Concord City Council
June 7, 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,
June 7, 2022
6:00 p.m. - Closed Session
6:30 p.m. - Open Session
Closed Session: City
Council Conference
Room
1950 Parkside Drive
Open Session: Council
Chamber
1950 Parkside Drive
and Various
telephonic/electronic
locations
NOTICE: The Closed Session portion of the meeting agenda will be held in person only in the City Council Conference Room, 1950 Parkside Drive. Public Comment for the Closed Session item will be taken in person only when the Closed Session begins at 6 p.m.

Members of the City Council, City staff/consultants, and the public will be able to participate in the Open Session either in- person or remotely via Zoom.
2 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. Tonight’s meeting will be conducted both in-person and remotely via Zoom.

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 Join the Zoom webinar by following THIS LINK
How to Submit Public Comments:

Please note that emailed comments will not be read aloud by staff.

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:

Please note that emailed comments will not be read aloud by staff.

In-Person Comments: Blue Speaker Identification Cards are located near the Council Chamber entrance. Please complete a Speaker Card and give it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item you wish to speak on and preferably prior to the Council meeting. When the Mayor opens a public comment eriod, the City Clerk will call speakers to provide comment in the order the Speaker Cards are received.

Should you have any questions after consulting the Speaker Identification Card, please contact the City Clerk prior to the start of the Council meeting.

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/89283796941?pwd=a2UyYVMwUi9jMXA4c0FhMVk3dmI1Zz09 oWebinar ID: 892 8379 6941
oPasscode: 473731
oBy phone: US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 348 7799 or 1 253 215 8782 3 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 called upon to speak, speakers will be promoted to panelists so they have the ability to turn on their cameras so they are visible to the Council and public.

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.

CLOSED SESSION
NOTICE: The Closed Session portion of the meeting agenda will be held in person only in the City Council Conference Room, 1950 Parkside Drive. Public Comment for the Closed Session item will be taken in person only when the Closed Session begins at 6 p.m.

1. OPENING
Roll Call

2. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
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.

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

Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, Case No. C21-01505

4. RECESS TO OPEN SESSION

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. 4 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
The public is entitled to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda before or during the City Council’s consideration of that item. Each speaker will be limited to approximately three minutes. Please see “How to Submit Public Comments” above. a. Presentation – a legislative update from Niccolo De Luca, Vice President, Townsend Public Affairs. Introduction by Mayor Aliano.
b. Presentation – an update on Parks and Recreation Department activities from Barbie Gary, Program Manager. Introduction by Mayor Aliano.

8. 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.

City Council Consent Calendar
a. Considering – approval of the minutes from the April 26, 2022, meeting.

Recommended by the City Clerk.
b. Considering – appropriation of the balance of $3,016,900 of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant funds from the State for the Citywide Traffic System Upgrade Phase 2 Project (Project No. 2574), Citywide Protected Left-Turn Phasing Project (Project No. 2575), and Traffic Safety Around Schools (Project No. 2576). Recommended by the Director of Community Development.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15378, and/or 15061(b). c. Considering – approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Townsend Public Affairs in the not to exceed amount of $90,000 for legislative advocacy services; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (General Fund) Recommended by the Assistant City Manager.
5 d. Considering – approval of the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with the First 5 Contra Costa Children and Families Commission for the continued use of the Monument Community First 5 Center, 1736 Clayton Road, within Ellis Lake Park, and authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to execute the First Amendment in a form approved by the City Attorney. Recommended by the Director of Parks and Recreation.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), 15301, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.
e. Considering – the adoption of a Resolution approving a Use Permit Amendment for the Concord Hampton Inn to allow for a reduction of three parking spaces from the approved parking for the project located at 1785 Pine Street (APN: 126-291-023) (PL22035 – UPA). Recommended by the Director of Community Development.

The City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and the parking reduction is not a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

CITY COUNCIL/LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY/CONCORD-PLEASANT HILL HEALTH CARE

DISTRICT CONSENT CALENDAR
f. Considering – adoption of a Resolution declaring the ability of the 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 to continue to meet 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.

9. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence received at the City Council meeting will be listed here on the Annotated Agenda. a. Letter to Assembly Budget Committee Chair Phil Ting re: 2022-23 Budget Request to Support GoMentum Station - June 1, 2022

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

11. ADJOURNMENT
Next Meeting: Regular Meeting
Date: 6/14/2022 5:30 p.m.

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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Darcy Mathews <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 11:03 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Darcy Mathews <[email protected]>
Subject: Lowest social economic community
Hello, I wanted you to acknowledge a few items in the city and read this in public comment the next meeting.

1. Homeless under the freeway near in/ out. (I spoke with Caltrans today) the were helpful cleaning up under the freeway near in and out. ( but they are back already) You need to fence off the underpass dirt area. See what Pleasant Hill did near Kohls.

THEN offer them ALL Ankle monitors, that comes with a hotel room, social worker and medication elevations and food.

We are sick and tired of the unused apartments at the Navel Weapons Station, (a decade vacant) mitigate and move in!
It will be decades of wasted living space while you wait for Seeno games to stop.

I would make Seeno pay for mitigation, as a condition of the project AND get 1000 people homes. Start with families.

ALL ARE DRUG TEST and monitored!

2. The RED curbs along the poorest social economic Area Detroit appears to be unfair to people of all colors.

One side of the road NEEDS TO BE OPEN PARKING- NO RED CURBS! Imagine trying to park and unload kids and groceries walk 2 blocks and then up a flight of stairs over and over again. Most apartments have 1 parking spot per unit. There is NO reason for red curbs on 100% of the road.

This needs to be revisited and put on the agenda for reconsideration and removal. I don’t live here but I visit, I FOUND NOWHERE TO PARK!!!!
How can this even be legal?
You would never find this no parking red curbs in a white middle class neighborhood. I am white and middle class.

I just want to speak for those who can or won’t for fear of retaliation.

Time to acknowledge the unfairness of the parking and make it right! All people deserve better.

Thank you,
Darcy Mathews
Advocate for all

6.a6.a

From: D'Marco Anthony <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 1:52 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: General Public Comment

Hello. Happy Pride Month and Election Day to you all. I wanted to comment a little bit about the last Council meeting. I was glad that we had a councilmember voting against extending the ENA. I appreciate that Councilmember Obringer cited many of the concerns that we, the members of the public, have made with Seeno/Discovery, as being part of the reason for why she ultimately voted “no”. And although it is disappointing that the ENA was ultimately extended, I was relieved that it was done without concessions being made to CFP.

I want to push back a little bit regarding Councilmember Birsan suggesting that the Seeno camp and the members of the public that oppose them, are somehow playing into each other’s hands. The relationship between the residents of Concord and CFP is not a level playing field. This is a liberal democracy, not a corporate oligarchy. So I fail to see how exercising our inherent democratic power is playing into CFP’s hands. They can flail their arms all they want, but at the end of the day, this issue will probably be decided by the voters.

At the last meeting, I talked about how Seeno needs to make amends with the Native American community they have harmed. I also think the City of Concord should make amends and apologize to Indigenous Americans as well. But of course, such an apology probably would not come from this Council until its composition changes. Regardless of whoever is in charge of the CNWS project, making sure that Indigenous land is protected, not desecrated, is something I will be watching very closely.

The Seeno camp invited a lot of their workers to attend the last Council meeting, in person, in order to send a message to the Council. I think all those maskless people showing up, which actually lead to an overflow room being opened, is quite the message to send during an ongoing pandemic… In the future, I would hope that people participating in City Council meetings would prioritize the health and safety of the community, over having a pissing contest to see who can cram the most people in the Council chamber. A petition would have been a sufficient alternative, given many people in the audience did not even give a public comment.

Thank you,

-D'Marco J. Anthony

Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 6.a
June 7, 2022

State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447 -4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383 Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555 Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399 -9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Central California Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835 -9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030

MEMO
To: The Honorable Dominic Aliano and Members of the Concord City Council CC: Valerie Barone, City Manager

From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.

Niccolo De Luca, Vice President
Andres Ramirez, Senior Associate
Carly Shelby, Legislative Associate

Date: June 7, 2022
Subject: State Legislative Update/June 2022

SUMMARY
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this report for the City of Concord as we move forward in the 2022 Legislative session. We are highlighting a handful of bills and providing a summary to provide a point in time analysis. The city can take a position of support, oppose, or watch. The analysis below is based off text of the legislation, committee analysis, discussions with Members, and others.

Assembly Bill 1944 (Lee) Local Government: open and public meetings Last amended: May 25, 2022
Status: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 44-12 with 22 abstentions. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set.

Focus of the legislation: Allows members of a legisla tive body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public.

This measure sunsets on Jan. 1, 2030.

Argument in Support: A coalition including the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Association of California Healthcare Districts, the Association of California School Administrators, the California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, and the League of California Cities, in support, write, “AB 1944 represents an important modernization to the Brown Act that protects local elected officials’ location when participating from a non-public, remote location, while improving access to members of the public via a teleconferencing option. “As you know, local agencies subject to the Brown Act were able to utilize remote participation for elected officials and for the public during the COVID -19 public health crisis. Those processes worked well, allowing for local agencies to continue to conduct the public’s business in a safe manner. In fact, many of our local agencies report increased participation and int eraction with members of the public who would otherwise have been unable to access such meetings as a result. At the same time, the ability for local elected officials to participate remotely without having to share the address of their whereabouts allowed them to do so without risking their own well- being and that of their families and neighbors.

Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 7.a
June 7, 2022

7.a7.a

2 “While authority to maintain remote participation continues after the approval of last year’s AB 361 (R. Rivas), based on public health recommendations at the time, this authorization of remote participation by local elected officials, as well as members of the public, is slated to sunset at the end of 2023. Developing a long-term framework for remote participation is a critical update of the Brown Act. We have learned during the pandemic that such participation is effective, transparent, and encourages participation from a broader component of the public than was anticipated. “These positive effects on the conduct of the public’s business would suggest that the conditions outlined in AB 1944 are both reasonable and appropriate to incorporate into our post-pandemic practice of delivering open and public meetings.”
Argument in Opposition: A coalition including the California News Publisher’s Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the First Amendment Coalition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Californians Aware, the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, the Society for Professional Journalists Los Angeles, the Orange County Press Club, and the National Writers Union of Southern California, in opposition, writes, “…we must respectfully oppose AB 1944 (Lee), which would make a fundamental change to the Brown Act, enshrining government officials’ ability to teleconference from private locations not identified or accessible to the public.

While temporary accommodations may be necessary, such as to address public health needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, this bill would abolish longstanding democratic protections that require public meetings be held in public venues where government officials can be seen and engaged by the public.
“Further, this bill would change the Brown Act’s requirement that a quorum be present during a teleconference, allowing government bodies to vote to allow themselves to teleconference from outside the jurisdiction, indefinitely and without justification. While this bill includes some provisions that may expand access for members of the public who wish to participate, the cost to democratic principles and public protection is too great… “AB 1944 as written, would allow a body to vote to govern themselves with a teleconference scheme that does not require members to identify the location from which they are taking the meeting, nor make that location accessible to the pub lic. Without disclosing the locations, they are participating from there is no mechanism to ensure that a quorum of members, or any members, are within the jurisdiction about which they are making decisions

Assembly Bill 2449 (Rubio) Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences Last amended: May 23, 2022. One of the amendments includes ending these provisions by January 1, 2028.

Status: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 65 - 4 with 9 abstentions. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set.

Focus of the legislation: Allows members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public, if at least a quorum of the members of the body participates in person.

Argument in support: Three Valleys Municipal Water District, sponsor of this measure, writes, “As part of his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom originally issued a series of Executive Orders to expand public access to meetings of local agencies by suspending some of the restrictions on teleconferencing. The effect was an expanded use of teleconferencing for meetings of the legislative body, resulting in enhanced public access and increased participation by the public.

3 “The expiration of the Executive Orders immediately gave way to the new AB 361, essentially allowing for the teleconference provisions detailed in the Executive Orders to continue during a period of emergency declaration. H owever, once an emergency declaration has ended, local agencies will again be required to comply with antiquated provisions of existing law, making it potentially more difficult to hold meetings of the legislative body by teleconference. While current law does allow for “teleconference locations” under normal circumstances, it requires various actions to be taken at the teleconference locations and fails to recognize in the digital age that a teleconference location is wherever there is a person with a computer, a tablet, or even a mobile phone.
“AB 2449 will eliminate the previously existing concept of teleconference locations and will revise notice requirements to allow for greater public participation in teleconference meetings of local agencies. The bill does not require teleconferencing, rather it modernizes existing law to ensure greater public participation in meetings of the legislative bodies of local agencies who choose to utilize teleconferencing. Similarly, in acknowledgement of the critical importance of maintaining transparency and accountability, the bill requires that a quorum of the governing body be physically present at a clearly identified meeting location for all public meetings.” Argument in opposition: A coalition including the California News Publisher’s Association, the ACLU California Action, the First Amendment Coalition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Californians Aware, the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, and the Society for Professional Journalists Los Angeles, in opposition, writes, “If enacted, AB 2449 would fundamentally alter the Brown Act by providing express authorization to members of legislative bodies to teleconference into public meetings from private locations not identified or accessible to the public at any time, without a compelling reason. While temporary accommodations may be necessary, such as during the COVID -19 public health emergency, this bill would excise the longstanding democratic protection afforded by requiring the entire legislative body to directly face the public. We must be mindful before making substantial changes to the laws that have ensured democracy at the local government level for generations. There are many examples of remote meetings increasing public participation in many respects, but there are still many lessons to learn as we continue to move out of the COVID-19 pandemic…
“To be clear, we support increased public access, such as the provisions of this bill that increase remote participation for the public; however, AB 2449, as written, ties that expanded access to removal of existing requirements for those who have sought and agreed to public service in local government. We greatly appreciate that the bill has incorporated many of the provisions that were the resul t of discussion on AB 339 (Lee) & AB 361 (R. Rivas) last year, including requiring members to be on camera, providing telephonic access for those who do not have stable internet, addressing technological disruptions, and others. However, those bills differ ed in that AB 339 sought to only expand access for the public, and AB 361’s allowances for legislative bodies are confined to states of emergency and required a vote every 30 days to continue. “We are also very glad to see that a quorum must be in the same physical location with the public in this bill, but it is essential to narrow the circumstances in which members outside of the quorum can participate remotely, so that the same members cannot avoid physically appearing without circumstances that justifies limiting the public’s access to the member who is supposed to be serving their interests.”

Assembly Bill 2647 (Levine) Local government: open meetings Last amended: April 19, 2022

4 Status of the Legislation: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 62-0 with 16 abstentions. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set.

Focus of the legislation: Allows writings that have been distributed to members of a legislative body of a local agency less than 72 hours before an open meeting to be posted online to satisfy specified requirements of the Brown Act.

Argument in support: The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, writes in support, “Recently the Third District Court of Appeals held that posting meeting documents online does not satisfy this requirement of the Brown Act, and that local governments must place phy sical copies of the document in a designated office open to the public. Requiring physical access at a public location as the only way to satisfy the Brown Act could impair the conduct of the people’s business. Without a legislative solution, the Court’s decision requires local agencies to keep an office open to the public during evenings and/or weekends when a writing is distributed to a local agency’s legislative body. Alternatively, the local agency would have to withhold late breaking information from the legislative body until an office is open which could impact the ability of a legislative body to be best informed with less time to consider additional information. “This measure would clarify that writings distributed to the majority of a local legislative body less than 72 hours before a meeting can be posted online if physical copies are made available for public inspection at the beginning of the next regular business hours at a public office or designated location. By reducing delays, the public and the community will be better informed to engage in the meeting with the flexibility and transparency this measure provides. This change would advance meaningful public access to government information.” Argument in opposition: There is no argument in opposition, or any opposition listed.

Assembly Bill 1947 (Ting) Hate crimes: law enforcement policies Last amended: May 19, 2022
Status of the Legislation: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 74-0. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set
Focus of the legislation: This bill requires all California law enforcement agencies to adopt an updated hate crimes policy.

This bill requires every local and state law enforcement ag ency (LEA) to adopt a hate crimes policy with specific parameters and requires the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) to develop a model hate crimes policy.

Argument in Support: According to the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies: Despite the spike in reported cases, hate crimes are still notoriously underreported.

For instance, 11 California cities with populations of at least 100,000 reported zero hate crimes in 2019. AB 1947 is a critical first step to address the problem of almost universal non-reporting of hate crimes. The bill would require law enforcement agencies to submit their hate crime policies, brochures, and training schedules to the Department of Justice to ensure compliance.

Argument in Opposition: According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL): AB 1947 mandates codification of overly specific requirements that sends a misleading message to communities about what is and is not a hate crime and may undermine law enforcement agencies’ ability to effectively recognize and respond to hate crimes. [E]enshrining a specific hate crime policy into law will create significant logistical hurdles for legislators. What is written into law can only be amended by more law. AB 1947’s one-size-fits-all approach as … will force lawmakers to revisit

5 the content on a frequent basis to ensure it accurately reflects current trends, circumstances, and language.

Assembly Bill 2011 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022.

Last amended: May 11, 2022 with more coming.

Status of the Legislation: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 48-11-19. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set
Focus of the legislation: Establishes the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (Act), to create a ministerial, streamlined approval process for 100 percent affordable housing in commercially zoned areas and for mixed-income housing along commercial corridors. One of the main focuses of this bill is to establish new workable labor standards that do not include the skilled and trained work force.

This bill would require housing to be “by right” if it conforms to the provisions below regarding affordability, location, objective standards, and labor. In being by right, it would not be subject to a local government’s discretionary approval process and would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Local governments would be able to apply objective standard s and design review processes if they do not conflict with the provisions in the bill and do not preclude development of the housing.

Argument in Support: Supporters of the bill include groups that represent construction workers, groups that support the development of affordable housing, and groups that support an overall increase in the housing supply.

Groups that represent construction workers, including the Northern California Regional Conference of Carpenters, the Southwest Regional Conference of Carpe nters, and affiliated groups, argue that the prevailing wage requirements and enforcement provisions in the bill would benefit workers while the housing provisions in the bill would help put those workers to work.

According to the California Conference of Carpenters (a co-sponsor of the bill), the bill “will open the door to middle-class, blue-collar careers for young workers who will actually be able to live in, and eventually even own, the affordable housing they build.” Groups that support the developmen t of affordable housing, including the California Housing Consortium (a co-sponsor of the bill) argue that the bill would rapidly accelerate the production of affordable housing. They write that the bill “will expand climate -friendly infill affordable housing opportunities for struggling families, seniors, workers, and veterans – while also growing a thriving, well-paid, middle-class construction workforce.” Groups that support an overall increase in the housing supply argue that the bill is necessary to help overcome the state’s deficit of 2.5 million housing units. According to the California Apartment Association, “By opening new sites to housing, AB 2011 would rapidly accelerate housing production at all income levels – particularly for lower income Californians.

Argument in Opposition: Opponents of the bill include groups that represent construction workers and three cities. The State Building and Construction Trades Council (SBCTC) and affiliated groups, argue that the bill should require the utilization of a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in labor law, which would in effect require a certain percentage of each construction craft and trade to be unionized unless the project is subject to a Project Labor Agreement. They argue that, absent thes e provisions, the bill provides a path to developer profits with little protections for workers and meaningful input from community members. According to the SBCTC, “We remain opposed to any effort that would create a statewide right to develop mostly market-

6 rate and luxury housing without, at a very minimum, basic community protections, including the requirement to use a skilled and trained workforce and pay area prevailing wages.” The cities of Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo, and Rancho Santa Margarita argue that the bill would remove local control and the ability of cities to determine the adequacy of sites for housing and the ability to provide affiliated infrastructure. They also express concern over a potential reduction in tax revenue from the loss of commercial properties.

Assembly Bill 2050 (Lee) Residential Real Property
Last amended: April 18, 2022
Status: This bill is on the Assembly floor waiting for a vote.

