Concord City Council
March 14, 2023

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 35
JANUARY 2023
along the outskirts of the City with landslide potential are of particular concern. The City implements General Plan policies that minimize development of natural hillsides and requires thorough evaluation of geologic, seismic, and soils condition risks as a part of its development review procedures. More specifically, General Plan policies and Development Code Chapter 18.300 require all development on hillsides with average slopes exceeding 15 percent to submit a hillside development plan demonstrating how earthwork and grading would be minimized and safely performed. Per the General Plan and Development Code Section 18.300.050.A , development is prohibited on hillsides with average slopes over 30 percent.

Precautionary recommendations and restrictions are established in the City’s General Plan policies and Municipal Code in order to minimize potential impacts from developing on geologically hazardous land or resulting in substantial soil erosion. City regulations and policies cover landslides, seismic shaking, surface rupture, seiches, liquefaction, subsidence, expansive soils, and soil erosion. All new development is required to be consistent with these regulations.
f: Depending on the location, future development and earthwork activities in the City have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The City’s General Plan EIR states that there are no known significant paleontological resources within the City (City of Concord 2006).

However, the City’s existing General Plan EIR contains a mitigation measure to make provisions for the discovery of paleontological resources:

3.5-3 All grading plans for development project involving ground displacement shall include a requirement that in the event fossils are encountered, construction shall be temporarily halted, the
Planning Division shall be notified immediately, a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the fossils, and steps needed to photo -document or to recover the fossils shall be taken. If fossils are found during construction activities, grading in the vicinity shall be suspended while the fossils are evaluated for scientific significance and fossil recovery, if warranted.

Future residential development facilitated under the HEU would be subject to project- specific review and this mitigation measure.

Based on the above, the HEU would result in less than significant impacts associated with geology and soils.

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 36
JANUARY 2023
Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a–b: Less Than Significant Impact.

The HEU is a policy document consisting of a suit e of housing program s; no actual development or site- specific rezoning is proposed as part of the update. Therefore, adoption of the HEU would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet Concord’s RHNA allocation.

According to the USEPA, the burning of fossil fuels, along with deforestation, have significantly increased the concentration of heat-trapping greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere (USEPA 2021). This results in global warming, as more heat is trapped in the atmosphere.

The City has adopted plans, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions. The City’s General Plan contains policies aimed to reduce sprawl and encourage development in proximity to public transit. These policies therefore curb GHG emissions by supporting land use decisions that reduce reliance of cars and encourage the use of public transit. The City has also adopted a Downtown Specific Plan which supports State and regional GHG reduction goals by planning development on infill sites near public transit. The City adopted its Climate Action Plan in 2013 , which provides strategies for the City to meet the State’s GHG reduction targets through land use and transportation strategies as well as energy, water conservation, and construction practices. The proposed HEU would not conflict with these adopted plans, policies, and programs. The proposed HEU housing programs would continue to support land use decisions and strategies the City has outlined in the aforementioned plans. Specifically, HEU Program 11 would provide incentives to facilitate future development projects close to high quality transit areas and existing commercial/retail, recreational, and institutional land uses, which would reduce trip distances and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking.

Future residential projects that may be developed to meet the RHNA requirement are expected to be located on infill sites where pedestrian - and transit-oriented development is highly feasible and would be encouraged. Such development should reduce the number and length of new vehicle trips typically associated with residential projects and, thus, would help reduce GHG production resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels for transportation purposes. Before any residential development, all such development is required to be analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, Development Code and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits. New development projects would also be required to comply with the Green Building Code, which also would result in reduced GHG emissions.

Based on the above, the HEU would have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 37
JANUARY 2023

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a–c: No Impact. d-g Less Than Significant Impact.
a–c: The HEU is a policy document, and therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, result in potential impacts from hazards and hazardous material that may endanger residents or the environment. Implementation of the updated HEU would also not result in the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or generate significant

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 38
JANUARY 2023
quantities of hazardous materials. Based on the above, the HEU would result in no impact on hazards or hazardous materials related to criteria a-c.
d-g: The HEU is a policy document and its adoption will not, in itself, result in environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document will accommodate development required to meet Concord's RHNA allocation. The sites of proposed future residential projects will be evaluated using appropriate databases including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database that, pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5, lists Federal Superfund, State Response, Voluntary Cleanup, School Cleanup, Hazardous Waste Permit, and Hazardous Waste Corrective Action sites. The potential impacts related to any listed hazardous materials sites associated with any specific future residential projects will be assessed at the time the projects are actually proposed. Future project-specific mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA.

Areas of the City are located within boundaries of the Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Buchanan Field Airport.

However, the HEU does not include any policies that involve incompatible uses near the airport. Furthermore, there are no private airstrips within the City. For these reasons, the HEU would result in a less than significant impact relative to airport hazards.

Contra Costa County has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that is intended to prepare residents and businesses in the case of an emergency (Contra Costa County 2015 and Contra Costa County 2018). The HEU does not include land use changes that would impair or interfere with the implementation of these plans.

Additionally, the HEU would not expose people to wildfire hazards. Future development would be consistent with the County’s emergency operations and hazard mitigation plan related to risk from fire. Based on CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones maps (CAL FIRE 2007), the City, is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). As such, risk of wildlife fires is essentially non-existent.

Future residential development facilitated by the HEU would be constructed pursuant to Chapter 15.65 of Concord’s Municipal Code which details the City’s Fire Code regulations.

Based on the above, the HEU would have a less than significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials related to criteria d-g.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 39
JANUARY 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;

iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or

iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a-e: Less than Significant Impact.

The Housing Element Update is a policy document, consisting of a suite of housing program; no actual development or site-specific rezoning is proposed as part of the update. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet Concord’s RHNA allocation. Future residential development that would qualify to meet the RHNA requirement is expected to be located on infill sites in urbanized areas, and the City has procedures and regulations in place to ensure there would be no significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality.
a: Future residential development associated with the HEU could affect drainage patterns and increase the overall amount of impervious surfaces in the City, thus creating changes to stormwater flows and water quality. Increased

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 40
JANUARY 2023
impervious surfaces could result in greater potential to introduce pollutants via urban runoff. New construction could also result in in the degradation of water quality through the clearing and grading of project sites. However, future residential projects are anticipated to be located in urbanized areas of Concord that have already been developed and have existing impervious surfaces. Furthermore, all demolition, relocation and/or construction phases of future housing development would be subject to compliance with applicable local, regional, state and federal regulations designed to protect water resources, including those regulations requiring implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), preparation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), and submittal of Erosion Control Plans in compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions.

Consistency with this regulatory framework would adequately ensure that such impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant. The HEU would not generate a significant impact on water quality over current projections for population and housing units.
b: The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) provides potable water in the City. CCWD would be the primary water provider to future residential development facilitated by the HEU. The primary source of water for the CCWD is from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Other physical changes that could occur as a result of implementing the HEU would occur within an existing u rban environment and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, implementation of the HEU would not deplete groundwater supplies. c–d: City regulations prohibit new development that would create runoff volumes or velocities that may cause th e City’s existing drainage system to exceed its design capacity. T he City is not located within an area that would be impacted by any dam or levee failure. Seiche and mudflow risk would be negligible, because the City is not located near a large contained body of water or downslope from an unstable hillside. The City is not located within a mapped tsunami inundation area (DOC 2021). Potential future residential development as a result of the HEU would not involve direct modification of any watercourse. Future residential development facilitated under the HEU would be subject to project- specific development and environmental review by the City. If construction requires excessive grading or earthwork, then a project specific SWPPP would be required to ensure that erosion, siltation, and flooding are prevented to the maximum extent feasible during construction. Based on the above, the HEU would result in a less than significant impact on or from hydrology and water quality. e: As stated above, the CCWD provides potable water to residents and businesses in the City. The Contra Costa Clean Water Program and the Municipal Regional Permit are the key governing bodies which regionally implement the water quality regulations and standards . Subsequent residential projec ts facilitated by the HEU would be reviewed by the City Public Works Department and Engineering Division to confirm those future projects meet the requirements of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and the Municipal Regional Permit. Therefore, t he HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan associated with the CCWD.

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 41
JANUARY 2023
Based on the above, the HEU would have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality.

