% 18,451 15.2% 14.6% 5.2% 64.5%
5 24,816 -1.2% 19,033 13.2% 14.4% 1.8% 68.4%
T otal125,650 4.3% 85,285 19.4% 14.4% 4.3% 59.9%
Ideal 25,130
Public Plan 3
Prepared by

Attachment 3
Public Engagement
City Council Redistricting Process
October 2021 – February 2022

Email to CBOs:

Oct. 21 (introduction to process, website and sharing public hearing schedule) Dec. 2 (update on process and link to workshop video)
Jan. 3 (reminder about January 10 public hearing and information about process) Jan. 19 (notification of draft plans published, reminder of Feb. 1 hearing) Facebook:

Nov. 8 (post re: upcoming workshops)
Nov. 8 (event - workshop promotion)
Nov. 8 (event - workshop promotion)
Nov. 15 (post reminding community of workshops)
Nov. 29 (post about Nov. 28 e-newsletter with article about redistricting) Nov. 30 (post about winter/spring activity guide containing article about redistricting Dec. 29 (post about January 10 public hearing)
Jan. 5 (post reminding community of January 10 public hearing) Jan. 10 (public hearing reminder and January 11 office hours) Jan. 15 (post - Jan. 18 draft maps due/deadline reminder) Jan. 21 (post – draft plans now available for review online) Nextdoor:

Nov. 8 (event – workshop promotion)
Nov. 15 (event – workshop promotion)
Nov. 17 (event – workshop promotion)
Dec. 6 (re: activity guide containing article about redistricting) Jan. 6 (event – public hearing promotion)
Jan. 15 (post - Jan. 18 draft maps due/deadline reminder) Jan. 21 (post – draft plans now available for review online) Twitter:

Nov. 8 (event – workshop promotion)
Nov. 15 (event – workshop promotion)
Nov. 29 (re: e-newsletter containing article about redistricting) Nov. 30 (re: activity guide containing article about redistricting) Jan. 5 (public hearing promotion)
Jan. 21 (draft maps available for review)

E-Newsletter:

Nov. 10 (workshops announced)
Nov. 23 (article discussing redistricting process with links to workshop video) Jan. 5 (article about upcoming public hearing)
Jan. 19 (article about draft plans published, information about Feb. 1 hearing)

Website:

Launched in October in both English and Spanish

Public Engagement
City Council Redistricting Process

Activity Guide:

November article about redistricting efforts published; activity guide mailed to all Concord addresses, posted to website, and shared through social media. Physical copies also placed in all City facilities and delivered to several community partners, including the Concord Library and Visit Concord. Spanish version of the City News portion was also created, posted to website, and shared at Library and through Monument Crisis Center

Press Releases and Publications:

Oct. 26 (Public Hearing notice published in East Bay Times) Oct. 29 (press release)
Dec. 29 (press release)
Jan. 5 (public hearing notice published in East Bay Times) Jan. 26 (public hearing notice published in East Bay Times) Workshops:

Nov. 15 (information about redistricting process and training on mapping tools) Nov. 17 (information about redistricting process and training on mapping tools) Meetings with Community Groups:

Dec. 1 (Zoom meeting requested by members of the community) Public Hearings:

Nov. 2 (formal setting to share information and receive public testimony) Jan. 10 (formal setting to share information and receive public testimony) Feb. 1 (formal setting to review draft plans and receive public testimony) Virtual Office Hours:

Jan. 11 (opportunity for residents to ask questions directly of staff)

From: Evanne Jordan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 5:47 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Redistricting <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>; Concord City Council <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Redistricting of Concord

CORRECTION- PLEASE KEEP THIS MESSAGE AND READ IT TO THE COUNCIL AT THE CC MEETING ON TUESDAY FEBRUARY 1ST
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Evanne Jordan <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 5:19 PM
Subject: Redistricting of Concord
To: <[email protected]>, City Council <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>, concord city council <[email protected]>, McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Dear City Council,

I am a long-term resident of District 2 and a very active community member of Concord. I feel that the current City Council districts are drawn well and keep communities of interest together. I live near the Concord Bart Station in District 2. My neighbors and I feel an affinity to Downtown Concord because we are within walking distance of BART and the wonderful downtown amenities where we spend a lot of our time and our dollars.

We are also VERY well-represented by our current City Councilmember, Carlyn Obringer.

Carlyn has been a great help to me personally on several occasions and has helped my neighbors when I have informed her of their concerns. Many, many residents of District 2 have a great regard for Carlyn. We would be concerned to lose her as our City Councilmember representative.

Moreover,the independent demographer advising the City Council on the redistricting process has explained that the city's existing lines ARE meeting state requirements.

Therefore, there is no good or logical reason for making changes to the Concord district map. I urge the City Council to keep the lines the same and to focus on issues that matter to the residents of Concord!
Thank you!
Evanne Jordan
District 2 Concord
Attachment 4
Correspondence

From: Alex Diaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 3:51 PM
To: Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; Fockler, Joelle <[email protected]>
Subject: Redistricting Maps

Hi Carlyn and Joelle,

I would like to voice my support for maintaining the existing Concord city district boundaries.

Some of the other options are truly terrible. For example, Public Plan 1 which splits our neighborhood along Solano Way into two separate districts so that the Solano Plaza shopping center, Hillcrest and Iron Horse Park are split up does not make any sense. These are all shared community resources used predominantly by residents currently within District 2.

It was bad enough that as a result of the county redistricting, our neighborhood here in North Concord was the only small area in the city carved out from the county district that contained the rest of the city of Concord.Our neighborhood should not be further divided up.

Please keep the existing city districts in place as the current map makes the most sense to me.

Thank you.

Alex Diaz
District 2 Resident

Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 10.a
February 1, 2022

1 1

2 Actions Requested
Conduct public hearing to review draft and public plans Provide additional direction to demographer on composition of revised draft maps
2

3 Timeline
Hearing Purpose Date
1 • Education
• Public input
November 2
2 • Public input
• Initial direction
January 10
3 • Review plans (public & draft)
• Provide additional direction
February 1
4 • Review or further revise plans
• Select final plan
March 1
5 • Adoption of ordinance and maps April 5
3

4 Criteria
In order of priority:
• Equal Population
• Federal Law
• Contiguous
• Neighborhoods & communities of interest
• Understandable boundaries
• Compactness
4

5 Things to Remember
Strive for population equality. Be
prepared to justify deviations
Focus on traditional criteria. Draw
contiguous districts that respect
communities, while using
understandable boundaries, and are
compact when possible
Do not use race as the
predominant factor. Only as one of
many factors and cannot subordinate
other redistricting criteria
5

6 Plans
Current Districts
Draft Plans
• Blue
• Purple
• Red
• Green
P
ublic Plans
• 1
• 2
• 3
6

7 Resources
Webpage
• www.cityofconcord.org/redistricting
• Will be maintained for ten years
E
mail
• [email protected]
P
hone
• Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
(
925) 671-3155
7