Focus of the legislation: This bill would introduce several reforms aimed at curbing abuses of the Ellis Act. First, it would prohibit use of the Act to remove a property from the rental market in a rent control jurisdiction until all the owners of the property (including holders of ownership interests in an entity that, in turn, owns the property) have maintained their ownership for a period of at least five continuous years. Second, if a person utilizes the Ellis Act to remove a property from the rental market and then acquires an other rental property, that person would have to wait 10 years before being allowed to utilize the Ellis Act to remove the second property from the rental market. Both provisions, which could be enforced in the courts by tenants, would limit speculators’ misuse of the Act to profit at the expense of tenants’ long-term housing stability, Argument in Support: AIDS Healthcare Foundation encapsulates the rationale for this bill:

California has a massive problem with people who are homeless or at risk of homele ssness.

Aggravating the problem are the speculator[s]…who take advantage of Ellis to withdraw rental units because they intend to “go out of the rental housing business.” Since many of these properties provide affordable rent-controlled housing for low-income tenants, these [speculators], many of whom have owned the property for a short period of time, use the Ellis Act to rid themselves of financially unproductive tenants. […] In some cities, where rent protections are less firm, some speculator[s] have re placed low-income tenants with market rate tenants. In some cases, the new owner will sell the now more valuable property to another speculator. In all these cases, the common outcome is to remove more affordable rental properties from the market, leaving low-income tenants scrambling to find housing.

Argument in Opposition: California Rental Housing Association explains why it believes this bill’s provisions are unwise: There are many reasons why an owner may need to sell within 5 years, such as: moving, job relocation, personal, financial, etc. [...] This bill would put significant limitations on the[e Ellis Act’s] protections and will make it much more difficult for housing providers to exercise their right to go out of business regardless if they are losing money, facing bankruptcy, are attempting to plan their estates or have recently obtained title to the rental property through the passing of a relative. In addition, the provision that prohibits a property ow ner from going out of business at one location if they have been forced to go out of business at another location within the past 10 years is especially damaging. Many rental property owners own multiple properties at different locations. Arbitrarily limiting the number of properties that an owner can withdraw accommodations from will not help alleviate the housing crisis, it will only make it more difficult for rental property owners to remain financially solvent.

Assembly Bill 2097 (Friedman) Residential and commercial development: parking requir ements
Last amended: May 19, 2022

7 Status of the Legislation: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 47-20-11. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set
Focus of the legislation: This legislation prohibits public agencies from enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements for developments located close to public transit.

Argument in Support: According to one of the sponsors, SPUR, “AB 2097 will eliminate requirements that homes and commercial buildings near transit or in neighborhoods with less car use be built with more parking than is necessary. By reducing the overbuilding of parking, this bill would reduce traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, reduce the cost of housing to renters and homeowners, and improve the prospects of small neighborhood businesses fighting to survive during the pandemic.”
Argument in Opposition: The League of California Cities writes in opposition, “AB 2097 would allow developers to dictate parking requirements in large areas of many cities because the definition of public transit includes entire bus routes with fifteen -minute service intervals.

Restricting parking requirements within one-half mile of a high-frequency transit route does not guarantee individuals living, working, or shopping on those parcels will use transit. Many residents will continue to own automobiles and require nearby parking, which will only increase parking demand and congestion.”

Senate Bill 897 (Wiecowski) Accessory dwelling units
Last amended: April 21, 2022
Status: This bill has cleared the Senate on a vote of 24-9-7. Its now in the Assembly and will be scheduled for its first Assembly policy committee hearing which has not been set yet.

Focus of the legislation: This legislation would make a handful of changes to the laws governing ADUs and JADUs including that standards imposed on an ADU by a local agency must be objective, clarify that a local agency must explicitly approve or deny an application for an ADU or JADU within the 60 day timeframe, rather than act on the application, specify that construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as specified, or trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the proposed or existing primary dwelling, allow for the construction of ADUs along with a proposed multifamily dwelling, in addition to existing authority that applies to proposed single-family dwellings, allow a JADU to be attached to a detached ADU and clarify that enclosed uses within the residence are considered a part of the proposed or existing single-family dwelling, and repeal the January 1, 2025 sunset on the prohibition on local owner -occupancy requirements, and repeal the existing owner - occupancy requirement in JADU law.

SB 897 would also req uire HCD, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to establish and administer a grant program to fund the construction and maintenance of ADUs and JADUs. The bill would establish the California Accessory Dwelling Unit Fund in the State Treasury and require HCD to distribute funds to eligible recipients, upon appropriation of those funds by the Legislature.

Argument in Support : “California was and continues to be in an ongoing housing crisis since I introduced my first ADU bill in 2016. While California has seen a significant increase in the amount of ADU building permit applications and ADU construction since that time, the lack of housing, and in particular affordable housing, is one of the most significant drivers of institutional and generational poverty cycles and will not be resolved until more housing can be developed.

Eliminating any unnecessary barriers to ADU construction is a cost -effective approach that will allow homeowners to make better use of their property. ADU’s can provide additional rental

8 availability in their communities and allow homeowners to create more financial stability for themselves. Additionally, ADU’s provide housing options for those homeowners who want to age in place as well as providing flexible living space for their family, friends, or caregivers. SB 897 builds upon previous ADU legislation by addressing some of the remaining barriers to ADU construction and supporting the development of housing that is more affordable by design.” Argument in Opposition: SB 897 continues what has been a annual tradition of numerous significant revisions to ADU law. Beginning in 2016, when the Legislature rewrote ADU law, the Legislature has enacted 11 measures that amend ADU law to some degree, including three bills in 2019 that sent local agencies back to the drawing board on their ADU ordinances, including to prohibit local agencies from requiring owner-occupancy until January 1, 2025. SB 897 proposes more significant changes that will require local agencies to update their ordinances yet again.

Among those changes are to repeal the sunset on the prohibition on owner -occupancy requirements--less than three years into the six-year pilot program. Given the short amount of time that has elapsed, it is unclear whether the Legislature has enough information to determine whether the prohibition on owner -occupancy requirements have led to undesirable changes in the ownership of ADUs, such as to encourage large institutional investors with little stake in a community to invest in ADU development and ownership. Should the Legislature wait on further changes to ADU laws until local governments have had a chance to catch their breath and the Legislature can evaluate the effect of recent changes on ADU development?

Senate Bill 932 (Portantino) General plans: circulation element: bicycle and pedestrian calming
Last amended: May 4, 2022
Status: This bill cleared the Senate on a vote of 25 -10-5. It will now go to the Assembly Transportation Committee and Assembly Local Government Committee.

Focus of the legislation: This bill requires the circulation element of a general plan to include specified contents related to bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans, and to implement those plans; provides that failure to implement the plans creates a cause of action for victims of traffic violence.

Argument in Support: Per the author, most California streets have grown more dangerous in recent years. California follows a nationwide trend; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration saw a 20% increase in traffic fatalities in the first six months of 2021 compared to 2020 or 2019. Some California cities lack data on addressing the epidemic of traffic violence, particularly regarding death and serious injuries to pedestrians, cyclists, and other human - powered-transit users. In certain cities where the most dangerous streets and corridors have been identified, no plan exists to remedy these deadly situations. Even in cities that have developed plans, like Los Angeles’ Vision Zero and Mobility Plan 2035, meaningful changes that would save lives have yet to be implemented. SB 932 requires a county or city to include in its General Plan, a map of the high injury network within its boundaries and would further require a county or city to identify and prioritize safety improvements. Thus saving countless lives.

Argument in Opposition: American Planning Association California Chapter, California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, Rural County Representatives of California, Safer Streets LA, and Urban Counties of California raise concerns relating to SB 932 significantly expands local government liability for traffic collisions by creating a cause of action if cities and counties fail to fully implement the provisions of the bill, potentially making them liable for injuries that may result from the actions of third parties, such as motorists, and exposing local

9 governments to significant costs in the process that might otherwise have gone to support the infrastructure that SB 932 seeks to encourage.

In addition, SB 932 requires every city and county in the state to adopt bicycle and pedestrian plans, including a prescriptive list of infrastructure that must be constructed, without regard for local conditions that may influence whether a given area is likely to have significant bike or foot traffic.

Senate Bill 1000 (Becker) Law enforcement agencies: radio communication Last amended: May 19, 2022
Status: This bill has cleared the Senate 25 – 8 -7. It will now go to the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Focus of the legislation: The purpose of this bill is to ensure public access to law enforcement radio communications and require law enforcement agencies to prevent or minimize criminal justice information or personally identifiable information from being broadcast in a manner that is accessible to the public.

Argument in Support: According to the California Public Defender’s Association:
“We have proudly supported recent efforts by members of the California Legislature to put police policies and procedures online (SB 978 (Bradfor d), increase transparency of some police disciplinary records (SB 1421 (Skinner) and SB 16 (Skinner)) and to create a commission to investigate and decertify police officers (SB 2 (Bradford). Yet despite these efforts to move toward more openness, some police agencies have continued to try to shield information from the public eye. For 80 years, news outlets, journalists and the public have had access to police radio communications. This access is critically important for police transparency, accountability , and reporting activity to the public. However, in October 2020, the California Department of Justice’s California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) issued a memo regarding the requirement for police agencies to protect identifying information via encryption.” […] “We agree that now is not the time to reduce public access to police activity. Access to critical information regarding police activity is not an “operational change” that should be taken without input from the public, the media, or city, county and state elected officials. Nuanced approaches like the one CHP has chosen to take strike a better balance between openness and protecting private information and should be adopted by other police agencies rather than wholesale encryption. SB 1000 is a much-needed correction to the actions of certain local law enforcement agencies seeking to completely shield important information from the public view. It is also a preventative measure to keep this problem from becoming a statewide issue.” Argument in Opposition: According to the California State Sheriff’s Association:
“To comply with state and federal requirements, some law enforcement agencies have encrypted their radio communications. SB 1000’s general default to unencrypted radio commun ications would represent a significant burden to agencies that went to tremendous expense to obtain new technology or have previously encrypted their communications. Additionally, to switch back to unencrypted radio communications will require costly and time-consuming training to protect CJI and PII.

Also, the bill’s contemplation of using alternate, non -broadcasting radio technology to protect information may not be easy or achievable in some geographic locations due to unavailable cell service or computers that cannot connect. Switching to encrypted or alternate media in tactical or undercover situations will likely complicate already complex scenarios."

10 Senate Bill 1067 (Portantino) Housing development projects: parking Last amended: April 28, 2022
Status: The bill has moved out of the Senate on a vote of 23-8-9. It will now go to the Assembly Housing Committee and Assembly Local Government Committee.

Focus of the legislation: This bill prohibits local governments from imposing parking minimums on certain housing developments near a major transit stop, as specified.

Argument in Support : “Cities and counties require property owners to provide and maintain a certain number of off-street parking spaces. The imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. While some cities have voluntarily moved towards removing parking minimums, others review projects on a case-by-case basis, and some provide for reduced parking requirements with safeguards for protecting the production of units for low-income, senior citizens, and disabled persons. To this end, SB 1067 prohibits a city from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on a housing development project that is located within 1⁄2 mile of public transit if specific conditions are met. The project must either dedicate 25% of the total units to lower -income house holds, the elderly, or persons with disabilities, or the developer must demonstrate to the local agency that the development would not have a negative impact on the local agency’s ability to meet specified housing needs and would not have a negative impact on traffic circulation or existing residential or commercial parking within 1⁄2 mile of the project.”
Argument in Opposition : Local governments and community groups oppose this bill due to a lack of local control, reduced parking requirements, and a gene ral concern over continually changing state housing laws. South Pasadena Residents for Responsible Growth are opposed because they would like to see the bill expanded to provide that all housing development parking requirements are eliminated. The State Building and Construction Trades are opposed because the bill does not allow for electric vehicle owners to park their cars and would prefer investments in public transit.

Senate Bill 1100 (Cortese) Open Meetings; orderly conduct Last amended: April 21, 2022
Status: This bill has moved out of the Senate on a vote of 29 -7-4. It will be scheduled in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

Focus of the legislation: This bill authorizes the presiding member of a legislative body conducting a meeting to remove an individual for disrupting the meeting and defines “disrupting” for these purposes. More specifically,
1) Authorizes the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting to remove an individual for disrupting the meeting.
2) Provides that removal must be preceded by a warning from the presiding member of the legislative body that the individual is disrupting the proceedings, a request that the individual curtail their disruptive behavior or be subject to removal, and a reasonable opportunity to curtail their disruptive behavior. This warning is not required if the individual is engaging in behavior that includes use of force or true threats of force. 3) Defines “disrupting” as engaging in behavior that disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, both:

11 a) A failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body pursuant to existing law.
b) Engaging in behavior that includes the use of force or true threats of force. 4) States various findings and declarations of the Legislature, including:
a) It is the intent of the Legislature to prescribe requirements for governing public meetings to protect civil liberties in accordance with the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and relevant law.
b) It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the authority and standards for governing public meetings in accordance with Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa , 718 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 2013), in which the court explained that an ordinance governing the decorum of a city council meeting is not facially overbroad if it only permits a presiding officer to eject an attendee for actually disturbing or impeding a meeting. c) Finds and declares that this bill imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Sectio n 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the measure makes findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation, and the need for protecting that interest is furthered by giving legislative bodies clear authorization to restore order to meetings in the event of actual disruptions that are disturbing, disrupting, impeding, or rendering infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and, thereby, preserve the rights of other members of the public at the meeting and allow the legislative body to continue its work on behalf of the public.

Argument in Support: According to the author, “It has become increasingly clear that the mechanisms provided by the Brown Act to deal with disruptions during publ ic meetings are insufficient. Across California, public officials and public attendees continue to deal with disorderly conduct during meetings at such a high magnitude that critical business and the legislative process has become impaired. As we have undoubtedly seen, many troubling incidents across the state, including those involving harassment and threats of violence, have demonstrated the need to protect public safety and public meeting access by modernizing the Brown Act so that it provides clearer standards around when removal of a meeting participant is warranted and what authority members of a legislative body can exercise.”
Argument in Opposition: The bill is opposed by Californians for Good Governance, Stand UP, and two individuals. Educate Advocate also expressed concerns with the current language in the bill. The opposition feels that the language in the bill is either vague or does not give enough guidance to local governing bodies about what behavior can and should warrant removal. They argue that disturbing, disrupting, and impeding is too subjective and worry about how locals will apply the law. The opposition arguments do not account for the fact that the language in the bill says disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the order ly conduct of the meeting (emphasis added). Furthermore, the bills findings make it clear the intent of the bill is for its provisions to be interpreted and applied consistently with the holding in Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa. It is impossible to state that all local governing bodies will apply the law consistently with the First Amendment. These scenarios would be as applied challenges to the law under First Amendment jurisprudence and would be highly fact specific. The bill on its face, as described above, is in line with current Ninth Circuit case law on this matter and the proposed amendments provide additional protections for members of the public in exercising their right to access public meetings.

12 Senate Bill 1338 (Umberg) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Program (CARE Court)
Last amended: May 19, 2022
Status: This bill moved off the Senate Floor with a 39-0-1 vote.

Focus of the legislation: Establishes the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Act for the purpose of providing a court-ordered CARE plan to individuals who have a severe mental illness and meet other specified criteria that includes behavioral health treatment services, a trained supporter to assist the respondent in navigating the process and identifies an appropriate housing plan.

Argument in Support: According to the authors, this bill creates the CARE Court program, which is a proposed framework to deliver MH and SUD services to the most severely impaired Californians who too often languish —suffering in homelessness or incarceration —without the treatment they desperately need. The proposed CARE Court program is a response to the urgent need for innovative solutions for individuals who are suffering with unt reated schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic disorders, often unhoused in our communities, and who face high risks for repeated hospitalization, incarceration, institutionalization, conservatorship, and premature death. In California and nationally, compreh ensive care, medication, and housing have been clinically proven to successfully treat and stabilize individuals with severe mental illness but are too often available only after arrest or in secure facilities. Therefore, this bill will create a program to connect a person in crisis with a court -ordered CARE plan for up to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months. The program provides individuals with a clinically appropriate, community-based set of services and supports that ar e culturally and linguistically competent. This includes short-term stabilization medications, wellness and recovery supports, and connection to social services, including housing.

CARE Court proposal. In early 2022, Governor Newsom proposed the CARE Court program, as an alternative to amending the LPS Act, to help connect a person in crisis with a court -ordered CARE plan for up to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months. The framework provides individuals with a clinically appropriate, community-based set of services and supports that are culturally and linguistically competent, which includes short -term stabilization medications, wellness and recovery supports, and connection to social services and a housing plan. According to the CHHSA’s website, housing is an important component —finding stability and staying connected to treatment, even with the proper supports, is next to impossible while living outdoors, in a tent, or in a vehicle. CHHSA states that CARE Court is an upstream diversion to prevent more restrictive conservatorships or incarceration, based on evidence that demonstrates many people can stabilize, begin healing, and exit homelessness in less restrictive, community-based care settings. With advances in treatment mo dels, new longer -acting antipsychotic treatments, and the right clinical team and housing plan, individuals who have historically suffered tremendously on the streets or during avoidable incarceration can be successfully stabilized and supported in the community. CHHSA further states that CARE Court is not for everyone experiencing homelessness or mental illness; it focuses on people with schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders who lack medical decision-making capacity, before they enter the criminal justice system or become so impaired that they end up in a LPS conservatorship due to mental illness. CHSSA states that although homelessness has many faces in California, among the most tragic is the face of the sickest who suffer from treatable mental health conditions, and the CARE Court proposal aims to connect these individuals to

13 effective treatment and support, mapping a path to long-term recovery. CARE Court is estimated to help thousands of Californians on their journey to sustained wellness.

Argument in Opposition: A coalition of opponents, most of the listed opposition comprised of advocates that advance and protect the civil rights of Californians living with disabilities, experiencing homelessness, and involved in the criminal legal syst em, argues that the CARE Court framework is unacceptable for a number of reasons:
 It does not guarantee housing as a solution to address homelessness.  Evidence shows that resourced intensive voluntary outpatient treatment is more effective than court-ordered treatment.
 It will perpetuate institutional racism and worsen health disparities.  There are flaws in this bill’s reliance on a person’s lack of capacity to make medical decisions.
 Use of the terms “supportive decision -making” and “supporter” reflects a misunderstanding of the concepts behind the terms and obscures the involuntary nature of CARE Court; and,
 Critical terms and concepts are not defined in this bill or elsewhere in California law.

The coalition in opposition further states that CARE Court is a system of coerced, court-ordered treatment that strips people with mental health disabilities of their right to make their own decisions about their lives. CARE Court is antithetical to recove ry principles, which are based on self - determination and self-direction, and is based on stigma and stereotypes of people living with mental health disabilities and experiencing homelessness. While the coalition in opposition agrees that state resources mu st be urgently allocated towards addressing homelessness, incarceration, hospitalization, conservatorship, and premature death of Californians living with severe mental illness, CARE Court is the wrong framework. The right framework allows people with disabilities to retain autonomy over their own lives by providing them with meaningful and reliable access to affordable, accessible, integrated housing combined with voluntary services.

The coalition in opposition argues that California law is very clear about the process to determine whether a person lacks capacity to make medical decisions, which includes the right to a court hearing, which must be followed, and this bill does not require any of these steps. Instead, it allows unacceptable shortcuts.

Assembly Bill 1737 (Holden) Children’s camps: local registration and inspections Last amended: May 19, 2022 with more to come.

Status: This bill moved out of the Assembly on a vote of 52-3-23. It is now in the Senate and will be scheduled soon.

Focus of the legislation: Requires specified employees and volunteers of children’s camps to undergo background checks and to complete training in child abuse and neglect reporting This bill would redefine “organized camps” to include children’s camps. A children’s camp would be defined as a camp that offers daytime or overnight experiences administered by adults who provide social, cultural, educational, recreational, or artistic programming to more than five children between 3 and 17 years of age for 5 days or longer during at least one season.

Argument in Support : According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, “We are aware of children suffering abuse and injuries at camps, including Roxie Forbes who was killed at an unlicensed camp without proper train ing, certifications, operational plans, or any county safety oversight. Roxie’s parents established a foundation with a mission to protect kids, not

14 destroy camps. To that end, they have advocated for the need of long, overdue changes reflected in this bill.

Argument in Opposition : According to the California State Association of Counties , “We commend the author’s goal to create an oversight and enforcement structure for children’s camps that ensures their safety and the well-being of children in their care. However, we believe AB 1737 falls short of that goal by placing this responsibility with local health departments that exist to protect communities from public health threats, including but not limited to infectious diseases, climate-related illness, and chronic diseases.