3.11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a-b: Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed HEU is a policy document, consisting of a suite of housing programs; no actual development or site- specific rezoning is proposed as part of the update. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet Concord’s RHNA allocation. Although implementation of the programs contained in the document would encourage residential development required to meet Concord’s RHNA allocation, such residential projects are expected to be largely located on infill sites within existing neighborhoods, and because infill sites are part of the existing urban fabric, projects developed on them would not be likely to physically divide an established community. Future potential development facilitated under the HEU does not include any land use or zoning changes that would redesignate land use or zoning districts.

The proposed update would not conflict with General Plan polic ies or Municipal Code regulations, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As there are no approved habitat conservation or natural communities conservation plans within the City , residential development would not conflict with such plans. For these reasons the proposed HEU would have a less than significant impact on land use and planning.

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 42
JANUARY 2023

3.12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a-b: Less Than Significant Impact.

The proposed HEU is a policy document, and would not result in physical development or site- specific rezoning as part of the update. Therefore, the proposed project would not, in itself, result in impacts to known mineral resources or locally-important mineral resource recovery sites. There are no significant mineral resources within the City of Concord boundaries. Within the southeast portion of the extended Planning Area, some aggregate mineral resources exist which have been commercially mined (City of Concord 2012a). Compliance with General Plan policies intended to conserve mineral resources would pr event impacts related to future development on any potential mineral resources. The applicable General Plan policies are as follows:

Policy POS-3.5.1: Encourage conservation of valuable mineral resources and provide substantial protection of significant mineral deposits, consistent with the City’s other land use goals.

Policy POS-3.5.3: Prohibit residential land uses within mineral resource impact areas containing mineral deposits of state- wide or regional significance as determined by the California State Mining and Geology Board. Residential land uses are inherently incompatible with mining. Mining activities typically require a high public or private investment in structures, land improvements, and landscaping that can be adversely affected if incompatible uses are allowed in the vicinity of these operations.

Policy POS-3.5.4: Preserve significant mineral resource areas in open space areas.

Policy POS-3.5.5: Require future development in the vicinity of significant mineral resources to be planned and designed to minimize conflict between mineral extraction activities and neighboring land uses.

As such, the proposed update would not conflict with General Plan policies and would not restrict availability of mineral resources or mineral resource extraction sites. For these reasons the proposed HEU would have a less than significant impact on mineral resources.

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 43
JANUARY 2023

3.13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a-c: Less Than Significant Impact.

The proposed HEU is a policy document that would not result in physical development or site- specific rezoning as part of adoption; therefore, the proposed HEU would not result in direct impacts associated with noise during construction or operation of the project. Adoption of the proposed HEU could result in indirect impacts related to an increase in future allowable density of residential development in certain areas of the City. Increased density of residential units could result in an increase in temporary noise impacts related to the exceedance of ambient noise levels during construction, or the increase in operational ambient noise levels due to an increase in traffic in more densely developed areas. However, much of this increased density has already been accounted for in the previous environmental analyses within the General Plan EIR as well as ADUs and JADUs which have already received permits and are in the development pipeline. In addition, the increased density would occur in areas already identified for more dense development, including urban areas with mixed- use land use designation, and underutilized parcels within existing urbanized residential areas. Because the City of Concord is primarily developed and lacks sufficient vacant land for new development, the sites analysis prepared for the proposed HEU identifies mostly infill development within existing urban areas as potential sites for future housing development. Noise impacts are dependent on location and site conditions; because the proposed HEU does not propose site-specific development, noise impacts are not quantitatively analyzed for this environmental assessment. At the time a future residential development project is proposed, the City would conduct subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to analyze the potential noise-related impacts from the proposed project on specific sensitive receptors. Additionally, future development would comply with the Concord Municipal Code and General Plan policies pertaining to noise

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 44
JANUARY 2023
levels in order to reduce potential impacts. As such, adoption of the proposed HEU would have less than significant impacts related to noise impacts.

Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels is generally associated with construction activities. As discussed above, because the proposed HEU does not propose site-specific development, impacts are not quantitatively analyzed for this environmental assessment. At the time a future residential development project is proposed, the City would conduct subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA to analyze the potential impacts related to groundborne vibration or noise impacts.

Buchanan Field Airport is located outside the City boundary to the west, and portions of the City fall within the noise contours for the airport (City of Concord 2012a). No proposed sites identified in the 6th Cycle RHNA Sites Inventory are located within the airport noise contours. In addition, as previously described above, when a future residential development project is proposed, the City would conduct site specific environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA to address potential impacts associated with excessive noise from Buchanan Field Airport. Thus, the proposed HEU would have a less than significant impact associated with exposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

3.14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a-b: Less than Significant Impact
The proposed HEU would serve to facilitate and encourage the provision of housing consistent with the RHNA allocation as assigned to each jurisdiction by ABAG. The region’s RHNA was prepared by the HCD based on Department of Finance population estimates for each jurisdiction. The findings of the S ites Inventory indicate the City’s current zoning can accommodate the 6th C ycle RHNA allocation of 5,073 units, and can accommodate an additional buffer of 460 units, for a total capacity of 5,533 units. The housing capacity would be able to meet the existing and projected housing needs projected for the City. The buffer units wo uld represent an excess of units beyond what is required by HCD and could induce population growth in the City due to housing availability. However,

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 45
JANUARY 2023
this buffer of units is primarily due to the consolidation of sites within the Transit Station Overlay District, where density would be increased, and due to opportunities for ADUs. These housing opportunities are all infill development in existing urbanized areas; they do not include the expansion of roads, utilities, or other infrastructure needed for residential development. Furthermore, all development envisioned in the sites inventory will occur under current zoning, the impacts of which have already been analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR. As such, the proposed HEU would not facilitate substantial population growth that has not been estimated or planned for that could result in environmental effects.

The proposed HEU would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing by implementing rent stabilization, and it would increase available housing by facilitating development of vacant and underutilized sites, increasing ADU opportunities, and other methodologies to encourage the provision of housing. Therefore, the proposed HEU would not result in the displacement of people or housing that would require the development of housing elsewhere, and the impact would be less than significant.

3.15 Public Services and Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a: Less than Significant Impact
The proposed HEU is a policy document and would not result in physical development or site-specific rezoning.

Implementation of the programs contained in the update would accommodate development required to meet Concord’s RHNA allocation. Based on the sites inventory, future housing development would be focused on infill development within underutilized parcels in the City. As such, future development of housing would not require the extension of service areas for public services. The City has provisions to mitigate for the impacts of new residential development on public services, including fire and police protection, schools, parks, and other services and utilities.

These provisions include General Plan policies, as described below, which require new development to contribute its fair share for use of public services (City of Concord 2012a).

Chapter 4: Growth Management

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 46
JANUARY 2023
Policy GM -7.1.1: Continue to require new development to pay a local traffic impact fee based on its proportional share of the cost to construct citywide transportation improvements to mitigate development impacts. The revenue provided from this program shall not be used to replace developer funding of any project-specific improvements that are required above and beyond the citywide improvements identified in this program. Likewise, Measure J funds will not be used in lieu of developer funding for transportation projects deemed necessary to mitigate the impacts of specific development projects.

Policy GM-7.1.2: Participate in the Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC) Sub -regional Transportation Mitigation Program (STMP) to fund the regional transportation improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development on the regional transportation system.

Policy GM -7.2.4: Review and update the City’s development impact fee schedule to ensure that new development pays its proportional share of the costs associated with the provision of public facilities.

Chapter 8: Public Facilities and Utilities
Policy PF-2.1.2: Work cooperatively with the Mount Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) to ensure that sufficient land is identified and reserved to accommodate projected growth in the community. The City is committed to facilitate school district planning and ensure that adequate facilities are available and conveniently located to serve existing and future residents. New development will be required to provide Public Facilities 8-17 necessary funding and/or capital facilities, as determined by the MDUSD.

In addition, the Concord Municipal Code outlines requirements for parks and recreational space in Chapter 19.15 Park Land Requirements, including park land dedication or in lieu fees for development. Therefore, the HEU would have a less than significant impact related to adequate provision of public services and the physical impact on the environment due to General Plan policies and the Concord Municipal Code for the appropriate expansion of public services.