WWW.TOWNSENDPA.COM
SACRAMENTO • WASHINGTON, DC
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA • CENTRAL CALIFORNIA • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA State Legislative Update
to the City of Concord
June 7, 2022

Slide
2 Quick Snapshot
Friday, May 27 was the House of Origin deadline which marks the last day for any bill introduced in the Senate or Assembly to pass off the floor and into the second house for consideration.

After that, the Legislature turned its focus back to the budget which includes budget subcommittee meetings to discuss various specific issue areas, the release of trailer bill and budget implementing language, and the Legislature negotiating with the Governor’s Administration on final budget details.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
3 Legislation: Open Government
Assembly Bill 1944 (Lee) Local Government: open and public meetings Focus of the legislation: Allows members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public. Recent amendments specify that if a member elects to teleconference from a non-public place, at least a quorum of members of the legislative body participates from a single physical location that is clearly identified on the agenda, open to the public, and situated within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency has jurisdiction. This measure sunsets on Jan. 1, 2030.

Assembly Bill 2449 (Rubio) Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences Focus of the legislation: Allows members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public, if at least a quorum of the members of the body participates in person.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
4 Legislation: Open Government
Assembly Bill 2647 (Levine) Local government: open meetings Focus of the legislation: Allows writings that have been distributed to members of a legislative body of a local agency less than 72 hours before an open meeting to be posted online to satisfy specified requirements of the Brown Act.

Senate Bill 1100 (Cortese) Open Meetings; orderly conduct Focus of the legislation: This bill authorizes the presiding member of a legislative body conducting a meeting to remove an individual for disrupting the meeting and defines “disrupting” for these purposes.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
5 Legislation: Public Safety
Senate Bill 1000 (Becker) Law enforcement agencies: radio communication Focus of the legislation: The purpose of this bill is to ensure public access to law enforcement radio communications and require law enforcement agencies to prevent or minimize criminal justice information or personally identifiable information from being broadcast in a manner that is accessible to the public. The bill requires each law enforcement agency to ensure that all radio communications are accessible to the public by January 1, 2024.

Assembly Bill 1947 (Ting) Hate crimes: law enforcement policies Focus of the legislation: This bill requires all California law enforcement agencies to adopt an updated hate crimes policy . This bill requires every local and state law enforcement agency (LEA) to adopt a hate crimes policy with specific parameters and requires the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) to develop a model hate crimes policy.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
6 Legislation: Public Safety
Assembly Bill 1737 (Holden) Children’s camps: local registration and inspections Focus of the legislation: Requires specified employees and volunteers of children’s camps to undergo background checks and to complete training in child abuse and neglect reporting This bill would redefine “organized camps” to include children’s camps. A children’s camp would be defined as a camp that offers daytime or overnight experiences administered by adults who provide social, cultural, educational, recreational, or artistic programming to more than five children between 3 and 17 years of age for 5 days or longer during at least one season.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
7 Legislation: Housing and Land Use
Assembly Bill 2011 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 Focus of the legislation: Establishes the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (Act), to create a ministerial, streamlined approval process for 100 percent affordable housing in commercially zoned areas and for mixed-income housing along commercial corridors. One of the main focuses of this bill is to establish new workable labor standards that do not include the skilled and trained work force.

This bill would require housing to be “by right” if it conforms to the provisions below regarding affordability, location, objective standards, and labor . In being by right, it would not be subject to a local government’s discretionary approval process and would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Local governments would be able to apply objective standards and design review processes if they do not conflict with the provisions in the bill and do not preclude development of the housing.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
8 Legislation: Housing
Assembly Bill 2050 (Lee) Residential Real Property
Focus of the legislation: This bill would introduce several reforms aimed at curbing abuses of the Ellis Act. First, it would prohibit use of the Act to remove a property from the rental market in a rent control jurisdiction until all the owners of the property (including holders of ownership interests in an entity that, in turn, owns the property) have maintained their ownership for a period of at least five continuous years. Second, if a person utilizes the Ellis Act to remove a property from the rental market and then acquires another rental property, that person would have to wait 10 years before being allowed to utilize the Ellis Act to remove the second property from the rental market.

Senate Bill 897 (Wiecowski) Accessory dwelling units
Focus of the legislation: This legislation would make a handful of changes to the laws governing ADUs and JADUs including that standards imposed on an ADU by a local agency must be objective, clarify that a local agency must explicitly approve or deny an application for an ADU or JADU within the 60 day timeframe, rather than act on the application, specify that construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code or trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the proposed or existing primary dwelling, allow for the construction of ADUs along with a proposed multifamily dwelling, in addition to existing authority that applies to proposed single-family dwellings, allow a JADU to be attached to a detached ADU and clarify that enclosed uses within the residence are considered a part of the proposed or existing single- family dwelling, and repeal the January 1, 2025 sunset on the prohibition on local owner-occupancy requirements, and repeal the existing owner-occupancy requirement in JADU law.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
9 Legislation: Transportation and Land Use
Senate Bill 932 (Portantino) General plans: circulation element: bicycle and pedestrian calming Focus of the legislation: This bill requires the circulation element of a general plan to include specified contents related to bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans, and to implement those plans; provides that failure to implement the plans creates a cause of action for victims of traffic violence.

Senate Bill 1067 (Portantino) Housing development projects: parking Focus of the legislation: This bill prohibits local governments from imposing parking minimums on certain housing developments near a major transit stop.

Assembly Bill 2097 (Friedman) Residential and commercial development: parking requirements Focus of the legislation: This legislation prohibits public agencies from enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements for developments located close to public transit.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
10 Legislation: Behavioral Health and Homelessness
Senate Bill 1338 (Umberg) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment Program (CARE Court)
Focus of the legislation: Establishes the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Act for the purpose of providing a court-ordered CARE plan to individuals who have a severe mental illness and meet other specified criteria that includes behavioral health treatment services, a trained supporter to assist the respondent in navigating the process and identifies an appropriate housing plan.

This bill will create a program to connect a person in crisis with a court-ordered CARE plan for up to 12 months, with the possibility to extend for an additional 12 months . The program provides individuals with a clinically appropriate, community-based set of services and supports that are culturally and linguistically competent. This includes short-term stabilization medications, wellness and recovery supports, and connection to social services, including housing.

City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
11 Key Issues in State Budget
Building Up Reserves
Inflation Relief Package
Housing and Homelessness
CARE Court
Public Safety
Climate Resiliency
Education
Jobs/Economy
Transportation
Reproductive Health
City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

Slide
12 Looking Ahead: Key Dates
City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022
June 15:

Governor
Approves
Budget Bill
•June 30:

Last day for
a legislative
measure to
qualify for
the Nov. 8
General
Election
ballot.
•July 1:

Last day for
policy
committees
to meet
and report
bills.

August 1:

Legislature
reconvenes
from
Summer
Recess.

August 31:

Last day for
each house
to pass
bills.

September
30: Last
day for
Governor
to sign or
veto bills.

Slide
13 Questions
?
Niccolo De Luca
Vice President
[email protected]
City of Concord State Legislative Update: June 7, 2022

I ncl usi on • Resi l i ence • Physi cal H eal th • Mental Wel l -B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

7.b

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty People place a high value on the
progra ms a nd se rvice s tha t pa rk
a nd re cre a tion a ge ncie s de live r to
their local communities
Four in five U.S. adults seek high-
quality parks and recreation when
choosing a place to liv e
87 % of peopl e agr ee that par k s and
re c re a tion is a n importa nt se rvic e
p ro vid e d b y t he ir lo c a l g o ve rnme nt
Stati sti cs prov i ded by N R P A ’ s 2021 E ngagement wi th Park s R eport

I ncl usi on • Resi l i ence • Physi cal H eal th • Mental Wel l -B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

S UMMERS UMMER
c a mps
Swi mmi n g
Ca mp Co n c o r d

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

AQUATI CSAQUATI CS

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

AQUATI CSAQUATI CS

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

AQUATI CSAQUATI CS

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty Ca mp Co n c o r dCa mp Co n c o r d

B al dwin Par k • C ent r e C oncor dB al dwin Par k • C ent r e C oncor d

P RES CHOOLP RES CHOOL
In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

YOUTHYOUTH
E nr ichm ent cl asses
School br eak cam ps
S w im lessons
E nr ichm ent cl asses
School br eak cam ps
S w im lessons

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty adul t s
E nr ichm ent cl asses
Incl usive R ecr eat ion
adul t s
E nr ichm ent cl asses
Incl usive R ecr eat ion

a d u l t s P ORTS

S OFTBALL
C hicago B all
P I ck le B all
C or nhol e
a d u l t s P ORTSS OFTBALL
C hicago B all
P I ck le B all
C or nhol e
In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty 50 & B et t er50 & B et t er
E nr ichm ent cl asses
C oncor d Senior C l ub
E nr ichm ent cl asses
C oncor d Senior C l ub

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty 50 & B et t er
TRIPs & To u r s
50 & B et t er
TRIPs & To u r s

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty 50 & B et t erHe a l t h & Hu ma n Se r v i c e s50 & B et t erHe a l t h & Hu ma n Se r v i c e s

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

FA C IL ITYRENTALS

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

ATHLETIC FACILITY

RENTALS

ATHLETIC FACILITY

RENTALS

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

P ARK &

PIC N IC

RENTALS

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty L i v e S tro n g H e alth E x p o
2022 G ift and C r aft Fair
C am p E xpo and H ir ing F air
Senior C ent er O pen H ouse
Be A S a n t a To A S e n i o r
L e tte rs to S an ta P ro g ram
W o rld P i c k le b all T o u r

SPECIAL EVENTSSPECIAL EVENTS

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

MARKETI NG

CITY NEW S & ACTIVITY GUIDE

WE B S I T E

PROGRAM REBRANDI NG

MARKETI NG

In clu sio n • Re silie n ce • Ph ysica l He a lth • Me n ta l W e ll- B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty NEED MORE INFO?
www.cit yof concor d.or g
cit y N ews & A ct ivit y G uide
W w w . c o n c o rd re g . o rg
V isit our com m unit y C ent er s
NEED MORE INFO?

I ncl usi on • Resi l i ence • Physi cal H eal th • Mental Wel l -B ei ng • Access to Pl ay • Our Communi ty

1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE

CONCORD CITY COUNCIL/CITY COUNCIL

SITTING AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
1950 PARKSIDE DRIVE

CONCORD, CALIFORNIA AND

VARIOUS TELEPHONIC/ELECTRONIC

LOCATIONS
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022
The Concord City Council met in a regular meeting In the Council Chamber located at 1950 Parkside Drive and via various telephonic/electronic locations at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, with Mayor Aliano presiding. The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilmember McGallian. Minutes follow in abbreviated form per Resolution 3361 and Council Minutes of September 26, 1966.

ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Edi Birsan, Laura Hoffmeister, Tim McGallian, Carlyn Obringer, Dominic Aliano
STAFF PRESENT: Valerie Barone, City Manager; Susanne Brown, City Attorney; Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager; Joelle Fockler, City Clerk; Kevin Marstall, Director of Community Development; Mark Bustillos, Chief of Police; Karan Reid, Director of Finance; Steve Voorhies, Director of Parks and Recreation; Guy Bjerke, Director of Economic Development and Base Reuse; Kylie Hicks, Budget Analyst

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WHO ADDRESSED THE COUNCIL: Mariah Lauritzen, Concord; Natalie; Betty Galbadon; Tony Bravo; Laura Nakamura; D’Marco Anthony; Silvia Amorino
Gonzalez, Concord; Jan Lee Marshall; Katherine Hensick, Concord Arts Association; Debra Ballinger, Monument Impact; Tim Carr; Ady; Karely Ordaz

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Mariah Lauritzen, Concord, spoke of making the ghost bike memorial on Clayton/Galindo permanent.

Natalie spoke of April being Autism Awareness Month.

The following people requested the Council to consider an Anti-Harassment Tenant Ordinance prior to June 7, 2022:

Betty Galbadon
Tony Bravo
Laura Nakamura
D’Marco Anthony spoke of the need for GARE Assessments.

8.a

City Council Minutes April 26, 2022

PRESENTATION

UPDATE ON THE CONCORD PAVILION
Mayor Aliano introduced Concord Pavilion General Manager Aaron Hawkins who gave an update on the Concord Pavilion.

Following questions from the City Council, Mayor Aliano opened a public comment period.

Natalie spoke of the Spirit West Coast Concert being cancelled and stated that it should not be allowed in the future.

Mayor Aliano closed the public comment period.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Aliano opened a public comment period, and upon receiving no public comment, closed the public comment period.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 22 and April 2, 2022
A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Birsan to approve the minutes from the March 22 and April 2, 2022, meetings. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-4 – Electronic Filing of Campaign Finance Disclosure Statements A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Birsan to adopt Ordinance No. 22-4 entitled, “An Uncodified Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Concord Requiring Electronic Filing of Campaign Finance Disclosure Statements." Ordinance No. 22-4 was introduced on April 5, 2022, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-5 – Approving a Development Agreement with Kolaboration Concord LLC.

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Birsan to adopt Ordinance No. 22-5 entitled, “An Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Development Agreement by and Between the City of Concord and Kolaboration Concord, LLC, Regarding the Development of a Cannabis Microbusiness with a Storefront Retail Component Located at 2366 Stanwell Circle, Assessor's Parcels Numbers: 112-252- 021, -022, and -006 (PL21109 - DA, UP, VA, DR)." Ordinance No. 22-5 was introduced on April 12, 2022, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 22-30 – Amending Policy and Procedure No. 31 – Budget Appropriation Transfer Controls
This item was pulled from consideration on the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Obringer, who stated she was not in support of the increase in administrative approval amount, as she stated in the past..

A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by McGallian to adopt Resolution No. 22- 30 entitled, “A Resolution Amending Policy and Procedure No. 31 – Budget Appropriation Transfer Controls.” The motion passed by the following vote of the Council:

AYES: Birsan, Hoffmeister, McGallian, Aliano NOES: Obringer ABSENT: None

City Council Minutes April 26, 2022
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-8 – Concord Municipal Code Title 12 (Streets & Sidewalks), Chapter 12.15, Street Encroachments
A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Birsan to introduce Ordinance No. 22-8 entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Concord Municipal Code Title 12 (Streets & Sidewalks), Chapter

12.15, Street Encroachments, to add a Moratorium on and Require Enhanced Restoration for Certain Street Cuts within a Five Year Period” by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPROVAL OF FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. 08C.05 – County Connection, Contra Costa Transportation Authority and City of Walnut Cree – IDEA Grant – TSP System A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Birsan to approve of funding agreement with CCTA as part of the Cooperative Agreement No. 08C.05 with County Connection, Contra Costa Transportation Authority and City of Walnut Creek for the IDEA Grant – TSP System approved by Council on October 12, 2021; and authorize the City Manager to execute these agreements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPROVAL OF LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SJR 15 – PORT CHICAGO (GLAZER) TO SENATOR

BOB ARCHULETA, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS This item was pulled from consideration on the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Obringer, who spoke of the many efforts over the years to exonerate the 50 African American sailors who were convicted of mutiny in connection with their service at the Port Chicago Magazine and highlight the fact that Senator Glazer is submitting a letter of support for Senate Justice Resolution (SJR) 15 to exonerate these individuals and that the City Council would be submitting a letter supporting the Senator and his request.

A motion was made by Obringer and seconded by McGallian to approve of letter of support for SJR 15 – Port Chicago (Glazer) to Senator Bob Archuleta, Chairman of the Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs, to provide full exoneration of the 50 African American sailors of the United States Navy who were tried and convicted of mutiny in connection with their service at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in Concord, California, during World War II. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CITY COUNCIL/CITY COUNCIL SITTING AS THE LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITY CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVE AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP
A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Birsan to approve an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for work drafting the Term Sheet related to the Master Developer Selection process at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station establishing a new total not-to-exceed amount of $100,000; and authorize the Executive Director of the Local Reuse Authority to execute the amendment in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

APPROVE AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT – Jarvis, Fay & Gibson, LLP A motion was made by Hoffmeister and seconded by Birsan to approve an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Jarvis, Fay & Gibson, LLP in the amount of $30,000 for work land use advice on the Term Sheet related to the Master Developer Selection process at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station establishing a new total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000; and authorize the Executive Director of the Local Reuse Authority to execute the amendment in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The motion passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

City Council Minutes April 26, 2022

CONSIDERATION ITEM

APPROVAL OF ARPA SPENDING CATEGORS AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS ALLOCATED TO EACH

SPENDING CATEGORY
Director of Finance Karan Reid presented the report and stated that the Council was being requested to receive a presentation on community feedback for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) investments; approve ARPA spending categories; approve dollar amounts allocated to each spending category from the $19.0 million of one-time ARPA funds and $1.0 million of annual, recurring Measure V funds; and provide direction to staff on next steps for developing a funding allocation process for each spending category. Director Reid introduced Carol Jacobs, Chief Operating Officer, Management Partners, who reviewed the ARPA community engagement results.

Following questions from the City Council, Mayor McGallian opened a public comment period.

Natalie spoke of cleaning up neighborhoods, fixing up parks, and working with property owners to fix up parking lots.

Silvia Amorino Gonzalez, Concord, requested funding for the arts non-profits.

Jan Lee Marshall spoke of the importance of the arts.

Mariah Lauritzen, Concord, stated that housing should be paired with transportation in the allocation of ARPA funds.

Katherine Hensick, Concord Arts Association, expressed support for non-profits, specifically the arts.

Debra Ballinger, Monument Impact, spoke in support of spending ARPA funds on affordable housing and at-risk tenant support.

Tim Carr spoke of the need for a category for families.

Ady spoke of the need to help small businesses in the Monument area.

Karely Ordaz, spoke of using ARPA funds on affordable housing and at-risk housing as individual categories.

Mayor Aliano closed the public comment period and recessed the meeting at 8:14 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:24 p.m.

Following discussion by the City Council, a motion was made by McGallian and seconded by Birsan to direct staff to agendize the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee that will further revise spending categories, dollar allocations to spending categories, and the process for allocating funds within each spending category. The motion was passed by unanimous vote of the Council.

CORRESPONDENCE
a. Agenda Item No. 2.a – Public Comment, Written Public Comment Received b. Agenda Item No. 5.a – ARPA Spending, Benched Attachment 3 c. Agenda Item No. 5.a – ARPA Spending, Benched Correspondence d. Agenda Item No. 5.a – ARPA Spending, Correspondence Received after 3 p.m. on Meeting Day e. Agenda Item No. 5.a – PowerPoint Presentation

City Council Minutes April 26, 2022

COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmembers shared information on events and activities in which they had participated since the last meeting and commented on items of interest.

ADJOURNMENT
By order of the Mayor, the meeting was adjourned on April 26, 2022, at 8:52 p.m.

DOMINIC ALIANO
MAYOR

JOELLE FOCKLER, MMC

CITY CLERK

Staff Report
Date: June 7, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Kevin Marstall, PE, Director of Community Development Bruce Davis, PE, Interim City Engineer
Bernard Enrile, PE, CIP Manager
Prepared by: Tianjun Cao, PE, Associate Civil Engineer
[email protected]
(925) 671-3243
Subject: Considering appropriation of the balance of $3,016,900 of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant funds from the State for the Citywide Traffic System Upgrade Phase 2 Project (Project No. 2574), Citywide Protected Left-Turn Phasing Project (Project No. 2575), and Traffic Safety Around Schools (Project No. 2576).

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

Report in Brief
The City of Concord applied for and was awarded a total of $3,672,600 in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 10 Grants, requiring a total local match of $188,800. The following projects were awarded through the HSIP Cycle 10 Grant:

1. Citywide Traffic System Upgrade Phase 2 Project (Project No. 2574): This project improves traffic signal hardware, installs pedestrian countdown signal heads, and modifies phasing to provide Lead Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) at 45 signalized intersections with the highest collisions in the City. The total project cost is $2,360,000 and the allocated HSIP funds are $2,171,200, requiring $188,800 of local match.

8.b8.b

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.b
June 7, 2022

2. Citywide Protected Left-turn Phasing Project (Project No. 2575): This project modifies eight (8) intersections with permissive left-turn phasing to provide protected left-turn phasing. The total project cost is $1,254,800 and the allocated HSIP funds are $1,254,800.