3.16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 47
JANUARY 2023
Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a-b: Less than Significant Impact
The proposed HEU is a policy document and would not directly result in physical development. The HEU would facilitate the accommodation of the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation in the City. Future housing development projects could result in an increase in use of existing parks and other recreational facilities or requi re the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities due to an increase in residents in the area. To address potential recreational facility needs, the Concord Municipal Code outlines requirements for parks and recreational space in Chapter 19.15 Park Land Requirements (as enacted by the Quimby law, Government Code 66477), including park land dedication or in lieu fees for development. In addition, at the time a future residential project is proposed, the City would conduct subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to CEQA prior to approval of the project or issuance of building permits. Future residential projects would assess potential impacts to recreational facilities and would be required to comply with all relevant regulations and policies. Therefore, the HEU would have a less than significant impact related to adequate provision of recreational facilities and the physical impact on the environment due to addition or expansion of recreational facilities.

3.17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a-d: Less than Significant Impact
Adoption of the proposed HEU would not result in any physical environmental impacts because it is a policy document. The HEU would accommodate development required to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. Future development associated with implementation of the HEU is required to comply with the Transportation Element of

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 48
JANUARY 2023
the General Plan, which contains goals and policies such as providing a safe and efficient multi- modal transportation system; minimize single -occupancy vehicle travel, provide complete streets, and to provide a safe and comprehensive network for pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit.

The S ites Inventory conducted for the proposed HEU identified primarily infill sites as available sites to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA allocations. Because these are existing sites that are already zoned for residential development, future development would not result in significantly different transportation patterns. In addition, infill development would be expected to generate more multi-modal trips than conventional development, especially future housing development within the Transit Station Overlay District. Furthermore, due to the nature of infill development being located within fully developed urban areas, most future housing development projects would not require additional transportation infrastructure, such as new roadways. Thus, future housing development projects would not be likely to result in hazards due to roadway design or inadequate emergency access. However, future development projects would conduct subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA which would include a site- specific analysis of all transportation -related impacts. As such, the adoption of the proposed HEU would result in less than significant impacts related to transportation.

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a–b: Less than Significant Impact.

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 49
JANUARY 2023
The proposed HEU is a policy document, consisting of a suite of housing programs; no actual development or site- specific rezoning is proposed as part of the update. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet Concord's RHNA allocation. Tribal cultural resources could be encountered during construction of future housing development projects. As discussed in Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, a review of the City’s planning area conducted in 2003 and 2004 by the Northwest Information Center found 12 recorded Native American archaeological resources and seven historic-period archaeological resources listed with the State Historical Resources Information System. However, the sites identified for future development are infill sites within a built-out, urban city where much of the area has been disturbed, reducing the chance of encountering tribal cultural resources. The 2030 Concord General Plan contains policies for the protectio n of cultural resources, and all new development must be consistent with these policies, as listed in Section 3.5 Cultural Resources.

Additionally, AB 52 and SB 18 requires early consultation with culturally affiliated tribes in the area. On September 21, 2022, in accordance with AB 52 and SB 18, the City sent a notice about the project via certified mail to inform all California Native American tribes that have requested such notice of a project application within a particular geographic area for which the tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated. The notice included project information and information on how to formally request consultation. Pursuant to SB 18 timelines, the California Native American tribes had 90 days from the date o f the notice (September 21,2022 to December 20, 2022) to request consultation with the City regarding the project. No tribes requested consultation. As future projects are planned and developed, they must also adhere to the City’s General Plan policies, AB 52 and SB 18 as it pertains to historical and culturally sensitive resources.

At the time a future residential project is proposed, the City would conduct subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval of the project or issuance of building permits. Future residential projects would also be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and conduct tribal consultation if requested by tribes. As such, the proposed HEU would result in less than significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 50
JANUARY 2023
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a–e: Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed Housing Element Update would consist of policy and program changes. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet Concord's RHNA allocation; however, no site-specific rezoning would occur. Thus, the proposed project would not result directly in physical development or physical environmental change. Future housing development would be concentrated in urban, infill areas within the City, based on the availability of adequate sites currently underutilized or otherwise available for residential development. As such, development would occur in areas where water, sewer, stormwater, electric power, natural gas and telecommunications services are already provided. At the time a future residential project is proposed, the City would conduct subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval of the project or issuance of building permits; at which time potential impacts on specific public utility facilities would be analyzed. Future housing development projects would be required to comply with the following applicable General Plan policies which would reduce potential impacts to public utilities:

Chapter 4: Growth Management
Policy GM -7.2.1: Require new development to contribute to or participate in the establishment and improvement of parks, fire, police, sanitary sewer, water and flood control systems in proportion to the demand generated by project occupants and users. The City will manage a development mitigation program that ens ures new development pays its share of the costs associated with the provision of facilities, consistent with the policies in other elements of the General Plan.

Chapter 8: Public Facilities and Utilities

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 51
JANUARY 2023
Policy PF -1.2.2: Reduce the need for sewer system improvements by requiring new development to incorporate water conservation measures.

Policy PF-1.3.1: Require new development to provide any needed storm drains that are not part of the City’s master storm drain system and to incorporate features into the site improvement plans to minimize surface runoff.

Policy PF-1.3.5: Ensure that new development contributes needed drainage improvements in proportion to a project’s impacts, to assure an equitable distribution of costs to construct and maintain the City’s master storm drainage system.

Policy PF-1.4.1: Require new development to coordinate with all utility providers to assure quality services to all residents and businesses throughout the community.

Based on the above, implementation of the proposed HEU would result in less than significant impacts.

3.20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 52
JANUARY 2023
Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a-d: No Impact
Based on the CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones maps (CAL FIRE 2007), the City, is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). As such, risk of wildlife fires is essentially non-existent. Additionally, the HEU is a policy document and adoption would not, in itself, result in negative environmental impacts. I mplementation of the programs contained in the HEU would accommodate future development required to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. However, given that no portions of the City lie within a VHFHSZ, no impacts would occur.

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)

c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

Explanation of Checklist Judgements:
a–c: Less than Significant Impact.

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 53
JANUARY 2023
As discussed throughout the Initial Study, the proposed HEU is a policy document and its adoption would not produce environmental impacts. Although implementation of the programs contained in the HEU would accommodate future development required to meet the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation, the HEU does not identify, describe, promote, entitle, or permit any particular residential development project nor does it include any site- specific rezoning. As such, after compliance with existing regulations applicable to cultural and biological resources, the HEU would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

All reasonably foreseeable future cumulative development in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout this document. Furthermore, all development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City’s General Plan and by the regulations established in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations would ensure that environmental effects associated with the accommodation of future housing development would not combine with effects from reasonably foreseeable future development in the City to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant.

As detailed throughout this Initial Study, the proposed HEU in itself would not exceed any significance thresholds or result in significant impacts in the environmental categories typically associated with indirect or direct effects to human beings, such as aesthetics, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services, or transportation. The proposed HEU does not change the allowed densities or type of development that may occur within the City at this time. The act of adopting the HEU does not, therefore, have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts, either limited or cumulative, affecting human beings. As discussed in Sections 3.1 through

3.20 of this Initial Study , impacts associated with the adoption of the proposed HEU would either result in no impacts or less than significant impacts. As such, the proposed HEU would not have environmental effects causing substantial adverse effects on humans, and impacts from the proposed HEU would be less than significant. 5 References

5.1 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

BAAQ
MD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Accessed April 7, 2022. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed December 22, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

Ca
lifornia DOC. 2021. Contra Costa County Tsunami Hazard Areas. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/contra-costa.

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 54
JANUARY 2023
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Contra Costa County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6662/fhszs_map7.pdf.

Ca
lifornia Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

Ci
ty of Concord. 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Report Concord 2030 Urban Area General Plan. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://www.cityofconcord.org/458/Environmental-Documents.

Ci
ty of Concord. 2012. 2030 General Plan. Accessed: March 28, 2022: https://www.cityofconcord.org/463/2030- General-Plan.

City of Concord. 2012 a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the 2030 Concord General Plan EIR for the Concord Development Code Project. Accessed: March 28, 2022. https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/3454/Final-Sup plmental-EIR-to-the-2030- Concord-GP.