3. Traffic Safety Around Schools (Project No. 2576): This project installs high- visibility crosswalks, concrete bulb-outs, advance warning signs, and ADA curb ramps at four (4) locations in the City. The total project cost is $246,600 and the allocated HSIP funds are $246,600.

Council action is required to appropriate the balance of the approved-for-expenditure, described-above grant funds.

Recommended Action
Appropriate the balance of $3,016,900 of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant funds from the State, as previously allocated, for the Citywide Traffic System Upgrade Phase 2 Project (Project No. 2574), Citywide Protected Left-Turn Phasing Project (Project No. 2575), and Traffic Safety Around Schools (Project No. 2576).

Background
On November 2, 2020, the City applied for Highway Safety Improvement Program grant funding for Fiscal Years 2021-2024 for the three projects. On May 11 and 12, 2021, Caltrans notified the City that the HSIP grant applications were approved by the State, and funds were approved and allocated for the Preliminary Engineering Phase (Safety Analysis) for the three projects. City Council accepted the grant funds and appropriated funding for the Preliminary Engineering (PE) phase of the project on June 22, 2021.

Analysis
The PE phase of all three projects (2574, 2575, and 2576) are currently underway and are at various stages of design. The balance of the HSIP funds is now required to be appropriated to each project to fund the construction. The current project schedules are as follows:

1. Citywide Traffic System Upgrade Phase 2 Project (Project No. 2574): Project design began in November 2021 and design was completed in May 2022. The project is currently pending construction funding approval from Caltrans.

Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2023.

2. Citywide Protected Left-turn Phasing Project (Project No. 2575): Project design began in January 2022 and design is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2022, with construction anticipated to begin in Summer 2023.

3. Traffic Safety Around Schools (Project No. 2576): Project design began in January 2022 and design was completed in early May 2022. The project was advertised for construction bids, with a bid opening on June 2, 2022.

Construction is anticipated to begin in August 2022.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.b
June 7, 2022
The location maps and lists of all intersections by projects can be seen in Attachment 1.

Financial Impact
The grant funds for the PE phase were appropriated following the June 22, 2021 City Council meeting. The local match of $188,800 was approved and appropriated by City Council at the Mid-Cycle Update on June 8, 2021. This City Council action will appropriate the remainder of the HSIP grant funding (Fund 402) into their respective projects as shown in the following:

1. Citywide Traffic System Upgrade Phase 2 Project (Project No. 2574):
$423,200 was appropriated into the PE phase on June 22, 2021. Appropriate the remaining $1,748,000 into the project for construction.

2. Citywide Protected Left-turn Phasing Project (Project No. 2575): $195,000 was appropriated into the PE phase on June 22, 2021. Appropriate the remaining $1,059,800 into the project for construction.

3. Traffic Safety Around Schools (Project No. 2576): $37,500 was appropriated into the PE phase on June 22, 2021. Appropriate the remaining $209,100 into the project for construction.

The grant funds for the construction phases of the projects will be added into their respective projects at various times, after the City receives construction authorization approval from Caltrans.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(2), 15378, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065, appropriating grant funding is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, as it does not constitute a “project,” does not commit the City to a definite course of action, does not constitute discretionary approval of a specific project.If this were determined to be a “project” for CEQA analysis, this activity falls within the "Common Sense" CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 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. Individual projects will undergo CEQA analysis as necessary.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. Location Maps for Projects 2574, 2575, and 2576

Location Map – Study Intersections
Project 2574 – Citywide Traffic System Upgrade Phase 2
Attachment 1

Project 2575– Citywide Protected Left-turn Phasing

Project 2576 – Traffic Safety Around Schools

Staff Report
Date: June 7, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3155
Subject: Considering approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Townsend Public Affairs in the not to exceed amount of $90,000 for legislative advocacy services; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (General Fund)
Report in Brief
Townsend Public Affairs has been providing legislative advocacy services to the City of Concord since November 2019; staff recommends continuing these efforts during the 2022-23 Fiscal Year.

Recommended Action
Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Townsend Public Affairs in the not to exceed amount of $90,000 for a one-year term expiring June 30, 2023, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Background
The thousands of legislative bills introduced each year can often have direct impact on the City of Concord. In 2021 alone, there were 2,241 bills introduced; of those, the Governor signed 770. Staff cannot follow these legislative actions without support from consulting firms specializing in political action. These firms will monitor proposed legislation and keep the City informed while influencing outcomes that are consistent with the City’s legislative platform.

The Townsend team provides comprehensive assistance monitoring State and Federal legislation related to the pandemic, stimulus support, and a number of proposed State bills of interest to the City. They have also helped the City advocate for and move

8.c8.c8.c

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.c
June 7, 2022
important bills, and/or language, forward through the legislative process, as well as funding requests. They have access to legislators and knowledge of the legislative process beyond that available through City staff.

Analysis
Staff recommends continuing to utilize Townsend Public Affairs because of the robust services they provide during such unprecedented times. The team provides regular updates on State and Federal legislative and economic activity at a level staff cannot accomplish on their own given limited resources. The team has provided invaluable early information on both State and Federal stimulus funding allowing the City to plan and execute local grant programs for residential and commercial rent relief.

In addition, the Townsend team provides grant-writing services that the City has not previously utilized. Current State and Federal administrations have made numerous funding opportunities available that can help build or replace important infrastructure.

Townsend will aid the City with grant submissions while raising the awareness and attention to Concord’s state and federal funding requests. Staff recommends increasing the annual agreement amount from $60,000 to $90,000 for this purpose. Staff believes that the additional $30,000 cost will be recoverable through a single grant award.

Financial Impact
The monthly retainer for this agreement is $7,500, for a total of $90,000 per year. Funds have been included in the adopted FY 2022-23 operating budget.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

1. Professional Services Agreement with Townsend Public Affairs.

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10/2021 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into on July 1, 2022 between the City of Concord ("CITY") and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc, 1401 Dove Street, Suite 330, Newport Beach, CA 29660 (“CONSULTANT”).

THE PARTIES ENTER THIS AGREEMENT based upon the following facts, understandings and intentions:

The CITY desires to contract with CONSULTANT to provide the professional services described in Section 2 of this Agreement, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2022 and expire on June 30, 2023.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Subject to such policy direction and approvals provided by the CITY's Authorized Representative, CONSULTANT shall perform the services described in detail in Exhibit A, Scope of Services. CITY retains all rights of approval and discretion with respect to the projects and undertakings contemplated by this Agreement.

3. PAYMENT. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT including payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall be at the rate and schedules in detail in Exhibit A. However, shall in no event shall the amount CITY pays CONSULTANT exceed Ninety Thousand dollars ($90,000) for the term of this Agreement. Any Amendment to this Agreement that includes an increase to this compensation amount shall be made in accordance with Section 5 below.

CONSULTANT may submit monthly statements for services rendered; all statements shall include adequate documentation demonstrating work performed during the billing period. It is intended that CITY review such statement and pay CONSULTANT for services rendered within 30 days of receipt of a statement that meets all requirements of this Agreement. Payment by CITY shall not be deemed a waiver of unsatisfactory work, even if such defects were known to the CITY at the time of payment.

4. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Authorized representatives shall represent CITY and CONSULTANT in all matters pertaining to the services to be ordered by CITY or rendered

10/2021 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
by CONSULTANT under this Agreement except where approval for the CITY is specifically required by the City Council. The CITY’s authorized representative is Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager of the City Manager's Office. The CONSULTANT’s authorized representative is Niccolo De Luca, Senior Director.

5. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be amended in writing, subject to approval by both parties. If additional services are requested by CITY other than as described in the above Scope of Services, this Agreement may be amended, modified, or changed by the parties subject to mutual consent and in accordance with the CITY’s Municipal Code by execution of an Amendment by authorized representatives of both parties setting forth the additional scope of services to be performed, the performance time schedule, and the compensation for such services.

A. Amendment for Additional Compensation. CITY’s Authorized Representative is authorized to execute amendments to the Agreement on behalf of CITY, including amendments providing for additional compensation to CONSULTANT not to exceed the Minimum Threshold, including the base contract amount, throughout the term of this Agreement. “Minimum Threshold” means the dollar amount over which Council approval is required during each fiscal year as set forth in Concord City Council Resolution 21-43 pursuant to Concord Municipal Code Section

3.10.040(a). The Minimum Threshold for Fiscal Year 2021-22 is $75,000 and increases by $5,000 each subsequent fiscal year such that by Fiscal Year 2026-27 the Minimum Threshold is $100,000. Any additional compensation to CONSULTANT that is greater than the Minimum Threshold, including the base contract amount, must be approved by City Council.

CONSULTANT’s failure to secure CITY’s written authorization for additional compensation or changes to the Scope of Services shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in the price or time due, whether by way of compensation, restitution, quantum meruit, or similar relief.

6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Both parties understand and acknowledge that CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, volunteers and subcontractors are and shall at all times remain as to the CITY wholly independent contractors. Neither the CITY nor any of its officers, officials, agents, employees or volunteers shall have any control over the manner by which the CONSULTANT performs this Agreement and shall only dictate the results of the performance.

10/2021 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CONSULTANT shall not represent that CONSULTANT or its officers, agents, employees, volunteers or subcontractors are agents or employees of the CITY, and CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of the CITY in any capacity whatsoever as an agent, and shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind the CITY to any obligation whatsoever, unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.

As an independent contractor, CONSULTANT shall not be eligible for any benefits, which the City may provide to its employees and all persons, if any, hired by CONSULTANT shall be employees or subcontractors of CONSULTANT and shall not be construed as employees or agents of the CITY in any respect. CONSULTANT shall receive no premium or enhanced pay for work normally understood as overtime, i.e., hours that exceed forty (40) hours per work week, or work performed during non- standard business hours, such as in the evenings or on weekends. CONSULTANT shall not receive a premium or enhanced pay for work performed on a recognized holiday. CONSULTANT shall not receive paid time off for days not worked, whether it be in the form of sick leave, administrative leave, or for any other form of absence. CONSULTANT shall pay all taxes, assessments and premiums under the federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers Compensation insurance premiums, sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes or assessments now or hereafter in effect and payable by reason of or in connection with the services to be performed by CONSULTANT.

7. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. CONSULTANT represents and warrants to CITY that CONSULTANT is skilled and able to provide such services described in the Scope of Services and that such services shall be performed in an expeditious manner, and with the degree of skill and care that is required by current, good, and sound procedures and practices. CONSULTANT further agrees that the services shall be in conformance with generally accepted professional standards prevailing at the time work is performed.

8. PERFORMANCE BY CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall not employ other consultants, subconsultants, experts, or contractors without the prior written approval of the CITY.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY shall not be obligated or liable for payment hereunder to any party other than the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT hereby designates the CONSULTANT’S

10/2021 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
representative as the person primarily responsible for the day-to-day performance of CONSULTANT'S work under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not change the CONSULTANT’S representative without the prior written consent of the CITY. Unless otherwise expressly agreed by the CITY, CONSULTANT'S representative shall remain responsible for the quality and timeliness of performance of the services, notwithstanding any permitted or approved delegation hereunder.

9. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF DOCUMENTS. All documents furnished by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of CONSULTANT’s services in respect to this project. They are not intended nor are represented to be suitable for reuse by others except CITY on extensions of this project or on any other project. Any reuse without specific written verification and adoption by CONSULTANT for the specific purposes intended will be at user’s sole risk and without liability or legal exposure and expenses to CONSULTANT, including attorney’s fees arising out of such unauthorized reuse.

CONSULTANT’s records, documents, calculations, and all other instruments of service pertaining to actual project shall be given to CITY at the completion of the project. The CITY reserves the right to specify the file format that electronic document deliverables are presented to the CITY.

10. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. For Design Professional Services Only. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2782.8, CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify the CITY (including its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers) against liability for claims against the CITY that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement. The CONSULTANT will reimburse the CITY for any expenditures, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the CITY in defending against claims ultimately determined to arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT.

B. For All Other Services. CONSULTANT agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY (including its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers) from and against all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability (including all attorney’s fees and

10/2021 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
other litigation expenses) arising out of the CONSULTANT’s performance under the terms of this Agreement. This indemnification obligation on CONSULTANT’s part shall not apply to the demands, actions, losses, damages, injuries, and liability arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the CITY.

11. INSURANCE. CONSULTANT shall, at its own expense, procure and maintain in full force at all times during the term of this Agreement the following insurance:

A. Commercial General Liability Coverage. CONSULTANT shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with limits of no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence or two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate limit for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage.

B. Automobile Liability Coverage. CONSULTANT shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering all vehicles used in the performance of this Agreement providing a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage.

C. Professional Liability Coverage (Errors and Omissions). CONSULTANT shall maintain professional liability insurance with coverage for all negligent errors, acts or omissions committed by CONSULTANT, its agents and employees in the performance of this Agreement. The amount of this insurance shall be not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims made annual aggregate basis or a combined single limit per occurrence basis.

D. Compliance with State Workers' Compensation Requirements.

CONSULTANT covenants that it will insure itself against liability for Workers' Compensation pursuant to the provisions of California Labor Code §3700, et seq. CONSULTANT shall, at all times, upon demand of the City, furnish proof that Workers' Compensation Insurance is being maintained by it in force and effect in accordance with the California Labor Code. The insurer shall also agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by CONSULTANT for CITY. This provision shall not apply upon written verification by CONSULTANT that CONSULTANT has no employees.

E. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to

10/2021 6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
contain the following provisions:
(1) Additional Insured. CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers are to be covered as an additional insured as respects: Liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of CONSULTANT and operations of CONSULTANT, premises owned, occupied, or used by CONSULTANT. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope or protection afforded to CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees or volunteers.

Except for worker's compensation and professional liability insurance, the policies mentioned in this subsection shall name CITY as an additional insured and provide for notice of cancellation to CITY. CONSULTANT shall also provide timely and prompt notice to CITY if CONSULTANT receives any notice of cancellation or nonrenewal from its insurer. (2) Primary Coverage. CONSULTANT'S insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers. Any insurance, risk pooling arrangement, or self-insurance maintained by CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of CONSULTANT'S insurance and shall not contribute with it.
(3) Reporting Provisions. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect the coverage provided to the CITY, its officers, officials, agents, employees or volunteers.
(4) Verification of Coverage. CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with certificates of insurance and the original endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement.

The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The aforementioned policies shall be issued by an insurance carrier having a rating of Best A-7 or better which is satisfactory to the City Attorney and shall be delivered to CITY at the time of the execution of this Agreement or before work commences. Such policies and certificates shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. CITY reserves the right to require complete certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time.

12. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The time of performance of the services under this Agreement is of the essence, and all time deadlines identified in this Agreement or Scope of Services

10/2021 7
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
shall be strictly construed.

13. SUSPENSION OF WORK. CITY may, at any time, by ten (10) days’ written notice, suspend further performance by CONSULTANT. All suspensions shall extend the time schedule for performance in a mutually satisfactory manner, and CONSULTANT shall be paid for services performed and reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the suspension date. During the period of suspension, CONSULTANT shall not receive any payment for services, or expenses, except for reasonable administration expenses, incurred by CONSULTANT by reason of such suspension.

14. TERMINATION. CITY may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon ten (10) days written notice to the other party. CITY may terminate the Agreement upon five (5) days written notice if CONSULTANT breaches this Agreement. In the event of any termination, CONSULTANT shall promptly deliver to the CITY any and all finished and unfinished reports or other written, recorded, photographic, or visual materials, documents, data, and other deliverables (“Work Materials”) prepared for the CITY prior to the effective date of such termination, all of which shall become CITY’s sole property. After receipt of the Work Materials, CITY will pay CONSULTANT for the services satisfactorily performed as of the effective date of the termination.

15. COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS. During the performance of this contract, CONSULTANT agrees as follows:

A. Equal Employment Opportunity. In connection with the execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, promotion, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rate of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship.

B. Nondiscrimination Civil Rights Act of 1964. CONSULTANT will comply with all federal regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs.

C. Solicitations for Subcontractors including Procurement of Materials and Equipment. In all solicitation, either by competitive bidding or negotiations, made by CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a subcontract including procurement of materials or leases of

10/2021 8
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
equipment, each potential subcontractor, supplier or lessor shall be notified by CONSULTANT of CONSULTANT’S obligation under this Agreement and the regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, religion, color, sex, or national origin.

16. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

A. CONSULTANT covenants and represents that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests of CITY or which would in any way hinder CONSULTANT’s performance of services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT further covenants that in the performance of the Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, official, agent, employee or subcontractor without the express written consent of the CITY. CONSULTANT agrees to at all times avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of any conflicts of interest, with the interests of the CITY in the performance of this Agreement.

B. CONSULTANT is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because CONSULTANT:
(1) Will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to its rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of the CITY or of any CITY official, other than normal contract monitoring; and (2) Possesses no authority with respect to any CITY decision beyond the rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. (2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18700(a)(2).)

17. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable Federal, State of California, and local laws, rules, and regulations and shall obtain all applicable licenses, including a business license with the City of Concord, and permits for the conduct of its business and the performance of the services. CONSULTANT shall ensure that all of its officers, officials, agents, employees and subcontractors who: (i) enter CITY premises in connection with the services to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder, and/or (ii) have in-person contact with CITY officers, officials, agents, employees, subcontractors and volunteers, and/or members of the public in connection with the services to be performed by CONSULTANT hereunder, comply with all applicable Federal, State of California, Contra Costa County, and local laws, rules, and regulations, whichever is

10/2021 9
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the most restrictive, regarding COVID-19 or similar public health matters, including regarding vaccinations, testing, reporting, social distancing, social gathering, mask wearing, and associated requirements.

18. CHOICE OF LAW. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, excluding any choice of law rules which may direct the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. In the event that suit shall be brought by either party hereunder, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Contra Costa, California.

19. NON-WAIVER. The waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in the Agreement, or any default in their performance of any obligations under the Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach or default of the same or any other term, covenant, condition, or obligation, nor shall any waiver of any incident of breach of default constitute a continuing waiver of same.

20. ENFORCEABILITY; INTERPRETATION. In the event that any of the provisions or portions of application of any of the provisions of the Agreement are held to be illegal or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, CITY and CONSULTANT shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Agreement with a view toward affecting the purpose of the Agreement. The illegality or invalidity of any of the provisions or portions of application of any of the provisions of the Agreement shall not affect the legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions of application of any of the provisions of the Agreement. This Agreement shall be interpreted as though it was a product of a joint drafting effort and no provisions shall be interpreted against a party on the ground that said party was solely or primarily responsible for drafting the language to be interpreted.

21. INTEGRATION. All exhibits identified in this Agreement are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the subject matter of this Agreement. It merges and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, commitments, representation, writings, and discussions between CONSULTANT and CITY, whether oral or written.

10/2021 10
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

22. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES; NO JOINT VENTURE. CITY and CONSULTANT respectively, bind themselves, their successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the terms and obligations of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in the Agreement without the CITY's prior written consent, which consent shall be in the CITY’s sole discretion. Any attempted assignment or transfer in breach of this provision shall be void. This Agreement is not intended and shall not be construed to create any third party benefit. This Agreement is not intended and shall not be construed to create a joint venture or partnership between the parties. CONSULTANT, its officers, employees and agents shall not have any power to bind or commit the CITY to any decision.

23. FINANCIAL RECORDS. Records of CONSULTANT’s direct labor costs, payroll costs, and reimbursable expenses pertaining to this project covered by this Agreement will be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis and made available to CITY if and when required.

24. NOTICES. All notices required hereunder shall be in writing and mailed postage prepaid by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by personal delivery to the CITY's address as shown below, or such other places as CITY or CONSULTANT may, from time to time, respectively, designate in a written notice given to the other. Notice shall be deemed received three (3) days after the date of the mailing thereof or upon personal delivery.

To CITY: Justin Ezell, Assistant City Manager
City Manager's Office
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519-2578
Phone: (925) 671-3155
Email: [email protected]
To CONSULTANT: Niccolo De Luca, Senior Director
Townsend Public Affairs
1401 Dove Street, Suite 330
Newport Beach, CA29660
Phone: (949)399-9050
Email: [email protected]

25. NON-LIABILITY. No member of the CITY and no other officer, official, agent, employee or volunteer of the CITY shall be personally liable to CONSULTANT or otherwise in the event of any default or breach of the CITY, or for any amount which may become due to

10/2021 11
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CONSULTANT or any successor in interest, or for any obligations directly or indirectly incurred under the terms of this Agreement.

26. EXECUTION . Each individual or entity executing this Agreement on behalf of Applicant represents and warrants that he or she or it is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of Applicant and that such execution is binding upon Applicant.

This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in one (1) or more copies as of the date and year first written above.

CONSULTANT CITY OF CONCORD, a Municipal
Corporation
By:_________________________________ By:______________________________ Name: Niccolo De Luca Name: Valerie J. Barone Title: Senior Director Title City Manager
Address: 1401 Dove Street, Suite 330 Address: 1950 Parkside Drive Newport Beach,CA 29660 Concord, CA 94519
Telephone: (949)399-9050 Telephone: (925) 671-3150
Email: [email protected]
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Susanne Brown Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Attorney City Clerk
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION:

Concord, California
Date:

10/2021 12
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ADEQUATE FUNDS EXIST OR WILL BE RECEIVED DURING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.

THE SUM OF $90,000. Account Code 100-1200-1Z01-63800-500.

Finance Director's Signature

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 1 Table of Contents
Proposa
l for
Legislative Advocacy
and Grant Funding Services
March 21, 2022
Exhibit A to Attachment 1Page 15 of 35

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 2

March 21, 2022

Valerie Barone, City Manager
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Dr,
Concord, CA 94519

Dear Ms. Barone:

Thank you for the opportunity for Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (“TPA”) to submit our proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services to the City of Concord (“City”).

Since its inception in 1998, TPA has earned the reputation as Champions for Better Communities by providing the experience, resources, and relationships expected from a premier legislative advocacy and grant writing firm while also giving clients the unique brand of customer service they deserve: personal attention, maximum accessibility, and passion for their mission.

Our strategic approach to advocacy and funding is tailored to meet the individual needs of each client by leveraging the breadth and depth of our team as well as our vast network of relationships with key stakeholders and decision makers.

Utilizing this method on behalf of our clients, TPA has shepherded over 100 legislative and regulatory proposals into law, and secured over $2. 3 billion in grants from state, federal, and local government agencies as well as nonprofit foundations and private companies.

Thank you again for your interest in our firm and your consideration of this proposal. Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. We would be honored to serve the City of Concord.

Yours truly,

Pr
esident

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 3

ABOUT TPA

TPA is a state and federal legislative advocacy and grant writing firm that provides lobbying and funding services to public agencies and nonprofit organizations throughout California.

• Founder/Owner/President: Christopher Townsend

• Advocacy Success: Shepherded over 100 client-sponsored legislative proposals into law

• Funding Success: Over $2.3 billion in state, federal, and local government grants as well as grants from nonprofit organizations and private companies

• Longevity: 24 years (founded in 1998)

• Number of Employees: 16

• Number of Registered State and Federal Lobbyists and Grant Writers: 13

• Number of Offices: Five
o TPA State Capitol Office, Sacramento
o TPA Federal Office, Washington, DC
o TPA Northern California Office, Oakland
o TPA Central California Office, Fresno
o TPA Southern California Office, Newport Beach

• T ypes of Clients:
o City Governments
o County Governments
o Water and Sanitation Districts
o Transportation Districts
o K- 12 School Districts
o Community College Districts
o Parks and Recreation Districts
o Fire Protection Districts
o Museums, Science Centers, and Cultural Facilities

• Areas of Specialization:
o Local Governance (Cities, Counties, Special Districts) o Transportation Policy and Infrastructure
o Water and Sanitation Policy and Infrastructure
o Education Policy and Infrastructure
o Housing and Economic Development
o Parks and Community Facilities (Recreational, Cultural, Historical) o Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources
o Public Safety
o Budget and Finance

• Ranking by Revenue Reported to the California Secretary of State:
o 8 th of 486 Firms Registered for 2019-20 Legislative Session o 98th Percentile

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 4

ABOUT TPA

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY ACHIEVEMENTS

Policy Sector Issue Description
Local Governance
Local Control and Finance
• Public Facilities and Finance
• Public Employee Programs
• Contractual Assessment Programs
• Infrastructure Financing Opportunities
Public Employee Benefits
• PEPRA Compliance
• JPA Benefits
• Medical Benefits Vesting
Cannabis • Drafting Local and State Cannabis Regulations • Local Control
Transportation
Local Streets and Roads • State Highway Relinquishments • Local Venue Signage on State Highways
State Highway System • State Bond Funding for Highway Projects • Expansion of Toll Lanes/Toll Roads
Water and Sanitation
Water Quality
• Drinking Water Public Health Regulations
• Groundwater Pollution Liability
• Groundwater Management Plans
• Direct/Indirect Potable Reuse
Water Infrastructure
• State Bond Funding for Water Projects
• Local Reliability Projects
• Water Conservation Programs
Sanitation Infrastructure • Integrated Regional Watershed Projects • Advanced Water Treatment Facilities
Housing and
Community Development
Affordable Housing • Developing Funding for Affordable Housing • Expanding Affordable Housing Eligibility
Economic Development
• Capital Investment Incentive Program Expansion
• Enterprise Zone Program Regulations
• Military Base Re-Use Land Planning
Redevelopment
• Agency Dissolution Process
• Developing Post-RDA Funding Sources
• State Liability Reduction
Recreation and Natural
Resources
Park Facilities
• Joint-Use Projects with Schools Districts
• State Bond Funding for Local Park Projects
(Propositions 11, 68, and 84)
Greenhouse Gas Reduction • TOD Housing to Support Cap and Trade Objectives • Increase Transit Accessibility for Active Transportation Cultural and Historical
Resources Cultural Facilities • CA Cultural and Historical Endowment • CA Nature Education Facilities Program
Public Safety
Public Health
• Air Pollution Reduction Methods
• Treatment of the Remains of a Deceased
• Veteran Resources
Crime Reduction • Sex Trafficking Control
• Gun Control
Local Law Enforcement
• Increasing Local Police Presence/COPS
• Police Body Cameras
• Regional Public Safety Task Force Initiatives
Education
Community College Districts
• Veterans Resources
• Alternative Energy Job Training
• ADA Reform
K-12 School Districts • K-12 Safety Planning Programs
• Joint Use Projects with Civic Agencies
School Facilities
• Charter School Facilities Funding
• Community College Facilities Funding
• K-12 School District Facilities Funding

A DETAILED SCHEDULE OF OUR STATE, FEDERAL, AND LOCAL LEGISLATIVE

ADVOCACY ACHIEVEMENTS CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 5

ABOUT TPA
FY 2021-22 STATE BUDGET EARMARKS

This table provides an overview of the direct budget allocations secured on behalf of our clients from the 2021-22 State Budget. TPA worked closely with our clients to identify priority projects for each funding request. TPA then worked with members of the Assembly and Senate Budget Committee, as well as the Governor’s Administration, to ensure our client’s projects were included in the final budget approved by the Legislature.

Client Name Project Amount Awarded
City of Costa Mesa Regional Fire and Rescue Facility
Improvements $2,500,000
City of Del Mar Del Mar Fairgrounds Operating Shortfall $3,500,000 City of Emeryville Affordable Housing Site Remediation $2,500,000 City of Farmersville Fire Engine Acquisition $750,000
City of Fremont Mission Boulevard Interchange Modernization Project $7,200,000
City of Fullerton Hunt Library Restoration $2,750,000 Homelessness Recuperative Center $4,000,000
City of Half Moon Bay Carter Park Renovation Project $4,750,000 City of Hayward Hayward Navigation Center $662,000
South Hayward Youth Family Center Project $1,000,000
City of Irvine Bommer Canyon Fire Prevention Efforts $1,000,000 City of Lafayette Safe Pathway for Children Trail $238,000 City of Modesto Infrastructure Improvements to County Islands $5,000,000 City of Oakland
Oakland Fund for Public Innovation for the
California Entrepreneurship Capital in the
Community Initiative
$8,000,000
Local Jurisdiction Assistance for Cannabis
Equity Program $9,905,020
Oakland MACRO Project $10,000,000
Port of Oakland Freight and Passenger
Enhancements $280,000,000
City of Pismo Beach Public Safety Communications Equipment $470,000 City of Reedley Olson/Kings River Sewer Main Replacement $2,800,000 City of San Leandro Memorial Park Rehabilitation Project $2,750,000 City of San Pablo Alternative Policing and Mental Health Program $2,000,000 City of Santa Ana Youth Facilities Improvements $4,000,000 City of South San
Francisco Vehicle License Fee Adjustment $3,000,000
City of Tracy Multi-Generational Recreation Center $5,000,000 City of Tustin New Emergency Backup Generator $1,500,000 Discovery Science
Foundation
Discovery Cube of Orange County Re-Opening
Operating Expenses $2,040,000
Discovery Cube of Los Angeles Re-opening
Operating Expenses $2,600,000
North Orange County
Public Safety Task Force
North Orange County Public Safety Task Force
Extension $7,800,000
TOTAL FY 2021-22 STATE BUDGET EARMARKS $377,715,020

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 6

ABOUT TPA

GRANT FUNDING ACHIEVEMENTS

This table provides an overview of our grant funding achievements on behalf of our clients from state, federal, and local government agencies as well as private and nonprofit grant programs.

These amounts represent grants secured through a competitive and/or legislative process and do NOT include any funds awarded to clients via formulas or related forms of funding entitlements.

Policy Sector State Funding Federal Funding All Sources Water and Sanitation $126.6 Million $8.7 Million $135.3 Million Transportation $568.7 Million $131.1 Million $699.8 Million Education $248.0 Million $46.8Million $294.8 Million
Parks and Recreation $154.7 Million $30.1 Million $184.85 Million Cultural Resources $120.0 Million $10.3 Million $130.3 Million Housing and
Development $694.8 Million $11.8 Million $706.6 Million Public Safety $106.5 Million $66.7 Million $173.2 Million TOTAL $2.019 Billion $305.5 Million $2.325 Billion

A DETAILED 20-PAGE SCHEDULE OF OUR STATE, FEDERAL, AND LOCAL GRANT

FUNDING ACHIEVEMENTS CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 7

ABOUT TPA

2021- 2022 FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS EARMARKS
This table provides an overview of the appropriations earmarks that TPA secured on behalf of our clients in the Federal Appropriations legislation for FY 2021-22. TPA strategized with our clients to identify priority projects and transform them into appropriations requests. TPA then worked closely and diligently with Members of Congress and the U.S. Senate (and their staff) , the appropriations committees, the President’s administration, and other key stakeholders to ensure our client projects were included in the final appropriations legislation.

Client Name Project Amount
Awarded
Amity Foundation Mother's Hub Residence $2,838,521
Cities of Anaheim, Brea,
Buena Park, Fullerton,
Stanton, Placentia
North Orange County Public Safety and Homelessness
Task Force $5,000,000
Cities of Dublin, Livermore,
and Pleasanton AXIS Mental Health Urgent Care $450,000
City of Agoura Hills Community Center $1,000,000
City of Beaumont Pennsylvania Avenue Widening $1,500,000 City of Berkeley African American Holistic Resource Center $1,000,000 City of Brea Tracks at Brea Extension $2,000,000
City of Chino Hills Open Space Fuel Reduction $565,000
City of El Monte MacLaren Community Park Project $1,500,000 City of Emeryville Contaminated Remediation for Housing $2,000,000 City of Hesperia Maple Avenue Street Improvements $2,000,000 City of Huntington Beach

Sand Mitigation $15,500,000
Mobile Crisis Response Program $500,000
City of Murrieta Homeless Outreach Services Funding $500,000 City of Oakland Mental Health Resilience Project $1,230,000 Mental Health Resilience Project $734,000
Broadway - Bus and Pedestrian Safety $2,000,000
Violence Prevention Project $200,000
City of Placentia Golden Avenue Bridge $2,200,000

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 8

ABOUT TPA
City of San Ramon Iron Horse Trail Crow Canyon Road Iron Horse Trail Bicycle-Pedestrian Overcrossing $2,000,000
City of Santa Clara City of Santa Clara De La Cruz Blvd, Lick Mill Blvd, and Scott Blvd Bicycle Projects $2,725,000
City of Stanton Orangewood Parkette $850,000
Discovery Cube of
Orange County
Land Acquisition and Development for Sustainability
Festival $2,000,000
East Contra Costa Fire
Protection District Fire Station $1,500,000
Guadalupe Union School
District LeRoy Park $1,700,000
North County Transit District Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Bus Station $1,717,836 Rancho Santiago
Community College District RSCCD Digital Access Consortium $2,000,000 Town of Danville

Danville Townwide Traffic Signal Modernization $1,000,000 Iron Horse Trail Bridge, Nature Park, and Pedestrian
Safety Project $350,000
Yorba Linda Water District Heli-Hydrant $500,000
TOTAL FY 2021-22 FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS EARMARKS $59,060,357

TOTAL FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS EARMARKS
FOR FY 2021-22:

$59,060,357

Looking forward, the 2023 federal appropriations process is beginning, and Congressional offices are now accepting city-sponsored earmark requests.

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 9

RELATIONSHIPS

STATE GOVERNMENT

• City Legislative Delegation:
o Senator Steve Glazer
o Assembly Member Tim Grayson

• Governor’s Administration and Agency Leadership:
o Governor Gavin Newsom
 Executive Secretary Jim DeBoo
 Cabinet Secretary Ana Matosantos
 Policy Advisor Joey Freeman
o Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis
o State Treasurer Fiona Ma
o State Controller Betty Yee
o Attorney General Rob Bonta
o Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond
o Secretary Wade Crowfoot, Natural Resources Agency
o Secretary David Kim, California State Transportation Agency o Secretary Jared Blumenfeld, California Environmental Protection Agency o Secretary Lourdes Castro Ramirez, Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency
o Director Armando Quintero, Department of Parks and Recreation o Director Karla Nemeth, Department of Water Resources
o Director Keely Bosler, Department of Finance
o Director Gustavo Velasquez, Department of Housing and Community Development o Director Toks Omishakin, Department of Transportation

 State Legislative Leadership:
o Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins
o Senate Republican Leader Scott Wilk
o Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon
o Assembly Republican Leader Marie Waldron

• Key Legislative Committees:
o Assembly Budget Committee
o Senate Budget Committee
o Assembly Local Government Committee
o Senate Governance and Finance Committee
o Assembly housing and Community Development Committee
o Senate Housing Committee

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 10

RELATIONSHIPS

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

• City Legislative Delegation:
o Senator Dianne Feinstein
o Senator Alex Padilla
o Congressman Mark DeSaulnier

• President’s Administration and Federal Agencies:
o White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
o Department of Agriculture
o Department of Commerce
o Department of Education
o Department of Homeland Security
o Department of Housing and Urban Development
o Department of the Interior
o Department of Justice
o Department of Labor
o Department of Transportation
o Army Corps of Engineers
o Bureau of Reclamation
o Economic Development Administration
o Environmental Protection Agency
o Fish and Wildlife Service
o National Marine Fisheries Service
o National Park Service

A DETAILED LIST OF OUR STATE, FEDERAL, AND LOCAL

RELATIONSHIPS CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 11

CLIENT SERVICE TEAM

TPA uses a strategic and comprehensive approach to legislative advocacy and grant funding that will be tailored to meet the specific needs of the City. With a team of 13 registered state and federal lobbyists and grant writers, TPA has the breadth and depth of experience AND the ability to deploy as many lobbyists and grant writers as needed to maximize success for the City. The proposed team for this engagement:

Christopher Townsend, President

• 40 years of legislative and public policy experience and 23 years as the Founder and President of TPA

• Provides strategic guidance and legislative advocacy and grant funding support for every client, including entities

• Widespread bi -partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Newsom Administration, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Maintains close bi-partisan relationships with several members of the California Congressional delegation, including Senators Feinstein and Padilla, and Representatives Lowenthal, Porter, Levin, Correa, Lee, Swalwell, Napolitano, Garamendi, Carbajal, Desaulnier, Sanchez, Lieu, Harder, McNerney, Calvert, Garcia, Steel, and Kim

• Promotes funding for public infrastructure projects, including facilities for water and sanitation, transportation, education, public safety, housing and economic development, recreation, culture, and other community purposes

Casey Elliott, Vice President

• 20 years of legislative and public policy experience:

o Senior Legislative Assistant, Office of the Governor

o Legislative Assistant, Assembly Member Tom Umberg

o Legislative Coordinator and Analyst, Secretary of State

• Extensive experience representing public agencies, having served as the primary lobbyist for numerous entities during his tenure at TPA

• Widespread bi -partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in the policy sectors of municipal finance , budget, redevelopment, education, local governance, water resources, parks and recreation, and cultural resources

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 12

CLIENT SERVICE TEAM

Niccolo De Luca, Vice President

• 25 years of legislative and public policy experience, including serving under three consecutive Mayors in the City of Oakland

• Secured significant grant funding and legislative directed funding for clients throughout California

• Widespread bi -partisan relationships with Members and staff of the State Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in the policy sectors of public safety, cannabis, parks and recreation, natural resources, local government, cultural resources, and consumer affairs

Cori Takkinen, Vice President

• 12 years of legislative and public policy experience

• Secured significant grant funding and legislative directed funding for clients throughout California

• Widespread bi -partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in the policy sectors of water resources , infrastructure, sanitation, local governance, transportation, parks and recreation, and economic development

Eric Thronson, Deputy Director
• 12 years of legislative and public policy experience with public agencies throughout California:

o Chief Consultant, Assembly Transportation Committee

o California Transportation Commission Deputy Director of Legislation and Finance

• Secured significant grant funding and legislative directed funding for clients throughout California

• Widespread bi -partisan relationships with Members and staff of the State Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in the policy sectors of transportation planning and infrastructure (including State Transportation Agency, California Transportation Commission, and Caltrans), public safety, parks and recreation, local governance, and water resources

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 13

CLIENT SERVICE TEAM

Alex Gibbs, Grants Manager

• 10 years of legislative and public policy experience

• Four years of experience working for the California Legislature analyzing, researching, writing, and shepherding bills through the legislative process

• Secured significant grant funding for clients throughout California

• Widespread bi-partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in the policy sectors of parks and recreation, local governance, public safety, transportation, cap and trade, and labor relations

Eric O’Donnell, Senior Associate

• Six years of legislative and public policy experience

• Secured significant grant funding and legislative directed funding for clients throughout California

• Widespread bi-partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in the policy sectors of water resources, natural resources, local governance, parks and recreation, and transportation

• D1 and T1 State Water Resources Control Board Water Distribution Operator Certificate

Ben Goldeen, Senior Associate

• 11 years of federal government affairs and public policy experience, including:

o Legislative Director, Congressman Jim Costa
o Legislative Assistant, Congressman Dennis Cardoza

• Experience managing legislative activity, including bill analysis and research, particularly for federal funding opportunities

• Experience with research, proposal development, and funding advocacy for various federal grant programs on behalf of local public agencies throughout California

• Close relationships with key staff for numerous Memb ers of Congress, as well as many federal agencies

• Expertise in several federal policy sectors including water resources, healthcare, transportation, parks and recreation, and foreign affairs

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 14

CLIENT SERVICE TEAM

Sean McReynolds, Associate

• Nine years of experience in state and federal government affairs, including:

o Senior Policy Analyst, Orange County Health Authority o Legislative Assistant and Committee Liaison,
Congressman Ed Royce

• Secured significant grant funding and legislative directed funding for clients throughout California

• Widespread bi-partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in several policy sectors including local governance, healthcare, transportation, natural resources , and economic development.

Andres Ramirez, Senior Associate

• Experience working with local public agency clients throughout California

• Secured significant legislative directed funding for clients throughout California

• Widespread bi-partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in several policy sectors including local governance, parks and recreation, transportation, housing, and economic development.

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 15

CLIENT SERVICE TEAM

Sammi Maciel, Associate

• Four years of legislative and public policy experience:

o Field Representative, Senator Kamala Harris
o Legislative Intern, Senator Dianne Feinstein

• Widespread bi -partisan relationships with Members of Congress and their staff, and with the President 's Administration, including key officials and staff in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in th e policy sectors of local governance, water resources, housing, transportation, parks and recreation, and cultural resources.