City of Concord. 2013. Citywide Climate Action Plan. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/487/Citywide-Cli mate-Action-Plan- PDF#:~:text=Concord%20is%20preparing%20this%20Citywide,projects%20consistent%20with%20the%2 0CAP.

Co
ntra Costa County. 2015. Emergency Operations Plan. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.cocosheriff.org/home/showpublisheddocument/168/637284267426930000.

Co
ntra Costa County. 2018. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/48893/Contra-Co sta-County-Draft-Local-Hazard- Mitigation-Plan-Volume-1-January-31-2018?bidId=.

Uni
ted States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Webpage: Climate Change Indicators:

Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. Accessed April 12, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/climate-in dicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations- greenhouse-gases.

CITY OF CONCORD GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE / INITIAL

STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
13039.01 55
JANUARY 2023
INT

ENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Attachment 1, Exhibit B
(2023-2031 Housing Element Update)
https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/9032/Dra ft-6th-Cycle-Housing-Element-and-Appendices_Clean

Attachment 1 - Exhibit C ‐ Response to HCD Comments
HCD Grouping #
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
1 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
1 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
1 Concord Housing Element ‐ HCD Official Comments (Nov 14, 2022) COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
Appendix D/Appendix
F
Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall  include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Integration and Segregation: The element analyzes segregation and integration by income and persons with disabilities but must also include a local (patterns within the City) and regional analysis (City compared to the broader County or region) of familial status and race.

Appendix D  The Integration and Segregation section, Race/Ethnicity section was revised to include a robust local and regional analysis of patterns tied to race. The analysis identifi
es housing needs or any other socioeconomic factors that overlap with predominantly Hispanic/Latinx and Asian tracts.

The Familial Status section was revised and provides additional analysis related to patterns of segregation based on familial status compared to socioeconomic factors such as race, incom
e, and disability. The analysis found that Hispanic housholds with children in married couple households experience overcrowding; however, there are no other notable socioeconomic factors that correlate with a certain type of familial status.

Starting on Page 2 of Appendix D, the Assessment of Fair Housing section was revised to clarify that the City has the capacity to provide enforcement and outreach
and investigates complaints, obtain remedies, and engage in fair housing testing through its contract with a fair housing enforcement and outreach organization.

The Findings, Lanswsuits, Enforcement Actions, Settlement, or Judgements section, starting on page 5, clarifies the City is comp liant with fair housing laws and regulations.

Appendix F has been revised and includes a new section, Outreach and Engagement Program, on page 2 which details the fair housing outreach done to inform the housing element including the approach to outreach to include all segments of the community. The appendix includes a detailed description of events, materi als
provided, presentation, and a summary of the feedback received through the 3 phases of outreach. A common theme throughout the engagement process has included a fair housing component. Please review the appendix for specifics of fair housing outreach and the approach to include community feedback in the housing element.

Enforcement
and Outreach: The element must include the City’s ability to provide enforcement and outreach capacity which can consist of actions such as the City’s ability to investigate complaints, obtain remedies, or the City’s ability to engage in fair housing testing.

Additionally, the element must also describe compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations and clarify what fair housing outreach was done to inform the housing element.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
1 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
1 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
1 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
1L o c a l  Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors: The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates, public comments, and service providers. The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For inst ance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends.

Appendix D Appendix  D includes local knowledge on displacement risk, the conversion of naturally affordable housing to market rate housing, and on the Monument Corridor. Additional analysis has been provided in Appendix D under "City Investment Opportunity" on Page 67.

RECAP: The element identifies the Monument Blvd Corridor as a RECAP and provides some general information on previous uses, age of housing, and noise levels. However a complete analysis should include conditions of the neighborhood relative to quality of life (e.g., housing conditions, infrastructure, parks, community amenities, safe routes to school, environmental health) and effec
tiveness or absence of past strategies related to equitable quality of life. The element must add or modify programs based on the outcomes of this analysis[.] Appendix D Additional  analysis in the Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence section, specififcally under the Findings sect
ion. Figures identifying location of parks, grocery stores, schools, walkability and environmental screening scores included to anlayze how the quality of life of the R/ECAP along Monument Blvd compares to the rest of the City/Region.

Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA): The element includes some general analysis about whether parts of the City are co nsidered an RCAA. However, HCD’s fair housing data viewer indicates that the City does have census tracts that are considered an RCAA. The analysis should include updated data regarding the City’s RCAA designations and as noted above this should be analyzed relative to the broader region, county, and neighboring communities. For more information, please
visit: https://affh‐data
resourcescahcd.hub.arcgis.com.

Appendix D, add
analysis after RECAPs
Section
The RCAAs maps and analysis at the local and regional level has been included in Appendix D, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence section.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element provides some information on disparities in access to opportunity for education and transit, it must also provide a complete analysis of local and regional trends and patterns for disparities in access to opportunity to environmental and economic opportunities.

Appendix DO n  page 50 of Appendix D, a full analysis of local and regional trends and patterns was included in for disp
arities in access to economic opportunities.

Starting on Page 61 of Appendix D, a full analysis of local and regional trends and patterns was included for disparities in access to environmental opportunities was included.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
1 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
2 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
2 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
2 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element must include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) are distributed throughout the community in a manner that AFFH. A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all incom e  groups and how that effects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). Additionally, the element should also discuss any isolation of the RHNA by income group and whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If si tes exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to mitigate this (e.g., anti‐displacement strategies).

Appendix D  See Appendix D beginning on page 88, Sites Analysis AFFH Assessment section has been revised to include additional figures and tables identifying and calculating sites and unit count by incom e  group for the various components of the assessment of fair housing including segregation and integration and access to opportunity. The analysis also identifies programs in the Housing Element that support AFFH where the sites inventory improves, exacerbates, nor improves/exacerbates conditions.

Housing Costs: While the element uses American Community Survey (ACS) data to describe residential property values and rental rates in Concord, those factors must be supplemented by additional data sources.

Appendix B Appendix  B, Median Home Value and Rent section on page 21 was revised to include supplemental data and four additional sources to analyze recent property values and rental rates in Concord.

An inve
ntory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilitie s and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Overpayment: While the element identifies the total number of overpaying households, it must quantify and analyze the number of lower‐income households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing by tenure (i.e., renter and owner). For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community‐development/housing‐element/housing‐ el
ementmemos.shtml
Appendix B Appendix  B, page 18, has been revised with an additional Table (Table 28a) which quantifies the number of lower‐income households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing by tenure (i.e., renter and owner). Additional analysis was included identifying findings from the data.

RHNA Progress: The element identifies multiple projects that have received approval in the last few years. The element must describe the availability of these units during the planning period including their status and other relevant information demonstrating likelihood of completion during the planning period. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building‐blocks/housing‐needs/projec ted‐
housing‐needs.shtml.

Appendix ES e e  list of projects being credited in Appendix E beginning on page 13. We have provided additional content based on the current status of projects.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 Realistic Capacity: The element determined realistic capacity by relying on various assumptions. Specifically, the element indicates that a number of zoning districts include a range of densities (6‐60 units/acre). The element should analyze the likelihood these sites will develop as identified (e.g., higher densities for lower‐income). For example, the element could include past projects and their built densities to provide support for these assumpti ons.

Appendix EP a s t  projects and their built densities are and were previously provided in Table 2.

Additional content has been added to the table and additional clarifying language has been added to page 3 in Appendix E. Further, as i dentified  on page 7: "The realistic capacity used to calculate the estimated number of units that can be achieved on each site in the Sites Inventory is based on a percentage of the maximum densities achieved, recent market trends, and existing regulations." Additionally, the element identifies sites in various zone that allow for nonresidential uses including com
mercial, mixed‐use, downtown pedestrian, downtown core, and the downtown district. For sites with zoning that allows 100 percent nonresidential uses, the element must account for the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential development to demonstrate the realistic residential capacity. To demonstrate the likelihood for residential development in nonresidential zones, the el
ement should describe past trends for all development in the pertinent zones, any performance standards mandating a specified portion of residential and any other factors such as incentives or proposed performance standards for residential use.