Anastasia Heaton, Associate

• Experience working with local public agency clients throughout California

• Secured significant grant funding for clients throughout California

• Widespread bi-partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in several policy sectors including cultural resources , parks and recreation, water resources, transportation, and local governance

Carly Shelby, Legislative Associate

• Three years of legislative and public policy experience:

o Legislative and Policy Development Assistant,
League of California Cities

o Press Assistant, Office of Speaker Anthony Rendon

• Widespread bi-partisan relationships with Members and staff of the California Legislature, and with the Governor's Office, including key officials in various agencies and departments

• Expertise in the policy sectors of local governance, water resources, housing, municipal finance, parks and recreation, and cultural resources

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 16

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SCOPE OF SERVICES

TPA will utilize the following strategic and comprehensive approach to provide legislative advocacy services to the City:

• Conduct Detailed Orientation: TPA utilizes a comprehensive onboarding process that includes extensive meetings with various relevant members of City leadership and key City departments to help develop a strategic plan that is carefully tailored to satisfy the needs of the City, as well as designed for maximum success in the current political climate and funding environment.

• Develop Legislative Strategy: Utilizing the information gathered during the onboarding process, TPA will coordinate with the City to develop an official legislative platform and strategy that represents the City’s priorities in Sacramento and Washington, DC. This blueprint will be shared with key stakeholders in the State Legislature and Governor’s Administration as well as Congress and the Biden Administration.

• Implement the Legislative Strategy: TPA will advocate for the City’s legislative agenda utilizing the following methods:

o Build and Strengthen Relevant Relationships: TPA has cultivated a network of valuable relationships that will be leveraged to promote the City’s legislative agenda.

o Leverage Relationships for Strategic Advocacy Plan: TPA will engage various techniques to leverage our network of key relationships on behalf of the City:

 Schedule meetings for the City to discuss relevant legislation  Prepare all briefing materials and talking points for the City  Brief legislative offices and stakeholders on the City’s legislative agenda  Follow-up on meetings to ensure commitments and deliverables are being met

o Coordinate Advocacy Trips: TPA will work with the City to coordinate advocacy trips to Sacramento and Washington, DC to meet with the City’s legislative delegation, as well as legislators that serve on committees relevant to the City’s agenda.

Furthermore, whenever possible, TPA will also schedule site visits by legislators to the City.

o Track Legislation: TPA will identify, analyze, and monitor all bill introductions and amendments relevant to the City’s legislative platform and assess their potential impact on the City.

o Craft Testimony and Position Letters: TPA will prepare and submit written and verbal testimony regarding legislation relevant to the City . TPA will also draft and deliver position letters to legislators and key officials on specific bill language.

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 17

SCOPE OF SERVICES
o Draft Bill Language: TPA will draft language and amendments for relevant legislation, as required to protect and promote the City’s agenda.

o State Budget Funding Opportunities: In an effort to maximize state funding, TPA will work with the City to identify projects and other funding priorities that may be suitable for funding through the State Budget . TPA will coordinate with the City to develop supporting materials for the budget request. TPA will also work with members of the City’s state legislative delegation, along with the Assembly and Senate Budget Committees, to gain support for the inclusion of the City’s project in the final State Budget approved by the Legislature.

o Federal Earmark Opportunities: In an effort to maximize federal funding, TPA will work with the City to identify projects and other funding priorities that may be suitable for funding through the Federal Earmark process. TPA will coordinate with the City to develop supporting materials for the earmark request. TPA will also work with members of the City’s federal legislative delegation to gain support for the inclusion of the City’s project.

• Provide Progress Reports: TPA will confer regularly with the City on our activities. TPA will provide timely electronic reports on the status of all legislative activity, such as bill language, amendments, and committee analyses. In addition to written reports, TPA will be available to the City for conference calls, in-person briefings, and meetings.

• Prepare and File Lobbying Disclosure Reports: TPA will prepare and file, on behalf of the City, all applicable state and federal lobbying disclosure reports.

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 18

GRANT FUNDING SCOPE OF SERVICES

TPA will utilize the following strategic and comprehensive approach to provide grant funding services to the City:

• Conduct Detailed Orientation: TPA utilizes a comprehensive onboarding process that includes extensive meetings with various relevant members of City leadership and key City departments to help develop a strategic plan that is carefully tailored to satisfy the needs of the City, as well as designed for maximum success in the current political climate and funding environment.

• Craft Strategic Funding Plan: Utilizing the information gathered during the onboarding process, TPA will coordinate with the City to develop a proactive and comprehensive strategic funding plan that serves the needs of the City’s priorities. The plan will do more than simply identify City projects; it will outline and prioritize multiple funding options for each project, and develop a specific plan of work tailored for each project. It will also identify key “strings attached” to help assess the cost/benefit ratio for each grant opportunity.

• Identify, Research, and Monitor Grant Funding Opportunities: TPA will utilize list -serve subscription programs, funding workshops, agency canvassing, and other networking tactics to ensure every potential opportunity is identified and reviewed for relevanc e with the City’s projects. TPA will then share these opportunities with the City for further assessment and determination if a grant application is warranted. The City will also receive a grant matrix of funding programs that is updated regularly as new opportunities arise.

• Grant Application Development and Submittal: TPA will develop, draft, submit, and follow up on each City grant application through the following process:

o Establishment of Clear Accountabilities: TPA will coordinate with the City to ensure the assignment of responsibilities and tasks are made clear so that confusion and inefficiency are avoided and the City is burdened as little as possible whi le TPA pursues a grant opportunity.

o Provide Overview of Full Application Requirements: For each grant application, TPA will provide the City with a detailed overview of the requirements for the grant program and corresponding application to ensure that the program is a strong fit for the City’s project. This will include:
 Application timeline
 Eligible project types
 Funding availability and award maximum and minimums
 List of application components, including proposal questions and any required attachments

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 19

SCOPE OF SERVICES
o Assemble Project Background and Details: TPA will conduct a detailed informational interview with City staff most involved with each project in order to gain a full understanding of the project background and scope details necessary for developing the grant proposal and addressing all application questions.

o Coordinate Technical Project Details : For technical application components such as site plans, detailed cost estimates, project timelines, engineering plans, and cost - benefit analyses, TPA will coordinate with City staff to compile all necessary attachments and ensure consistency across all elements of the application.

o Draft Written Proposal: TPA will fully draft all narrative components of the application and, when applicable, will indicate where additional input or project detail from the City could be provided during the proposal review process.

o Incorporate Feedback to Finalize Proposal : Well ahead the of the application deadline, TPA will provide the City with a full draft for review and feedback. TPA will incorporate any additional details or revisions provided during this proc ess to finalize the grant application and will obtain City approval for the final version of the application prior to submission.

o Submit Completed Application: TPA will ensure that applications are submitted prior to the deadline, whether the submission is electronic or through hard copies, in accordance with submission instructions for each individual program. For hard copy submissions, TPA will print and package applications according to submission instructions and will ship applications through a reliable carrier service such as FedEx in order to provide the City with tracking and delivery confirmation for the application.

TPA will also obtain a receipt for proof of submission and provide the City with a final copy of all submitted application documents.

o Funding Advocacy: Throughout grant application process TPA will leverage relationships with relevant officials and program officers in various state and federal funding agencies to ensure that City grant applications are aligned with the goals of the specific grant program and that the applications are well -crafted and well- positioned for funding.

• Post-Grant Submittal Advocacy: TPA will frequently contact legislators and agency officials to follow up on the status of a grant application and promote its need and urgency. This will include drafting letters of support after grant submissions and distributing them to legislators for their consideration. In addition, TPA will work with legislators to reach out to individual granting agencies to provide background on City’s projects and convey their support for those projects.

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 20

SCOPE OF SERVICES
• Post-Award Grant Administration and Compliance: TPA will also assist, as needed, with post-award administration and compliance for all grant applications submitted by TPA on behalf of the City. This assistance will include interacting with granting agencies on behalf of the City, providing support for the drafting and submission of required reports, evaluations, and other tasks related to the successful monitoring of and compliance with the program requirements.

• Comprehensive Follow-Up on Unsuccessful Applications: Despite all best efforts, some grant applications are not selected for funding. In those instances where grant applications are unsuccessful, TPA will work with the relevant state and federal funding agencies to set up in-person or telephone debriefing sessions to discuss the grant applications and how to best revise the grant applications for the next funding round to ensure success.

Proposal for Legislative Advocacy and Grant Funding Services | City of Concord Page 21

FEE SCHEDULE

Staff Report
Date: June 7, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Steve Voorhies, Director of Parks and Recreation Prepared by: Barbie Gary, Program Manager
[email protected]
(925) 671-3327
Subject: Considering approval of the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with the First 5 Contra Costa Children and Families Commission for the continued use of the Monument
Community First 5 Center, 1736 Clayton Road, within Ellis Lake Park, and authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to execute the First Amendment in a form approved by the City Attorney.

CEQA: Not a project/exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(2), 15061(b)(3), 15301, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

Report in Brief
This proposed First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with the First 5 Contra Costa Children and Families Commission is necessary for the continued use of the First 5 Center (the “First 5 Center”). The First 5 Center is located in Ellis Lake Park and provides programs for children ages 0-5 and their families. The term of the amendment is for three years plus an option to extend for an additional two years.

Recommended Action
Approve the First Amendment with the First 5 Contra Costa Children and Families Commission for use of the First 5 Center and authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to execute the First Amendment in a form approved by the City Attorney.

8.d8.d8.d

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.d
June 7, 2022
Background
In 2003, the City and Monument Community Partnership (MCP) collaboratively applied for a grant to the First 5 Commission for programs that support the healthy development of children ages 0-5 and their families in the Monument Corridor. The First 5 Commission allocates money that is generated through the tobacco tax initiative, Proposition 10, which was approved by California voters in 1998. The Commission approved the MCP/City application in June 2003. Almost all funds in the first year allocation of the grant, $490,000, were designated for capital costs associated with providing a building to conduct programs. The City provided $240,000 to augment the funding for construction costs. The First 5 Center is located in a modular building near the Keller House on the north end of Ellis Lake Park.

The building was initially funded by a forgivable loan by First 5 in 2004 and supplemented by City funds. Terms of the forgivable loan included ensuring that the primary use of the building was early childhood education. After five years, the City fulfilled the obligation of the forgivable loan and the City now owns the building with no restrictions. Additionally, program funds have been provided by the First 5 Commission on an annual basis for the operation of the center. City staff launched the programs and in 2005, the City subcontracted with MCP for the daily operations of the Center and the City assumed the role of fiscal agent for the program agreement. Monument Community Partnership operated the Center until June 2012.

In July 2012, First 5 awarded funding for operations of the Center to Aspiranet, a nonprofit organization, which also operates the First 5 Center in Brentwood.

In July 2012, the City entered into a Lease Agreement with First 5 for the continued use of the building for programs for children ages 0-5 and their families. First 5 subsequently subcontracted with Aspiranet for the day-to-day operations. The Lease Agreement expires on June 30, 2022.

The proposed First Amendment to the Lease Agreement is for a three-year term ending on June 30, 2025 with two one-year renewal options. The monthly rent payable to the City under the proposed First Amendment is $1,360 per month beginning July 1, 2022, and the rental payment shall increase $50 on July 1 of each additional term year.

The First 5 Center has successfully provided parent education and programs for ages 0- 5 at no cost to the participants. The First 5 Center has served thousands of children and parents including the large Hispanic population in the Monument community. It has drawn enthusiasm from families of many languages and backgrounds, creating a comfortable, inclusive environment. The center has been a cornerstone in Central County for providing best practice programs. City staff encourages the continuation of such programs for early childhood development and education of positive parenting skills.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.d
June 7, 2022
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(2), and/or 15061(b)(3), , award of this contract is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, as it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and falls within the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” In the alternative, award of this contract is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 – Existing Facilities as it involves a short-term renewal of an existing lease. 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. Individual projects will undergo CEQA analysis as necessary.

Financial Impact
Beginning July 1, 2022, the City will receive monthly rent of $1,360 which will be used to offset building maintenance provided by the City. The monthly rent will increase $50 each subsequent year for the length of the amendment. .

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachments

1. First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with First 5 Contra Costa Children and Families Commission

2. Lease Agreement with First 5 Contra Costa Children and Families Commission

FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE
This First Amendment to Lease (“First Amendment”) is dated July 1, 2022 and is between the City of Concord, a California municipal corporation (“City” or “Landlord”), and Contra Costa Children & Families Commission, a public entity (“First 5” or “Tenant”).

Recitals
WHEREAS, The City and First 5 are parties to a lease dated March 1, 2018, under which the City is leasing a building located at 1736 Clayton Road, Concord, CA with approximately 2,640 square feet of floor space, and a front and backyard (“Lease”).

WHEREAS, The initial term of the Lease was three years, commencing on July 1, 2017 and expiring on June 30, 2020;
WHEREAS, the Lease provided that First 5 would have one option to renew the Lease for a term of two years;
WHEREAS, First 5 exercised its option to renew the Lease for a two year period commencing July 1, 2020 and expiring on June 30, 2022 (“Renewal Term”); and WHEREAS, City and First 5 desire to extend the term of the Lease, revise the rent, and modify the extension options.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and conditions set forth in the Lease, the foregoing recitals, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

Agreement

1. Section 2. Term is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Term. The “Term” of this lease is comprised of an Initial Term and, at County’s election, Renewal Terms, each as defined below.
a. Initial Term. The “Initial Term” is three (3) years, commencing on July 1, 2022 (the “Commencement Date”) and ending June 30, 2025. b. Renewal Terms. First 5 has one option to renew this lease for a term of two years (a “Renewal Term”) upon all the terms and conditions set forth herein. 3 Attachment 1

i. First 5 will provide City with written notice of its election to renew the Lease sixty days prior to the end of the Term.
ii. Upon the commencement of the Renewal Term, all references to the Term of this lease will be deemed to mean the Term as extended pursuant to this Section. Such Renewal Term shall be in writing by a duly executed amendment to this lease.

2. Section 3. Rent is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Rent. First 5 shall pay rent ("Rent") to City monthly in advance beginning on the Commencement Date. Rent is payable on the tenth day of each month during the Initial Term and, if applicable, the Renewal Term, in the amounts set forth below:
a. Initial Term.
$1,360 per month commencing July 1, 2022
$1,410 per month commencing July 1, 2023
$1,460 per month commencing July 1, 2024
b. Renewal Term.
$1,510 per month commencing July 1, 2025
$1,560 per month commencing July 1, 2026
Rent for any fractional month will be prorated and computed on a daily basis with each day's rent equal to one-thirtieth (1/30) of the monthly Rent.

3. Section 22. Notices. is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this lease shall be in writing and sent by facsimile with written transmission confirmation, overnight delivery service or registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and directed as follows:

To City: City of Concord
Steve Voorhies, Director of Parks
& Recreation
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Facsimile: (925) 671-3218
To First 5: Contra Costa First 5
4005 Port Chicago Highway, Suite 120
Concord, CA 94520
Facsimile: (925) 771-6083

At any time, either party may, in writing change the address from their address above, thereafter notices are to be directed to the substituted address.

If sent in accordance with this Section, all notices will be deemed effective (i) upon confirmed facsimile transmission, (ii) the next business day, if sent by overnight courier and (iii) three days after being deposited in the United States Postal system.

4. Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the day and year written above.

Dated: ____________,2022 TENANT:

FIRST 5
a Public Entity
BY: _______________________
Ruth Fernandez
[email protected]
First 5 Executive Director
Dated: ___________, 2022 LANDLORD:

CITY OF CONCORD
a California municipal corporation
By: _________________________
Valerie J. Barone
City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM
SHARON L. ANDERSON, COUNTY COUNSEL
By: _________________________
Keiko Kobayashi
Deputy County Counsel
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________________ City Attorney City Clerk

Exhibits:

1. First 5 Lease

2. Building located at 1736 Clayton Road, Concord, California

3. Premises

Attachment 2

Staff Report
Date: June 7, 2022
To: City Council
Prepared by: Joan Ryan, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 671-3370
Reviewed by: Kevin Marstall, Director of Community Development Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Subject: Considering the adoption of a Resolution approving a Use Permit Amendment for the Concord Hampton Inn to allow for a reduction of three parking spaces from the approved parking for the project located at 1785 Pine Street (APN: 126-291-023) (PL22035 – UPA).

The City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and the parking reduction is not a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Report in Brief
The City Council is requested to consider adoption of a Resolution approving a Use Permit Amendment (“UPA”) for the Concord Hampton Inn Hotel to allow for a parking reduction of three spaces (from 76 spaces to 73 spaces) for the project, located at 1785 Pine Street. The City Council approved the 86-room Hampton Inn on January 5, 2021.

As a result of the subsequent permitting process with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 408 Permit), facilitated by the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, the applicant is required to eliminate three parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is returning to the City Council with a request for a UPA.

Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Use Permit Amendment for the Concord Hampton Inn Hotel to allow for a parking reduction of three spaces from the approved

8.e8.e8.e8.e

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022
parking for the project, located at 1785 Pine Street (APN: 126-291-023) (PL20035 – UPA).

Background
On March 30, 2020, Doug Ely, an architect with DSEA, Inc., on behalf of WRSJG, LLC, submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment, Downtown Specific Plan Amendment, Rezone, Use Permit, Design and Site Review, and Tree Removal Permit to construct a 48,100 square foot, 86-room Hampton Inn Hotel on the 1.24 acre property at the northeast corner of Clayton Road and Market Street.

Location Project Site
On May 25, 2020, Kittelson and Associates (“Kittelson”) prepared a parking demand analysis to estimate the parking demand for the project (Attachment 2). On October 2, 2020, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and distributed for a public review period between October 6 and November 4, 2020.

On November 4, 2020, following staff’s presentation and public testimony, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution No. 20-17PC, with a modification to Use Permit Finding #17 and Condition of Approval #57, recommending adoption of the Concord Hampton Inn Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of a General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from Regional Commercial (RC) to Downtown Mixed Use (DTMU), a Specific Plan Amendment, Rezoning from RC (Regional Commercial) to DMX (Downtown Mixed Use), Use Permit, Design and Site Review, and a Tree Removal Permit.

On January 5, 2021, following staff’s presentation and public testimony, the City Council, on a 5-0 vote, approved:

N

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022
1) Resolution No. 21-2 adopting the following:
a) the Concord Hampton Inn Hotel Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; b) a General Plan Land Use Map Amendment from RC to DTMU; and c) a Downtown Concord Specific Plan Amendment to Tables 3.4 and 3.5; 2) Introduced Ordinance No. 21-425.1 amending the City’s Zoning Map and Districts to change the zoning designation for the site from RC to DMX for the site; and
3) Adopted Resolution No. 21-4823.1, approving the Concord Hampton Inn Hotel Use Permit, Design and Site Review, a Tree Removal Permit, and a Master Sign Program to construct a 48,100 square foot Hampton Inn Hotel with 86 rooms at the site with the following language added to Condition of Approval No. 1 “The approved hotel would have at least a three (3) star/diamond rating (as determined by an independent organization such as AAA).” Due to the existing flood control channel located on the property, which belongs to the Contra Costa County Flood Control District (County Flood Control), the applicant was required, through County Flood Control, to file for and obtain a Section 408 Permission (408 Permit) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). On January 21, 2021, the USACE provided County Flood Control with a letter of incompleteness for the 408 Permit.

Due to the length of time necessary to file and obtain a 408 Permit from the USACE, the project was bifurcated into two phases. On July 8, 2021, the City issued a development permit (grading, utilities) for Phase I of the project, which includes the hotel and northern parking area. Phase II includes the southwestern parking lot including the parking deck over the flood control channel.

On October 19, 2021, the City issued the building permit for Phase I of the hotel.

On February 9, 2022, the USACE provided County Flood Control with a 408 Permit for the project; however, through that process and the various comments received, the applicant was required to eliminate three parking spaces due to the weight limitations on the corner of the parking deck. The USACE determined the design of the parking deck, which goes over the flood control channel, where the three eliminated parking spaces are located, was not designed to support traffic. On February 15, 2022, County Flood Control issued approval of an encroachment permit for the project.