Appendix E/
Appendix C
Additional analysis is provided beginning on page 9 of Appendix E with reference to mi
nimum densities described in Appendix C. See appendix C "Development Standards" for details on density minimums for each zone and information on the number of units identified by income category for each respective zone. As detailed in Appendix C "Variances," the City has not had any request to build at densities lowe
r than the minimum provided by the zone, however, if a request were made, a variance would be required.

Sites Inventory: While the element includes sites by parcel number, parcel size, zoning, and general plan designation, it must also express the site inventory unit count in whole numbers as opposed to decimals.
sites inventory form Expressed  in whole numbers.

Lastly, the element applies a 25 percent density increase on specific sites based on the City’s local density bonus programs suc
h as the Transit Overlay Zone or the Affordable Housing Incentive Program. However, the element also indicates that this program cannot be utilized for sites where the State Density Bonus Program. The element should analyze this requirement and provide support for the assumptions identified in the inve ntory.  Specifically, the likelihood that these optional incentive programs will be used and the inventory will develop at the identified capacities.

Appendix C and
Programs
Clarity provided on page 31 of Appendix C.
and revision added to Program 11 objective 11.1.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element includes a description of general assumptions on capacity of nonvacant sites. This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The element must describe the methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning period. The methodology must cons
ider factors including the extent to which existing
uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the si te  for additional residential development, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

Appendix ET h e  element provides analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites in several sections including the Vacant and Underutilized Capacity Analysis starting on Page 2, and the methodology for ide ntifying  nonvacant sites is described in the Underutilized Sites section on page 13.

Development trends and market conditions are discussed in detail in the Development Permit Activity section starting on Page 4, and Table 2 (on page 5) has been modified to add additional context and analysis used to determine the re alistic capacity such as redevelopment, sites on mixed‐use zones, lot consolidation, etc.

The Realistic Capacity section starting on Page 9 was also updated to clarify that recent development trends, existing uses, examples of lot consolidation, and other analyses were utilized in the methodology to develop the realistic capacity.

Incentives and other regulatory factors that enc ourage and/or support the redevelopment of nonvacant sites are also identified throughout the Appendix such as the Parcel Size and Lot Consolidation Analysis(page 3) and Transit Overlay District section (Page 10).

A site‐by‐site analysis detailing existing uses, the potential for redevelopment, existing leases and or addresses the potential impediments to development, and programs or standards to support development is provided as follows :
(1) For all lower‐income sites and buffer sites starting on Page 15 (2) For all nonvacant moderate‐ and above moderate‐income sites and buffer sites starting on Page 28
In addition, if the housing el ement  appears to rely upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower‐income households, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evi dence, the existing uses will be
presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.

Appendix ET h e  adopted resolution will include findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will like
ly discontinue in the planning period.

Additionally, Appendix E was revised to include a site‐by‐site analysis detailing existing uses, the potential for redevelopment, existing leases and or addresses the potential impediments to development, and programs or standards to support development is provided as follows :
(1) For all lower‐income sites and buffer sites starting on Page 15. (2) For all nonvacant moderate‐ and above moderate‐income sites and buffer sites starting on Page 28.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 Finally, if element utilizes sites with existing residential uses. Absent a replacement housing policy, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower‐income households. The replacement housing policy has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code sec
tion 65915, subdivision (c) (3).

Program
19/Appendix E
Please see Program 19 Replacement Requirements. Action 19.1  Enforce replacement requirements in accordance with Government Code Sections 66300(d) and 65915(c)(3) throughout the planning period.

Small Sites: Sites larger than ten acres in size or smaller than a half‐acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower‐income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower‐income households. The element identifies certain sites larger than ten acres and s
maller than 0.5 acres to accommodate the lower‐income RHNA. For sites smaller than 0.5 acres, the element is assuming these lots will be consolidated. However, the element should include the methodology for determining these sites suitable for consolidation. For example, the element could discuss common ownership, adjacency to other parcels, and additional factors. Additionally, the el
ement should relate any trends or characteristics to the actual inventory to facilitate a complete analysis. For large sites, the element should demonstrate how these sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower‐income households based on past trends or other characteristics demonstrating s uitability such as anticipated parceling or mixed income approaches. Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should add or modify programs.

Appendix ET h e  Sites Inventory does not identify any small sites to accommodate the lower‐ income RHNA. Appendix E, Parcel Size and Lot Consolidation section (Page 3) was updated to clarify that no smal
l sites have been identified and also includes an
analysis of research used to provide evidence of lot consolidation based on recent development trends.

The site‐by‐site analysis in the Lower‐Income Sites Identified Analysis section, Page 15, provides a detailed analysis of each site and i dentified  common ownership for sites that include consolidated sites (if any). Where common ownership is absent, the city has developed a program (Program 13) to help facilitate lot consolidation and support development opportunities in the City by providing incentives in exchange for lot consolidation.

Downtown Specific Plan: The element indicates that the Downtown Spe cific Plan may include a unit cap. The element should indicate the number of units have been identified in the Downtown Specific Plan. If there are development caps, the element should describe how they interact with the identified sites and whether they would reach or exceed the development cap.

Appendix C
Appendix C, Page 18 clarifies there are no development caps in the Downtown Specific. Units identified are based on buildout potential.

Concord Reuse Project Area Plan: The element relies on sites within the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan to accommodate a portion of its RHNA. For a complete analysis, the element must provide timing on adoption and implementation; describe any zoning or prezoning requirements, and describe the feasibility of development, including infrastructure accessibility during the planning period.

In addition, the el
ement notes that 25 percent of the units in this plan will be considered as affordable. The element must provide information and evidence to support this assumption.

Appendix CA s  noted on Page 20 of Appendix C, a detailed status of the development on the Concord Reuse Project has been provided in Appendix E.

As noted in the analysis, the Concord Re
use Project Area Plan is only identified to
accommodate a buffer of capacity.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element is projecting 38 ADUs per year for a total of 304 ADUs that will accommodate a portion of the RHNA during the planning period. This assumption is based upon averages from 2018‐2021. However, the data provided in the element is inconsistent with the City’s production numbers provided in the Annual Prog ress Reports. HCD’s records indicate that the City permitted 19 ADUs in 2018, 18 in 2019, 24 in 2020, and 40 in 2021 for an average of 25 ADUs per year. The element should reconcile these figures to include a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs and include policie s and programs that incentivize the production of ADUs and data updated to reflect most recent information. Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing el ement.  Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within six months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or somethi
ng similar would be an appropriate action. If actual
production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate.

Appendix ES e e  Appendix E where both Table 2 and the analysis are updated with data from https://data.ca.gov/dataset/housing‐element‐annual‐progress‐report‐apr‐data‐by‐ jurisdiction‐and‐year
Publicly Owned Sites: The element identifies city‐owned sites to accommodate the RHNA. The element must include additional discussion on the publicly owned site. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the el ement must include programs to
rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sel
l the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Appendix E/Programs Publicly  owned sites are detailed within Appendix E. All publicly owned sites identified to accommodate a portion of the City's RHNA are zoned for residential uses at appropriate densities, as de
tailed in the analysis, and are addressed through
Program 4 of the Housing Element.

Environmental Constraints: The element must describe any known environmental constraints within the City that could impact housing development in the planning period.

While the element generally describes environmental constraints, the element must relate those constraints to the actual sties identified in the inventory. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).)
Appendix EA n  environmental constraints analysis and how it relates to the si tes analysis is discussed on page 11 of Appendix E.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 Appendix C was revised to include a section on Employee Housing on page 18. The analysis clarifies compliance with these requirements of the Employee Housing Act. • Emergency Shelters: While the element has identified various standards required for permitting emergency shelters, the element must analyze these standards for potential constraints on developing emergency shelters. Specifically, the element must analyze distancing requirements for emergency shelters such as distance from schools, libraries, residentials zones and requirements that emergency shelters must be located within transit routes, and the various facility requirements.

The el
ement should also describe compliance with AB 139 (Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019) parking requirements. Lastly, the element must clarify if emergency shelters are allowed by right (without discretion) in the identified zones i.e., OBP, IBP, and IMX. Upon a complete analysis, the el ement  may need to include a program to address any identified constraints.
• Manufactured Housing: Manufactured homes that are built on a permanent foundation must be allowed in the same manner and in the same zones as conventional or stick‐built structures. Specifically, manufactured homes on a permanent structure should only be subject to the same development standards that a conventional single‐family residential dwelling would be subject to. The el
ement must demonstrate consistency with this requirement or add or modify programs as appropriate.

Standards have been analyzed under the "Emergency Shelter" section of Appendix C Program 22 of the Housing Element will ensure that Emergency shelters are permitted by‐right and will ensure that parking is calculated based on the demonstrated staff need.

This was previously addressed in Action 2.1: Allowing manufactured housing on a permanent foundation in the same manner as other si
ngle family uses in the same
zone. And already included a cross reference to the program in the analysis in Appendix C.

Appendix C; Program
22 Program 2
Infrastructure Capacity: While the element generally describes water and sewer infrastructure, it must clarify sufficient existing or planned capacity to accommodate the RHNA or include programs if necessary.

Program 23 ‐
Appendix E
Environmental Concerns and Infrastructure Capacity section in Appendix E (Page 11) states "All sites at all income levels in the Sites Inventory have been determined to have sufficient exi
sting or planned dry utilities, as well as adequate sewer and water capacity. "
Program 23 (Action 23.1) the City is delivering its adopted Housing Element to the local water and sewer service providers.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Employee Housing: The element must demonstrate the zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 and 17021.6. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single‐family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwe llings of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone.

The element must describe compliance with these requirements or include a program to be com
pliant.

Appendix C

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
3 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 Fees  and Exaction: While the element identifies the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing, it must also describe all required fees for si
ngle family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis and tables, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/fees‐and‐exactions.

Appendix CI m p a c t  fees are described and analyzed in Appendix C in "Fees and Exactions" sec
tion after Table 15.

An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building code
s and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, transitional housing). The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the cost and supply of single family and multifamily development, including the ability to achieve maxi
mum densities. The analysis should evaluate setback
requirements in the RM and RH zone, height limits for the RL, CO, and CMX zones and that allow for multifamily housing and 32 units/acre, and parking requirements for single family and multifamily housing.

Appendix C Appendix  C, Multifamily Zones, Table 6 (Pag e 6) was updated with the RL zones standards and the previous setbacks were updated to clarify the requirements. The multifamily standards were evaluative cumulatively to identify the ability to achieve maximum densities.

The office and commercial zones section on Page 29 was also revised to include an anaylsis of the CMX, CO, DMX, DP, NC, standards to determine if based on the average lot si
ze and the standards, if the maximum density can be achieved. • Other Housing Types: The element should also clarify the definition of various uses noted in the element including a “Family Day Care Home”, Live/Work units, and Work/Live units. Additionally, while the element describes where Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are allowed, the element should ensure this information is consistent with the Zoning table provided in the el
ement (Table 2).

Additional context has been added in Appendix C under "Family Day Care Home", "Live/Work and Work/Live Units"
As described under "Single Room Occupancies", an SRO is a type of group housing, this is now detailed in Table 2.

ADUs have been included in Table 2, indicated with an asterisk and note.

Appendix C

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element must describe and analyze the City’s permit processing and approval procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. For example, the element notes several required permits including a Use Pe
rmit, Minor Use Permit, Administrative Permit, and Zoning Clearance. The analysis should address the required permits for each use, the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information. Additionally, the element should clarify whether the timelines for permit process is the same for both si ngle and multifamily housing. The element should also clarify whether permitted uses are required to obtain a zoning clearance or allowed by‐right. The analysis should analyze these and other requirements for impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. Based on a complete analysis, the el ement should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints.

The element notes that multifamily housing is allowed in the Downtown District and MixedUse Zones subject to a use or conditional use permit. The element also discusses that the City is focused on building this type of housing in these areas and i dentifies sites in these zones for multifamily housing. As noted above, the element must identify any approval findings or decision‐making criteria for this requirement. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. For your information, subjecting multifamily housing to an exception process in zones where m ultifamily housing is already allowed is generally considered a constraint. Based on a complete analysis, the element should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints.

Appendix CP e r m i t s  requirments are indicated in Table 2 of Appendix C. Additional timelines, and typical number of hearings are provided under Appendix C "Permitting Proce ss and Fees"
See Program 15, where the City will create objective design standards to permit multifamily and residential uses by‐right.

Design Review: The element briefly describes the City’s design review requirements; however, the analysis should analyze the approval timelines, approval procedures and decision‐ making criteria. The analysis should evaluate this process for potential constraints on housing supply, affordability, and timing. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate.

Appendix CS e e  Program 15.

On/Off‐Site Improvements: The element must identify subdivision le vel  improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40‐foot minimum street width), and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes‐and‐enforcement‐of‐onsite‐offsite‐improvement‐standards.

Appendix C Additional  analysis provided in Appendix C under "subdivision requirements" subsection.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
4 Codes and Enforcement: The element must describe the City’s building and zoning code enforcement processes and procedures, including the degree and type of enforcement, and any local amendments to the building code and analyze their im pact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes‐and‐enforcement‐ofonsite‐offsite‐ improvement‐standards.

Appendix C Appendix  C under "Building Codes and Enforcement" describes the City's building code, including local amendments. Additional language on the City's code enforc
ement has been included.

Zoning and Fees Transparency: While the element references the Government Code requirements for transparency of all fees and zoning on the City’s website, the element must specifically clarify whether it complies with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning and development standards for eac h parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

Appendix C  Appendix C page 38 ‐ language added to point to program. "The City maintains all required information, consistent with AB 1483 (2019), on its website. As detailed in Program 3 of the Housing Element, the City will continue to m aintain consistency with AB 1483 by updating its website as needed. "
Local Ordinances: The element must analyze any locally adopted ordinances that directly impacts the cost and supply or residential development (e.g., inclusionary requirements, short term rentals, growth controls).

Appendix C/Programs Additional  analysis provided in Appendix C, see program 12 for reference to updated housing fee.

Constraints on Housing for Pe
rsons with Disabilities:
• Definition of Family: The element notes that the City’s definition of family is not a constraint because the City does not regulate family based on related individuals.

However, the definition noted in the element does pose a constraint because of the number of restrictions placed on households. The element should analyze this definition and include a program to address the constraint. For additional inform ation and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building‐ blocks/constraints/constraints‐for‐people‐with‐disabilities.shtml. • Group Housing Parking: The element indicates that group housing is required to provide one parking space per bed, unit, or bedroom, whichever is greater in addition to guest parking spaces. These requirements are a constraint on providing housing for persons with disabilities and requires more parking spaces than other similar uses in these zones (i.e., si ngle family residences). The element must analyze this requirement and include a program to address the constraint.
• Group Homes/Residential Care Facilities: The element currently details that residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential zones.

However, residential care facilities serving seven or more persons require a conditional use permit in most zones. The element should analyze the process as a potential constraint on housing for persons with dis abilities  and add a program to ensure zoning permits group homes objectively with approval certainty.

Appendix C Additional  analysis on the definition of "family" has been included in Appendix C and Program 2 will simplify this definition to ensure that it does not impose a constraint.

Revisions have been incorporated to Appendix C and to Prog ram 16 to reduce group housing parking requirements.

Revisions are incorporated into Appendix C and into Program 2 to allow large residential care facilities by‐right in residential and mixed use zones.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
5 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
5 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
5 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
6 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
6 A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
7 An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all incom e levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the re gional housing need in
accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Price of Land: The element must also identify the actual land costs for single family and multifamily development.

Appendix CC o s t  of land for single‐family and multifamily zoned land is provided in Appendix C, Land and Construction Costs section (Page 59).

Persons with Development Disabilities: The element must quantify the number of persons with developmental disabilities and analyze the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. An analysis should generally discuss types of developmental disabilities, housing needs, housing issues or challenges and resources, policies and programs including existing housing and services, for persons with developmental dis abilities.

Appendix BS e e  revisions incorporated in Appendix B under "Persons with Disabilities" section and "Developmental Disabilities" subsection.

Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non‐lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).

Developed De
nsities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

Appendix CA
s noted in Appendix C under subsection "variances" The city has not had any requests to build at lower densities. Further, as detailed under Program 14, the City has committed to tracking and maintaining adequate capacity throughout the planning period.

Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilitie s, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
A. Housing Needs, Resources, and
Constraints
7 B. Housing Programs 1
B. Housing Programs 1
While the element included a list on assisted housing developments at‐risk of converting, it must also identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the City to have the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at‐risk units and federal, state and local financing and subsidy programs to assi
st in maintaining affordability.

For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community‐development/building‐blocks/housing‐ needs/assistedhousing‐developments.shtml and for more information on identifying units at‐ risk, see the California Housing Partnership Corporation at http://www.chpc.net.

Appendix B/
Programs
Revisions made to page 39 of Appendix B and Prog ram 18.

Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or inte nds to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1‐6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s s
pecific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials.

Programs to be revised include the following:
• Timing: The following programs should discuss the frequency and milestones for certain actions including but not limited to Program 2, 8, 13, and 21 • Additional Actions: To facilitate implementation and achieve the intended outcomes, programs should include a proactive outreach component. These programs include but not limited to Program 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17.
• Program 9 should clarify the types of incentives that will be provided during the planning period.
• Program 11 should include an action continue to moni tor state density bonus law and update as needed.
• Program 12 should clarify the percent required for affordable housing for inclusionary requirements
• Program 22 should provide quantified objectives e.g., number of homeless people the City anticipates to place into permanent housing.

Programs Program 9 revised to include "Reduced standards provided to facilitate middle density housing include but are not lim
ited to increased lot coverage allowances,
increased heights, and reduced setback requirements."
Program 11 revised to include "the City will continue to monitor State Density Bonus law and incorporate additional revisions, as needed throughout the planning period" Program 12 revised to include "As further de tailed in Appendix C, residential ownership projects may either choose to dedicate 10% of the units as moderate‐ income or 6% at low‐income"
Program 2 includes a timeline of milestones by December 2025.

Program 8 includes multiple milestones with timing and frequency, where applicable.

Program 13 includes m ultiple  milestones with timing and frequency, where applicable.

Program 21 includes multiple milestones with timing and frequency, where applicable.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
B. Housing Programs 2
B. Housing Programs 2S h o r t f a l l  of Sites: If the element does not identify adequate sites, including available zoning and development standards, to accommodate the RHNA for lower‐income households, it must include a program(s) to specifically commit to rezoning sites, including acreage, anticipated units, zoning and development standards and meet all requirements pursuant to Government Code sec
tion, 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). For example, the program should permit owner‐ occupied and rental multifamily uses by‐right (without discretionary action) for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower‐income households.

The City does not have a shortfal l of sites. Appendix E was revised to clarify information including adequate site size for lower‐income RHNA, nonvacant sites methodology, lot consolidation, and substantial evidence of redevelopment potential incorporated site‐by‐site. Based on the analysis, programs to support and facilitate the development of sites identified throughout the planning period have been included suc
h as Programs 5, 6, and 13.

Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for eac h income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all incom e levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory‐built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single‐room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A4, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of si
tes and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the el ement should be revised as follows:

Finding A4 does not note that the element does not include a complete sites analysis. There is no finding included within HCD's letter that states that the element does not include a complete sites analysis outside from this specific incorrect reference.

The City has adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA at all incom e levels, as well as a buffer. This has been detailed at length within Appendix E and additional revisions have been incorporated to further clarify which sites have been identified as having capacity and which sites are identified to accommodate a buffer. Further, through Prog ram 8, the City has committed to a rezone to increase capacity beyond the housing need in a manner to AFFH. This will increase housing capacity in areas of affluence and opportunity. Based on the analysis, programs to support and facilitate the development of sites identified throughout the planning period have been included suc
h as Program 5, which offers permit streamlining; Program 9, which commits to reduced standards in exchange for small lot and middle density housing; Program 11, which goes above and beyond the State's Density bonus program to offer the transit station overlay which allows additional density on top of the State's density bonus and the Affordable housing ince
ntive program which provides
additional incentives in exchange for affordable housing; and Program 13, which provides a robust lot consolidation incentive; Program 15 that will allow objective standards to remove the design review process. Further programs of the Housing Element address the variety of housing types, include housing for extremel y low income households and special housing types.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
B. Housing Programs 2
B. Housing Programs 2
B. Housing Programs 3
B. Housing Programs 3
B. Housing Programs 4
Publicly‐Owned Sites: The element identified publicly‐owned sites to accommodate a portion of the RHNA. The element should include a program with numerical objectives that ensures compliance with the Surplus Land Act, provides incentives and actions along with a schedule to facilitate development of publicly‐ owned si
tes. Actions should include outreach with
developers, issuing requests for proposals, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing and financial assistance.

Program 4A s detailed in Program 4, the City has committed to annual outreach to affordable housing developers on surplus lands. Revisions made to Prog ram 4 include minimum affordability of 25% of the total units, incentives for affordable housing development, and prioritization of interested parties. A site by site breakdown has been included in appendix E and includes one site that is identified to accommodate a portion of the RHNA.

Program 3 – Special Needs Households: The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing special needs populations including Extremely Low‐Income (ELI) households and persons with disabilities.

The element includes a program to coordinate with providers; however, the element should include stronger program(s) such as commitments to priority processing, granti ng fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, and granting concessions and incentives for housing developments that include units affordable to ELI households.

Program 3P rogram 3 is the "Affordable Housing Development Toolkit". The following programs are applicable to the content of the comment provided. As detailed in Program 11, The City offers ince
ntives for extremely low income households, including additional density and incentives above and beyond that which is provided by the State's density bonus program. Incentives include but are not limited to reduced open space requirements, increased permitted height, reduced and deferred fees, and reduced parking requirements. Further as described in Prog ram 21, the city provides assistance for those with special housing needs through Home Match Contra Costa, a commitment to developing resources and guidance on accessibility upgrades and features, outreach coordination through the Regional Center of East Bay, and funding to support child care programs for large families and female‐headed households.

Address and, where appropriate and le
gally possible, remove governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive se rvices for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
Program 1 – Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The City is relying on ADUs to accommodate a portion of its RHNA. Additionally, while the element states it will monitor ADU applications and implement additional incentives, this program should commi t to frequent monitoring (i.e., every two years) and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time period (e.g., six months).

Program 1  Action 1.3 already includes annual monitoring and reporting of ADUs. Revisions have been added to commit to adjusting assumptions and identifying additional capacity, if needed.

The housing el
ement shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low‐, very low‐, low‐ and moderate‐income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
B. Housing Programs 4
B. Housing Programs 5
B. Housing Programs 5
B. Housing Programs 6
B. Housing Programs 6
C. Quantified Objectives 1
Program 18 Changed  both noticing timeline and contact to qualified entity to 3.5 years. Added objective to contact qualified entities every two years to offer funding assistance.

The housing program shall preserve for low‐incom e  household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a)... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
Program 18 (Preservation) should be modified to include noticing requirements within three years and six months of the affordability expiration dates, coordinating with owners and qualified entities such as non‐profit organizations and e stablish  specific time parameters around such actions.

Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five‐year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).) Program to AFFH: As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be s ignificant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitments, milestones, geographic targeting, and metrics or numeric objectives.

As noted in Findings A5 and A6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any i
dentified constraints.

In addition, since the element indicates the City does not have a reasonable accommodation procedure, it must include a program to develop specific procedures for requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation. The procedure shoul d  not be limited to the installation of accessibility improvements and must provide reasonable accommodations to zoning and land‐use requirements for housing for persons with disabilities. For additional information and a sample program and ordinance, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/PRO_mitigate.php.

Program 8H C D s  letter incorrectly states that the element indicates the City does not have a reasonable accommodati
on procedure. This was discussed on a call with HCD on
November 30th 2022 where HCD agreed to review the reasonable accommodations procedure and Program 21. As of 12.21.2022, no follow up review has been sent by HCD.

Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunitie s and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
Programs Multiple programs of the Housing element are designed to AFFH.  Each program in the Housing Element, where applicable , identifies a respective target, fair housing issue, contributing factor, and action type. Further, as detailed in appendix D, Tables 4 and 5 detail how the programs of the Housing Element address fair housing issues.

This includes each fair housing issue, contributing factors, programs to address the fair housing issues, and the respective program metri cs.