On March 3, 2022, to address the loss of the parking spaces, the applicant submitted an application for a parking variance. Subsequently, staff determined the more appropriate process was for a UPA rather than a variance because the onsite parking was previously analyzed as part of the project’s approvals as part of the Use Permit. Staff

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022
reviewed the request with Transportation Division staff who determined that the approval could be considered and supported based on the prior parking study.

This request is being considered by the City Council because CDC Section

18.505.030C requires that any requests for major changes to an approved project shall be considered by the review authority for the original permit.

Analysis
A. Project Description
The four-story 86-room hotel for business travelers with associated site improvements including parking, stormwater facilities, landscaping and fencing is currently under construction. The hotel is designed for short-term business travelers. No amenities that are typically associated with attracting leisure travelers or longer-term guests such as a restaurant, banquet room or conference facility would be provided. The applicant is requesting a reduction of three parking spaces from the previously approved 76 parking spaces (Attachment 3). The three parking spaces to be removed are located along Market Street and would be replaced with landscaping.

B. Pine Creek Flood Control Channel
Pine Creek is accommodated within a subterranean concrete flood control channel under the southwestern portion of the site within an overlapping 54-foot County Flood Control easement and 63-foot-wide City easement. A concrete surface topped with soil, currently covers the channel. To accommodate the project, the applicant’s civil engineer and structural engineer coordinated with County Flood Control on the design of a more structurally sound parking deck over the concrete channel, which would replace the existing cover and be designed to accommodate parking at the site. While the USACE approved vehicle parking over the majority of the flood control channel, they determined that the location of the three eliminated parking spaces was not designed to accommodate vehicle parking. According to the applicant, the associated cost and timing to alter the design of that portion of the parking deck is not feasible.

C. Circulation and Parking
Vehicular. Access to the site is proposed via a driveway on Pine Street that leads to two parking areas to the north and west sides of the building. The Market Street driveway serves as an emergency egress location only. The western parking area is limited by restricting the size of vehicles allowed to park on the parking deck, due to the weight constraints for the deck over the flood control channel. Condition of Approval #5 for the approved project requires that signage shall be erected on and surrounding the covered deck/viaduct to indicate its designation as a passenger vehicle parking area only. A Parking Management Plan is required to be implemented by the hotel, detailing parking restrictions, and incorporating signage for the western lot to be designated as a passenger

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022
vehicle parking only to prevent large and heavier vehicles from accessing the area due to the parking deck’s weight limitation.

It is assumed that some vehicle trips to and from the site will occur from Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Buchanan Airport and that those will be made with ride-hailing companies such as Uber or Lyft, with drop-off and pick-up planned around the porte cochere of the hotel, located in close proximity to the front lobby.

D. Transit Access
The project is located approximately one mile, a twenty-minute walk, from the Concord BART Station. This close proximity will encourage the use of BART by employees and guests. Additionally, there is a bus stop approximately 800 feet away on Gateway Boulevard and Clayton Road with another stop on Market Street, approximately 250 feet south of the site. These stops are serviced by routes 11, 20, 91X, 311 and 320 that take passengers to destinations such as AMTRAK, Concord BART, Pleasant Hill BART, the Veranda, Sun Valley Mall, Buchanan Airport, and DVC.

Further, the use of ride-hailing services from BART to the hotel site will provide convenient access to the site. Condition #51a for the project approval, described below, requires that prior to occupancy approval or as approved by the Transportation Manager, the following:
51a) Hotel shall provide a free shuttle, taxi vouchers, or fully subsidized rideshare service (Uber/Lyft) to all guests utilizing BART, between the hotel and the Concord BART station for a minimum period of five years from hotel occupancy or up to Dec. 31, 2027. Accompanying marketing campaigns and hotel visitor information shall be implemented and provided to make guests and potential future guests aware of these options. At the end of five years, or prior to Dec. 31, 2027, in order to remove the shuttle/TNC service requirement, at the request (and cost) of the applicant, the City will conduct a parking study and assess the impact of parking in the general vicinity of the project site to determine if the shuttle/TNC is still needed to minimize parking impacts on the surrounding areas, prior to granting the request to remove the condition.

E. Parking Analysis
The Concord Development Code (CDC) requires 86 parking spaces, based on the parking requirement for hotels, with one parking space per room. The proposed project does not include ancillary uses such as a restaurant; therefore, no additional parking beyond the one space per room is required. The Use Permit approval allowed for a reduction in parking from 86 rooms to 76 rooms, or a 12% parking reduction. Pursuant to CDC Section 18.160.050.G, the applicant

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022
may request up to a 25% parking reduction through a Use Permit if the applicant can demonstrate that: 1) the proposed parking is adequate based on a parking demand study; 2) the applicant has demonstrated that the project could provide additional parking in the long-term if necessary; and 3) the parking demand generated by the project will not have a detrimental effect on the on-street parking in the surrounding area.

Kittelson conducted a parking analysis for the site, and the memorandum dated May 25, 2020 (Attachment 2), analyzed parking demand for the site by examining: 1) existing code requirements; 2) the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation rates; 3) the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking; and 4) land development codes from neighboring jurisdictions.

ITE. In utilizing the ITE methodology, two categories of hotels were reviewed:
 310-Hotel – includes supporting facilities such as a full service restaurant, cocktail lounge, meeting rooms, banquet room, and convention facilities and typically a recreation facility such as a pool; and  312-Business Hotel – is aimed at business traveler and provides very few or none of the supporting facilities provided at hotels.

Kittelson used an occupancy rate of 90% (77 occupied rooms out of 86 total) for identifying demand using ITE parking generation rates. This is a conservative peak season occupancy rate, considering the reported average occupancy rates by Visit Concord for hotels in Concord were typically lower (77%-79% occupancy levels) between 2017 and 2019, pre-pandemic. Results indicated that for the business hotel (312-Business Hotel) category, more akin to the proposed hotel, a demand of 65 parking spaces (weekday) would occur, with typically less demand for weekends, but there is insufficient data to conclusively estimate those reduced weekend conditions. It can be assumed, that if the historical (77%-79%) occupancy rate for Concord was applied, the expected parking demand would be reduced to approximately 56-57 parking spaces. Thus, a range of 56 to 65 parking spaces utilizing the ITE methodology is reasonable.

ULI. In utilizing the ULI methodology, based on a conservative, higher occupancy rate of 90%, peak seasonal parking was estimated at 77 spaces.

This exceeds the number of spaces approved by the Use Permit (76) by one space. However, if utilizing traditional pre-pandemic occupancy rates for hotels in Concord (77%-79%), parking was estimated at 66-68 parking spaces. Thus, a range of 66 to 68 spaces is expected using the ULI methodology. Additionally, it is noteworthy that daily peak parking demand by guests (9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) would typically be opposite for that of employees (approximately 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.), thereby reducing overall demand for parking.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022
Neighboring Jurisdictions. In examining local jurisdictions, it was found that Concord’s parking requirements for the proposed use are similar to those of most neighboring jurisdictions (one space per hotel room and additional spaces for ancillary uses). However, Walnut Creek requires less parking (0.9 spaces per room) which would require 77 parking spaces (assuming 100% occupancy), if applied to the subject site. An occupancy level of 80% would result in a demand for 62 parking spaces.

Based on the analysis of the three methodologies, the parking demand range for the project was estimated to be between 56 to 68 parking spaces for the most relevant hotel category (the 312-Business Hotel category). Thus, the UPA request for 73 parking spaces was determined to be adequate to serve the site, given the already required implementation of Conditions #51a (described above) and #51b (described below), which will reduce the need for parking and manage the parking on site to ensure no parking overflow occurs into surrounding neighborhoods.

Project Condition #51b requires that signage shall be erected on and surrounding the covered flood control channel (southwestern lot) to display its designation as passenger vehicle parking area only. A Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to the City detailing parking restrictions including signage on and surrounding the covered flood control channel to inform guests that the southwestern lot is for passenger vehicle parking only and to limit access of larger vehicles (i.e., busses, delivery vehicles) from entering the area.

Parking Reduction
As discussed above, pursuant to CDC Section 18.160.050.G, the applicant may request up to a 25% parking reduction through a Use Permit if the applicant can demonstrate the following:

1. The proposed parking is adequate based on a parking demand study.

The parking demand study substantiates the need for less parking than is required, as documented by the Parking Demand Analysis, dated May 25, 2020, prepared by Kittelson, and as conditioned (Condition #51) to ensure no parking overflow into surrounding neighborhoods.

2. The applicant has demonstrated that the project could provide additional parking in the long-term if necessary.

The applicant has demonstrated that the project could provide additional parking through off-site parking if long-term parking demand required additional parking.

The applicant shall provide submittal of a Parking Management Plan to the City, as conditioned.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022

3. The parking demand generated by the project will not have a detrimental effect on the on-street parking in the surrounding area The Parking Demand Analysis prepared for the project, has determined the parking demand generated by the project will not have a detrimental effect on the on-street parking by conditioning the requirement for the provision of free shuttle, taxi, vouchers or fully subsidized rideshare or ride-hailing service to all guests between the hotel and the Concord BART station for a period of five years or up to December 31, 2027.

F. Amendment to the Use Permit
The proposed use is a hotel focused on business travelers, which is conditionally permitted in the proposed DMX district. A Use Permit (and Amendment) may be approved, with or without conditions of approval, based on all of the following relevant findings, which are italicized below, as identified previously, followed by any modifications, based on the requested UPA in bold.

1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Concord Municipal Code.

The proposed hotel is a conditionally permitted use in the DMX district and the Concord Municipal Code. The project complies with the development standards for the zoning district, as previously approved, and is compatible with the surrounding development.

The request to allow a parking reduction of three additional spaces from the approved 76 spaces to 73 on-site parking spaces, is supported as conditioned, based on the Parking Demand study prepared by Kittelson.

Accordingly, the use complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Concord Municipal Code.

2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.

The proposed use is consistent with Concord 2030 General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan, land use policies LU-1.1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in terms of consistency with the neighborhood and preservation and enhancement of positive neighborhood characteristics, through the use of high quality architecture and LU-3.1.5 in terms of the location of the hotel to take advantage of major transportation routes and bus routes and LU-4.2.3 by providing pedestrian- oriented design.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022

3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

The Contemporary-style building design with Spanish-Colonial influence is consistent in scale with other office buildings in the downtown and is comparable in scale to other proximate buildings in the downtown area, east of the proposal along Clayton Road and was recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on July 9, 2020. The project is consistent with policies that encourage infill development and development of such uses proximate to transportation corridors. The proposed parking reduction, associated with the Use Permit Amendment request, is appropriate, based on the analysis within the prior parking study and the proposal is compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints.

The infill site was previously planned for development as an auto dealership.

The project complies with the developments standards outlined in the proposed DMX district and as noted in this report. Vehicle access to the site is from Pine Street via a right-in/right-out only driveway, and has an emergency egress access out to Market Street. Pedestrian access is available from both existing public sidewalks along the project frontage.

Existing utilities along Pine Street, Market Street and Clayton Road are available to serve the project. The site is generally flat with a gradual upslope to the southwest corner of the property. The site includes easements to accommodate the storm drain and flood control channel, both of which have been designed around to accommodate the project.

5. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the persons residing or working in the subject neighborhood or materially detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district where the property is located.

Granting a permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare because the project complies with the policies of the General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, the DMX zoning, the development standards in the Development Code, and is conditioned to address any potential impacts associated with the operation the hotel and construction of the related improvements.

Financial Impact
The proposal would have a beneficial impact on the City due to transient occupancy taxes collected by the City, currently in the amount of ten percent of the rent charged by the operator, per Section 3.15.230 of the City’s Municipal Code.

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.e
June 7, 2022
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the City Council previously adopted (as the lead agency) an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project and the documents are available on the City’s website at: http://www.cityofconcord.org/458/Environmental- Documents, A Notice of Determination was filed on January 11, 2021.

The present application seeks to reduce the approved number of parking spaces by three (73 spaces from 76 spaces). No other changes or revisions are proposed for the project; and, other than the reduction of parking, which is not considered an impact under CEQA, all findings, terms, and/or conditions of approval remain in full force and effect. Accordingly, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is still the appropriate document and the application to reduce the parking is not a “project” under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 as it is not reasonably foreseeable that reducing the parking by three spaces will result in a direct or indirect change to the environment. Further, the IS/MND and the project conditions of approval incorporated a Mitigation Measure for parking (same as Conditions #51a and #51b), which would avoid the effects or mitigate those effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur as a result of the project. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website. Notification was mailed to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject parcel at least 10 days prior to the public hearing, and the item has been published in the East Bay Times, as required by the Concord Municipal Code. This item has also been posted at the subject site at least 10 days prior to the public hearing.

Attachments

1. Resolution approving a Use Permit Amendment for the Concord Hampton Inn to allow for a reduction of three parking spaces from the approved parking for the project located at 1785 Pine Street (APN: 126-291-023) (PL22035 – UPA).

2. Parking Demand Analysis, dated May 25, 2020, prepared by Kittelson.

3. Site Plan, date received March 3, 2022

4. City Council Meeting Staff Report - January 5, 2021

Attachment 1

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A Resolution Approving a Use Permit Amendment
for the Concord Hampton Inn to allow for a
reduction of three parking spaces from the approved
parking for the project located at 1785 Pine Street,
(APN: 126-291-023) (PL22035 – UPA)
Resolution No. 22-XX
/
WHEREAS, on March 30, 2020, Doug Ely, an architect with DSEA, Inc., on behalf of WRSJG, LLC, submitted an application to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from Regional Commercial (RC) to Downtown Mixed Use (DTMU), to amend the Downtown Concord Specific Plan (hereinafter “Downtown Specific Plan”) Tables 3.4 and 3.5 for Block Z (to Retail/Hotel 48,100 sq. ft., and 0.89 FAR), to rezone the property from RC (Regional Commercial) to DMX (Downtown Mixed Use) with an Amendment to the Zoning Map, and for a Use Permit to establish a hotel use; to allow, including but not limited to, a parking reduction of ten spaces from 86 on-site parking spaces to 76 on-site parking spaces; to allow a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.89 where a minimum 1.0 is typically required, Design and Site Review, and Tree Removal Permit on a 1.24-acre site for a 48,100 square foot hotel with 86 rooms at 1880 Market Street, APNs 126-291-022 and -023 (“Property”), (herein collectively referred to as “Project”); and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2020, the City Council voted unanimously to remove a deed restriction recorded against the Property, which had required the Property to be developed as a new auto dealership. As a result, the Project application for a hotel use was permitted to proceed; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2020, the Design Review Board (DRB) recommended the Planning Commission approve the Design and Site Review application for the Project; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2020, the application was deemed complete for processing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on November 4, 2020, on the Project; and

Res. No. xx-xx 2
WHEREAS, at such public hearing the Planning Commission considered all oral testimony and written comments received during the public review process, the testimony and information received at the public hearing and the oral and written reports from City staff dated November 4, 2020, exhibits presented, pertinent plans and documents, the IS/MND with the attached MMRP, as well as other documents contained in the record of proceedings relating to the proposed project, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord Planning Division (hereinafter referred to as “Planning Commission Project Information”); and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2020 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-17PC recommending that the City Council adopt the Concord Hampton Inn IS/MND with attached MMRP (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2020100080), and approve a General Plan Land Use Amendment from RC to DTMU, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Use Permit, Design and Site Review and Tree Removal Permit for the Concord Hampton Inn (PL20023 – GP, SP, UP, DR, RT) at 1880 Market Street (APNs 126-291-022 and -023), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Such Resolution and the IS/MND and MMRP are maintained at the City of Concord Planning Division offices; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 2021, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by State law and the Concord Municipal Code, concurrently held a duly noticed public hearing concurrently on the IS/MND with attached MMRP, the General Plan Land Use Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, the Rezoning, Use Permit, Design and Site Review and Tree Removal Permit for the Concord Hampton Inn; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2021, the City Council, after consideration of the Planning Commission Project Information and all other pertinent plans, documents, all oral testimony and written comments received during the public review process, the testimony received at the public hearing, the oral report from City staff, the written report from City staff dated January 5, 2021, exhibits presented, pertinent plans and documents and other materials and information contained in the record of proceedings, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord Planning Division and City Clerk’s office at City Hall, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA 94519, (collectively referred to as the “Project Information”); and

Res. No. xx-xx 3
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, all as amended (collectively, “CEQA”), the City Council determined that preparation of the Concord Hampton Inn IS/MND with MMRP is the appropriate environmental document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 2022, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) issued a Section 408 Permission to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“Contra Costa Flood Control District”), which included a determination that three parking spaces must be eliminated because the parking deck of the flood control channel was not designed to support vehicle traffic; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, the (“Contra Costa Flood Control District”) issued approval of an encroachment permit for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022, Jake Herrick, on behalf of WRSJG, LLC, submitted an application for a Use Permit Amendment for the Concord Hampton Inn to allow for a parking reduction of three parking spaces from the 76 on-site approved parking spaces (granted on January 5, 2021) on a 1.24-acre site for a 48,100 square foot hotel with 86 rooms at 1785 Pine Street, APNs 126- 291-023 (“Property”), (herein collectively referred to as “Project Amendment”); and WHEREAS, on March 31, 2022, the application was deemed complete for processing; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on June 7, 2022, on the Project Amendment; and
WHEREAS, at such public hearing the City Council considered all oral testimony and written comments received during the public review process, the testimony and information received at the public hearing and the oral and written reports from City staff dated June 7, 2022, exhibits presented, pertinent plans and documents, as well as other documents contained in the record of proceedings relating to the proposed project, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord Planning Division (hereinafter referred to as “Project Amendment Information”); and

Res. No. xx-xx 4
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, the City Council approved the Use Permit Amendment for the Concord Hampton Inn, including finding that, among other things, the Project Amendment further the goals and objectives of the General Plan and are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

The recitals constitute findings in this matter, and together with the Project Amendment Information, serve as adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the findings and actions set forth in this Resolution.

Section 2. CEQA
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the City Council previously adopted (as the lead agency) an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

The Project Amendment reduces the approved number of parking spaces by three (73 spaces from 76 spaces). No other changes or revisions are proposed for the project; and, other than the reduction of parking, which is not considered an impact under CEQA, all findings, terms, and/or conditions of approval remain in full force and effect. Accordingly, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is still the appropriate document and the application to reduce the parking is not a “project” under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 as it is not reasonably foreseeable that reducing the parking by three spaces will result in a direct or indirect change to the environment. Further, the IS/MND and the project conditions of approval incorporated a Mitigation Measure for parking (same as Conditions #51a and #51b), which would avoid the effects or mitigate those effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur as a result of the project. Accordingly, no further environmental review is required.

Res. No. xx-xx 5
Section 3. Use Permit

1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Concord Municipal Code. The proposed hotel is a conditionally permitted use in the DMX district and the Concord Municipal Code. The project complies with the development standards for the zoning district, as previously approved, and is compatible with the surrounding development. The Project Amendment to allow a parking reduction of three additional spaces from the approved 76 spaces to 73 on-site parking spaces, is supported as conditioned, based on the Parking Demand study prepared by Kittelson. Accordingly, the use complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and Concord Municipal Code.

2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed use is consistent with Concord 2030 General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan, land use policies LU-1.1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 in terms of consistency with the neighborhood and preservation and enhancement of positive neighborhood characteristics, through the use of high quality architecture and LU-

3.1.5 in terms of the location of the hotel to take advantage of major transportation routes and bus routes and LU-4.2.3 by providing pedestrian-oriented design.

3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The Contemporary-style building design with Spanish-Colonial influence is consistent in scale with other office buildings in the downtown and is comparable in scale to other proximate buildings in the downtown area, east of the proposal along Clayton Road and was recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on July 9, 2020. The Project and Project Amendment are consistent with policies that encourage infill development and development of such uses proximate to transportation corridors. The proposed parking reduction, associated with the Use Permit Amendment request, is appropriate, based on the analysis within the prior parking study and the proposal is compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. The infill site was previously planned for development as an auto dealership. The project complies with the developments standards

Res. No. xx-xx 6
outlined in the proposed DMX district and as noted in this report. Vehicle access to the site is from Pine Street via a right-in/right-out only driveway, and has an emergency egress access out to Market Street. Pedestrian access is available from both existing public sidewalks along the project frontage.

Existing utilities along Pine Street, Market Street and Clayton Road are available to serve the project.

The site is generally flat with a gradual upslope to the southwest corner of the property. The site includes easements to accommodate the storm drain and flood control channel, both of which have been designed around to accommodate the project.

5. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the persons residing or working in the subject neighborhood or materially detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district where the property is located. Granting a permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare because the project complies with the policies of the General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, the DMX zoning, the development standards in the Development Code, and is conditioned to address any potential impacts associated with the operation the hotel and construction of the related improvements.

Parking Reduction

6. The parking demand study, as directed by the city, substantiates the need for less parking than is required, as documented by the Parking Demand Analysis, dated May 25, 2020, prepared by Kittelson and Associates, and as conditioned (Condition 51) to ensure no parking overflow into surrounding neighborhoods.

7. The Applicant has demonstrated that the Project could provide additional parking if long-term parking demand requires additional parking. The Applicant shall provide submittal of a Parking Management Plan to the City, prior to issuance of permits, as conditioned.

8. Parking demand generated by the Project will not have a detrimental impact on the on- street parking in the surrounding area, as found by the Parking Demand Analysis prepared for the project and as conditioned through the requirement for the provision of free shuttle, taxi vouchers or fully subsidized rideshare or ride-hailing service to all guests between the hotel and the Concord BART station for a period of five years or up to December 31, 2027.

Res. No. xx-xx 7
Section 4. General
The Project will provide a development that is consistent with its context and contributes to the achievement of the City’s General Plan Goals and Objectives and the reduction in parking will not have a significant impact on the Project with the conditions of approval, as adopted January 5, 2021, which will remain in place.

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 on June 7, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-XX was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord on June 7, 2022.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

FILENAME: H:\17\17750 - CONCORD ON-CALL SERVICES\011 - HAMPTON INN PARKING STUDY\REPORT\DRAFT\PARKING DEMAND MEMO 20200525_V5.DOCX

MEMORANDUM
Date: May 25, 2020 Project #:
17750.017
To: Winnie Chung
City of Concord
From: Laurence Lewis, Fernando Sotelo, and Alex Garbier, Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Project: Traffic Engineering On-Call Services
Subject: Hampton Inn Planning Review, Parking Demand Analysis

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum documents a review completed by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) of a proposed 86-room Hampton Inn Hotel in the City of Concord. The project is pro posed for a block bounded by Market Street, Clayton Road, and Pine Street in Concord, California. As proposed, the project would include 7 3 parking spaces and provide general access along Pine Street. Kittelson will review of three elements of the project: 1) parking demand; 2) trip generation, trip distribution, and intersection operations; and 3) site circulation and access. This memorandum contains the first component of that analysis, the review of the parking demand.

The proposed design does not meet City of Concord off-street parking requirements of 86 spaces. As a result, Kittelson present findings from a review of three sources to give further context as to whether the proposed 73 parking spaces is sufficient. The review identifies a range of projec t demand from a low of 65 parking spaces to a high of 120 parking spaces . The remainder of the memorandum summarizes the analysis and presents the results.

Description of Project
The proposed project is an 86-room hotel located on the south side of the lot . The developer has indicated that the hotel would be targeted to business travelers and would not include amenities targeted at non-business travelers, such as a pool or banquet facilities. As shown in Figure 1, the site is proposed to include 73 surface parking spaces located to the west and north of the building. The Attachment 2

Traffic Engineering On-Call Services Project #: 17750.017 May 24, 2020 Page 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
proposed project will be accessed via a right -in, right-out driveway along Pine Street. A second ary access point on Market Street will provide egress for emergency vehicles.

Figure 1: Site Plan for Proposed Project
Project Context
The proposed project is located on the west side of Concord southwest of downtown. It is located on a block bounded by Market Street, Clayton Road, and Pine Street. None of these streets provide on- street parking. The proposed project would share the block with a gas station, located to the north and commercial buildings to the south. Both properties have separate access and separated parking. The intersections created by the three roads bounding the block are all controlled by traffic signals. West of the parcel, Clayton Road connects to on- and off-ramps accessing SR-242. The closest BART station to the proposed project is the Concord Station which is one mile east of the project.

PARKING DEMAND
Code Requirements
As proposed, the proposed project would not meet the City code requirements for parking. In Section

18.160.040 off-street parking requirements are set as “1 space/guest room, and additional parking required for ancillary uses, such as restaurants, in accordance with use.” The proposed project does not include ancillary uses; therefore, the code requires 86 spaces, which is 13 spaces more than what is currently proposed.

Traffic Engineering On-Call Services Project #: 17750.017 May 24, 2020 Page 3
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
Other Sources for Demand
Kittelson examined three additional data sources for comparison t o provide additional context for potential parking demand: 1) the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation; 2) the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking; and 3) land development codes from n eighboring jurisdictions.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
As a first data source, Kittelson used ITE Parking Generation data from the Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition. The manual reports a number of parking factors developed based on observed parking rates at existing locations collected by agencies and consultants and submitted to ITE. ITE reviews submittals and combines results into land use classification.

ITE Parking Generation defines five categories of hotels. The two categories that could apply to the proposed project are 310-Hotel and 312-Business Hotel. 310-Hotel is described as a hotel that includes “supporting facilities such as a full-service restaurant, cocktail lounge, meeting rooms, banquet room, and convention facilitie s. It typically provides a swimming pool or another recreational facility.” In contrast, a 312-Hotel is one that is “aimed at business travelers… and provide very few or none of the supporting facilities provided at hotels.”
Separate measurements are reported for rural, general urban/suburban, dense multi -use urban, and center city core sites. The most appropriate for the proposed project is general urban/suburban.

ITE reports that the data used for the 310-Hotel category is based on “sites surveyed in the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington.” The data for the 312-Business Hotel category is based on sites “surveyed in the 1980s, 1990s, and the 2010s in California, Georgia, and Washington. While the proposed project description is most similar to the 312-Business Hotel category, the 310-Hotel category is included as a data point for this analysis as it is not yet clear how the COVID -19 virus will alter business travel and the market for hotel guests. A short-term and/or long-term reduction in business travel could increase the share of leisure guests and result in a higher parking demand.

Peak parking demand for the 310-Hotel category was observed at 9:00 am, with overnight parking demand observed to be 95% of the peak . Peak parking demand was observed overnight for the 312- Business Hotel category. The ITE rates do not specify variations in demand by time of year.

Kittelson used an occupancy rat e of 90% (77 occupied rooms out of 8 6 total) for identifying parking demand using ITE rates . This occupancy rate is a conservative estimate of demand dur ing the peak season. It is based on observed average occupancy rates for hotels in Concord between 2017 and 2019 (as shown in Table 1) adjusted to account for seasonal variations in hotel occupancy reported as reported by ULI. (The parking demand data reported by ULI shows peak season demand exceeding off- peak demand by 10 to 15 percent.)

Traffic Engineering On-Call Services Project #: 17750.017 May 24, 2020 Page 4
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
Table 1: Hotel Occupancy Rates in Concord
Year Occupancy
2017 78%
2018 79%
2019 77%
Source: City of Concord

Estimate of Parking Demand
Table 2 and Table 3 provide a summary of parking demand for variation of day of week for the two land-use classification for weekday (Monday - Friday) and Saturday periods. Table 2 uses the linear rate while Table 3 uses ITE’s fitted curve equations. Both tables estimate demand based on the 90% occupancy rate (i.e., 77 occupied rooms).

Table 2 estimates parking demand for the propose d project based by multiplying the estimate of 77 occupied rooms by the 85th percentile parking rate (parking demand per occupied room) observed by ITE. ITE identifies the 85th percentile based on a review of observed rates for each sample.

Table 2: Parking Rates and Estimated Parking Demand (90% Occ.) – Linear Rates per Occupied Room ITE Land Use Time Period Sample Size 85th %ile Rate Estimated Demand (85th%ile) 310 - Hotel Weekday 27 1.03 80
310 - Hotel Saturday 8 1.55 120
312 - Business Hotel Weekday 13 0.84 65
312 - Business Hotel1 Saturday 4 Insufficient Data N/A
Table by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. based on ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition

1. Kittelson expects that hotels fitting the Business Hotel classification have lower weekend parking demand than weekday demand as business travel is generally lower on weekends.

Table 3: Parking Rates and Estimated Parking Demand (90% Occ.) – Fitted Curve Equation ITE Land Use Time Period Data Points Line of Best Fit
Estimated
Demand
(Average)
310 - Hotel Weekday (M - F) 27 ln(p) = 0.94 * ln(x) +0.1 66 310 - Hotel Saturday 8 p = 1.5(x) - 76.91 39
312 - Business Hotel Weekday (M - F) 13 p = 0.79(x) - 7.05 54 312 - Business Hotel Saturday 4 Insufficient Data
Estimates by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. based on ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition X= independent variable (occupied rooms)
P =dependent variable (filled parking spaces)

Traffic Engineering On-Call Services Project #: 17750.017 May 24, 2020 Page 5
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
Findings
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, use of the linear rates to calculate 85th percentile parking demand results in a more conservative estimate than the use of the fitted curve equation which reflects average (50th percentile) demand conditions. Therefore, the findings are based on the ITE 85th percentile linear rates as shown in Table 2.

Based on the 310 -Hotel classification and the associated 85 th percentile average rate for parking per occupied room, ITE parking data indicates that a hotel with 77 occupied rooms (out of 86 total) would generate demand for 80 parking spaces on a weekday and 120 parking spaces on a weekend. The 312- Business Hotel classification would generate a demand of 65 parking spaces on a weekday , with insufficient data to estimate a parking demand for weekend conditions . If the proposed project were to operate as a general hotel focused on leisure travel and containing additional services, the parking demand would exceed the amount of parking proposed, whereas if it were operated as a business hotel the parking demand would be less than the amount of parking proposed.

Urban Land Institute (ULI)
As a second data source, Kittelson also reviewed parking data from the ULI Shared Parking 3rd Edition guidebook published in 2020. In the guidebook, ULI reports parking ratios (parked vehicles per occupied room) based on the 85th percentile of peak-hour parking occupancy. These rates represent peak parking demand across seasons and time of day.

The guidebook provides factors for users to modify demand based on time of day factors and seasonal factors. The factors are applied as a percentage of peak demand so that applying factors results in a reduction from the initial rate provided. The parking rates are based on data from the ITE Parking Generation, 5th Edition augmented by ULI team members. Kittelson did not apply any seasonal factors; therefore, the rates presented are for peak seasonal demand.

ULI distinguishes between Hotel – Business and Hotel – Leisure categories by identifying additional parking demand generated by facilities common to leisure focused hotels such as banquet rooms. ULI also identifies additional parking demand for conference facilities that may be found in business - focused hotel. Since the proposed project does not includ e banquet rooms or co nference facilities, these additions are no t applied, resulting in the same parking rate for the Hotel -Business and Hotel - Leisure categories.

Estimate
ULI reports peak parking rates of 1.0 parking space per occupied room and 0.15 employee parking spaces per occupied room. However, these rates are n ot additive because the peak parking demand periods for employees and visitors do not overlap - visitor parking demand peaks overnight, whereas employee parking demand peaks during the mid-morning and is lowest at night. Figure 2 shows the ULI time of day parking demand relative to the peak for visitors and employees. Since the visitor parking

Traffic Engineering On-Call Services Project #: 17750.017 May 24, 2020 Page 6
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
demand contributes the larger portion of the total parking demand, our analysis assumes evening conditions with peak visitor demand and negli gible employee demand. This assumption results in a total demand of 1.0 space per occupied room.

Figure 2: Percent of Peak Hour Demand by User Type

Source: ULI Shared Parking 3rd Edition
Findings
Based on an assumption of 90% occupancy, the ULI methodology estimates that there will be parking demand for 77 parking spaces. This exceeds the proposed parking by four (4) parking spaces. As stated earlier, this estimate assumes no banquet halls or conference rooms are included in the p roposed project. If those facilities are provided, the estimated parking demand would increase.

Neighboring Jurisdictions
Kittelson reviewed land development codes for jurisdictions in eastern Contra Costa County to compare the parking rates that would be required for the proposed project . Table 4 shows the results. The review found that Concord’s requirements are similar to those of neighboring jurisdictions, i.e., one space per hotel room and additional spaces for ancillary uses. Walnut Creek is unique in requiring less than one (0.9) parking space per guest room.

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
6:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM 12:00 AM Percent of Peak Hour
Demand
Visitor (Business) Visitor (Leisure) Employee

Traffic Engineering On-Call Services Project #: 17750.017 May 24, 2020 Page 7
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
Table 4: Neighboring Jurisdiction Parking Requirements for Hotels Jurisdiction Code Requirement
Required Parking
for 86 Unit Hotel
Concord 1 space/guest room, and additional parking required for ancillary uses, such as restaurants, in accordance with use 86
Antioch1 1 per guest room; plus 1 per employee on the largest shift and one per 50 sq. ft. of banquet or conference seating area 93
Martinez The greater of 1 space per guest room or 1 space per 2 beds. 86 Pittsburg 1 per guest room plus 1 per 50 sq. ft. of restaurant/banquet seating area and 1 per 250 sq. ft. net area of retail or personal service use 86 Pleasant Hill 1 per guest room plus 1 per 50 sq. ft. banquet seating area. 86 Walnut Creek 0.9 per guest room 78
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. based review of city documents

1. Parking based on assumption of seven staff during morning peak, two general staff and five housekeeping staff (one person per 15 occupied rooms).

Findings
The comparison of neighboring jurisdictions shows parking requirements ranging from a low of 78 parking spaces to a high of 93 parking spaces. The majority of jurisdictions would require 86 parking spaces, consistent with the City of Concord’s requirements.

CONCLUSION
Kittelson finds that the data sources generate a range of parking demand estimates for the proposed hotel from a low of 65 parking spaces to a high of 120 parking spaces. Table 5 summarizes the range of parking estimates along with the assumptions for each. Assuming 90% occupancy, • ITE parking methodologies result in an estimated parking demand of between 65 and 120 parking spaces;
• ULI methodologies result in an estimated parking demand of 77 parking spaces; and • The use of parking requirements from neighboring jurisdictions would result in parking requirements between 78 and 93 parking spaces.

The findings indicate that the City of Concord parking requirements for the proposed project (86 spaces based on the Concord municipal code ) fall within the range of predicted demand. Of the various estimates, only one is at or below the 73 spaces proposed for the project.

Traffic Engineering On-Call Services Project #: 17750.017 May 24, 2020 Page 8
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Oakland, California
Table 5: Summary of Parking Demand Estimates
Source
Estimated Parking
Demand Land Use Category Other Assumptions
ITE Parking Generation 79 spaces 310-Hotel
Weekday
85th %ile Parking Demand
90% occupancy
ITE Parking Generation 120 spaces 310-Hotel
Weekend
85th %ile Parking Demand
90% occupancy
ITE Parking Generation 65 spaces 312-Business Hotel
Weekday
85th %ile Parking Demand
90% occupancy
Urban Land Institute 77 spaces 310-Hotel and
312-Business Hotel
85th %ile Parking Demand
90% occupancy
Local Jurisdictions 78 to 93 spaces Hotel
Requirements based on total
number of rooms. Time of day
and occupancy assumptions
not specified.

Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CONCORD HAMPTON INN by HILTON
NO.BY REVISIONS

CITY OF CONCORD

APP DATE
MICHAEL E. MILANI
KRA

SMS/JMJ
KRA
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:

CALIFORNIA
DATE
1462
SCALE:

APRIL 23, 2021

OFSHEETS
30 SHEET

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
A.P.N. 126-291-0231785 PINE STREET

CONCORD HAMPTON INN BY HILTON

AS SHOWN
R.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-21
DESIGN:

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

JOB NO:

DATE:

CONCORD HAMPTON INN BY HILTON
- SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS

SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS

HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
C-7
REVISED PARKING LOT PAVINGARN 07/16/21
Attachment 3

Staff Report
Date: June 7, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Joelle Fockler, MMC, City Clerk
[email protected]
(925) 671-3390
Subject: Considering adoption of a Resolution declaring the ability of the 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 to continue to meet 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 declaring the ability of the 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 to continue to meet remotely, pursuant to AB 361.

Recommended Action
Adopt a Resolution declaring the ability of the 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 to continue to meet remotely, pursuant to AB 361.

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.

8.f8.f8.f

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.f
June 7, 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.

The California state legislature adopted AB 361 as an urgency measure. AB 361 was signed by the Governor on September 16, 2021, and became 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 (1) a

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.f
June 7, 2022
“state of emergency” pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(4), and (2) the local legislative body making certain findings including 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.

On September 20, 2021, the Health Officer of the County of Contra Costa (“Health Officer”) issued recommendations, and on March 1, April 15, and May 16, 2022, updated recommendations for safely holding public meetings, including recommending teleconferencing meetings as those meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19:
https://cchealth.org/covid19/pdf/recommendations-for-safe-public-meetings.pdf.

Since September 28, 2021, the City Council sitting as the City Council, Local Reuse Authority and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District has adopted a Resolution every 30 days enabling the City to hold public meetings by teleconference. The most recent Resolution, City Council Resolution No. 22-37, Local Reuse Authority (LRA) Resolution No. 22-38, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District (CPHHCD) Resolution No. 22-030 was adopted on May 10, 2022, enabling the City to continue holding public meetings by teleconference through June 11, 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 to hold public meetings by teleconference for the next 30 days, through July 7, 2022.

Analysis
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” AB 361 allows local legislative bodies to meet remotely if there is a gubernatorial proclaimed “state of emergency” and a 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.

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. 22-37,

City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 8.f
June 7, 2022
LRA Resolution No. 22-38, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District Resolution No. 22-030, adopted on May 10, 2022, enabled the City to continue holding public meetings by teleconference through June 11, 2022. To continue to be able to hold meetings by teleconference through July 7, 2022, the City Council must adopt a Resolution to 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.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact.

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.

Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.

Attachment

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

Res No. 22-XX
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 Ability of 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 March 1, 2022, the Health Officer updated 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 recommending social distancing and face masking of all Attendees: recommendations-for- safe-public-meetings.pdf (cchealth.org); and
Attachment 1

Res No. 22-XX
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 2
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 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 (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 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 gubernatorially proclaimed “state of emergency” pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e)(4) and upon the local legislative body making certain findings including that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social //

Res No. 22-XX
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 3
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. 22-37, Local Reuse Authority Resolution No. 22-38, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District Resolution No. 21-030 on May 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 June 7, 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. 22-37, LRA Resolution No. 22-38, and Concord/Pleasant Hill Health Care District Resolution No. 22-030 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 June 7, 2022; and 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 June 7, 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”). //

Res No. 22-XX
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 4

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. Any 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.

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:

Res No. 22-XX
LRA Res. No. 22-XX
CPHHCD Res. No. 22-XX 5
(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 June 7, 2022, meetings of City Bodies may 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 remote 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 June 7, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
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- XX, 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 June 7, 2022.

Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Susanne Meyer Brown
City Attorney

From: D'Marco Anthony <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 1:47 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment Item 8f

Hello. I support allowing the respective city meetings to continue to be able to be held remotely. Honestly, it is a little baffling that we went from City Council meetings being held remotely, to mask optional in-person meetings. I do not understand why we transitioned from one extreme to the other, without ever having an in-person council meeting with masks being required. Given the audience size and lack of mask wearing at the last city council meeting, it was essentially a COVID Fest/potential superspreader.

Contrary to previous meetings, I was pleasantly surprised that most of you, and all of the staff, were finally wearing a face mask to the last Council meeting (albeit, Councilmember Obringer was the only councilmember that wore her mask consistently).

It was very disconcerting seeing our city government risk spreading COVID-19 to each other. If you all contracted the virus at the same time, it could have threatened the smooth operation of the functions of our city government. I hope moving forward you all will consider taking the simple and necessary precautions to help prevent the spread of the Coronavirus.

It is a little uncomfortable seeing some of you maskless, coughing 2 inches from your colleagues’ faces. I personally would not feel comfortable attending council meetings etc., with lax health protocols. So I hope the remote option will be re-approved now, and throughout the pandemic. If you all decide to suspend the remote option, I would hope that you would mandate masks, so that everyone would be able to feel comfortable participating in their city government meetings.

Thank you,

-D'Marco J. Anthony

Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 8.f
June 7, 2022

9.a