Response to HCD Comments

HCD Grouping # COMMENTS LOCATION RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
C. Quantified Objectives 1
D. Public Participation 1
D. Public Participation 1
D. Public Participation 1
E. Consistency with General Plan 1
E. Consistency with General Plan 1 Revisions included to program 4 to review for internal consistency as a part of the annual GP progress report.

Appendix CP a g e  65 of Appendix C Table 24, Summary of Quantifiable Objectives includes RHNA, new construction, units to be re
habilitated, and at‐risk units to be preserved for all
income types.

The element must include quantified objectives to establish an estimate of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. While the element includes these objectives by incom e group for low‐, moderate‐ and above‐moderate income, the element must also include separate objectives for very low‐ and ELI households.

Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the el ement shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) The element states that the City made diligent efforts to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element and describes these efforts. However, the element must also describe outreach efforts to lower income segments of the community.

For exampl
e, the element could discuss the availability of translation services, efforts to circulate the housing element among low‐ and moderate‐income households, and any outreach with key stakeholders that represent these groups.  Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/public‐participation.

The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be ac hieved  with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) While the element described how consistency was achieved, it must also describe how it will be maintained during the planning period. For example, the element could include a program to conduct an internal consistency review of the General Plan as part of the annual General Plan i
mplementation report required by Government Code section 65400. The annual report can also assist future updates of the housing element. For additional information and a sample program, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/analysis‐of‐consistencywith‐ general‐plan.

Additional clarity has been provided in Appendix H regarding how public input was c
onsidered and incorporated. Although this information was available prior to HCD's comment letter, staff has provided additional detail in Appendix H by including a fifth column "Changes Made" and removing "changes made" from the same column as the "response". This column de tails  how public comments were incorporated into the Housing Element Update.

In addition, Appendix H describes responses to public comments, but must also describe how public input was considered and incorporated into the element. For additional information, see the
Appendix H
Appendix F and
Appendix H
Additional clarity on the outreach process has been included in Appendix H, Public Re
view, with references to Appendix F, Public Engagement Summary. Edits include a brief description of the proactive engagement throughout the planning process, including advocacy group coordination, outreach type (pop up events, town halls, surveys, etc.), and other inclusive outreach considerations (language, days/times of events, etc
.).

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November
14, 2022
Kevin M
arstall, Director
Community Development Department
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Dear Kev
in Marstall:

RE: Ci
ty of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Thank you f
or submitting the City of Concord’s (City) draft housing element received for review on August 16, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from California for Homeownership, East Bay Housing Organizations, East Bay for Everyone, Derek Sagehorn, TransForm, East Bay YIMBY, Greenbelt Alliance and YIMBY Law, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draf
t element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

For your
information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until rezones to accommodate a shortfall of sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c) (1) (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c) are completed.

ATTACHMENT 2

Kevin Marstall, Director

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager

Enclosure

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 November 14, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF CONCORD

The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov
/building-blocks and includes the
Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. H
ousing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).)

Enforcement and
Outreach: The element must include the City’s ability to provide enforcement and outreach capacity which can consist of actions such as the City’s ability to investigate complaints, obtain remedies, or the City’s ability to engage in fair housing testing. Additionally, the element must also describe compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations and clarify what fair housing outreach was done to inform the housing element.

Integration and Segregation: T
he element analyzes segregation and integration by income and persons with disabilities but must also include a local (patterns within the City) and regional analysis (City compared to the broader County or region) of familial status and race.

Racially C
oncentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA): The element includes some general analysis about whether parts of the City are considered an RCAA. However, HCD’s fair housing data viewer indicates that the City does have census tracts that are considered an RCAA. The analysis should include updated data regarding the City’s RCAA designations and as noted above this should be analyzed relative to the broader region, county, and neighboring communities. For more information, please visit: https://affh-dat a-resources-
cahcd.hub.arcgis.com.

RECAP: The element identifies the Monument Blvd Corridor as a RECAP and provides some general information on previous uses, age of housing, and noise levels. However a complete analysis should include conditions of the neighborhood relative to quality of life (e.g., housing conditions, infrastructure, parks, community amenities, safe routes to school, environmental health) and effectiveness or absence of past strategies related to equitable quality of life. The element must add or modify programs based on the outcomes of this analysis

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 November 14, 2022
Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element provides some information on disparities in access to opportunity for education and transit, it must also provide a complete analysis of local and regional trends and patterns for disparities in access to opportunity to environmental and economic opportunities.

Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors: The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates, public comments, and service providers. The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends.

Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ( AFFH): The element must
include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) are distributed throughout the community in a manner that AFFH.

A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that effects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, access to opportunity). Additionally, the element should also discuss any isolation of the RHNA by income group and whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to mitigate this (e.g., anti-displacement strategies).

2. I
nclude an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).)

Overpayment: W
hile the element identifies the total number of overpaying households, it must quantify and analyze the number of lower-income households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing by tenure (i.e., renter and owner). For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-devel
opment/housing-element/housing-element-
memos.shtml.

Housing Costs: W
hile the element uses American Community Survey (ACS) data to describe residential property values and rental rates in Concord, those factors must be supplemented by additional data sources.

3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

RHNA Progress: T
he element identifies multiple projects that have received approval in the last few years. The element must describe the availability of these units during the

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 November 14, 2022
planning period including their status and other relevant information demonstrating likelihood of completion during the planning period.

For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/housing-needs/projected-housing-needs.shtml.

Sites Inventory:

While the element includes sites by parcel number, parcel size, zoning, and general plan designation, it must also express the site inventory unit count in whole numbers as opposed to decimals.

Realistic Capacity: T
he element determined realistic capacity by relying on various assumptions. Specifically, the element indicates that a number of zoning districts include a range of densities (6-60 units/acre). The element should analyze the likelihood these sites will develop as identified (e.g., higher densities for lower-income). For example, the element could include past projects and their built densities to provide support for these assumptions.

A
dditionally, the element identifies sites in various zone that allow for nonresidential uses including commercial, mixed-use, downtown pedestrian, downtown core, and the downtown district. For sites with zoning that allows 100 percent nonresidential uses, the element must account for the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential development to demonstrate the realistic residential capacity. To demonstrate the likelihood for residential development in nonresidential zones, the element should describe past trends for all development in the pertinent zones, any performance standards mandating a specified portion of residential and any other factors such as incentives or proposed performance standards for residential use.

Lastly, the element applies a 25 percent density increase on specific sites based on the City’s local density bonus programs such as the Transit Overlay Zone or the Affordable Housing Incentive Program. However, the element also indicates that this program cannot be utilized for sites where the State Density Bonus Program. The element should analyze this requirement and provide support for the assumptions identified in the inventory.

Specifically, the likelihood that these optional incentive programs will be used and the inventory will develop at the identified capacities.

Nonvacant Sites: T
he element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element includes a description of general assumptions on capacity of nonvacant sites. This alone is not adequate to demonstrate the potential for redevelopment in the planning period. The element must describe the methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning period. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 November 14, 2022
In addition, if the housing element appears to rely upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.

Finally, if element utilizes sites with existing residential uses. Absent a replacement housing policy, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing policy has the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c) (3).

Downtown Specific Pl
an: The element indicates that the Downtown Specific Plan may include a unit cap. The element should indicate the number of units have been identified in the Downtown Specific Plan. If there are development caps, the element should describe how they interact with the identified sites and whether they would reach or exceed the development cap.

Concord Reuse Project Area Plan: The element relies on sites within the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan to accommodate a portion of its RHNA. For a complete analysis, the element must provide timing on adoption and implementation; describe any zoning or pre- zoning requirements, and describe the feasibility of development, including infrastructure accessibility during the planning period. In addition, the element notes that 25 percent of the units in this plan will be considered as affordable. The element must provide information and evidence to support this assumption.

Small Sites:

Sites larger than ten acres in size or smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated, with sufficient evidence, that sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income households. The element identifies certain sites larger than ten acres and smaller than 0.5 acres to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. For sites smaller than

0.5 acres, the element is assuming these lots will be consolidated. However, the element should include the methodology for determining these sites suitable for consolidation. For example, the element could discuss common ownership, adjacency to other parcels, and additional factors. Additionally, the element should relate any trends or characteristics to the actual inventory to facilitate a complete analysis. For large sites, the element should demonstrate how these sites are suitable to accommodate housing for lower-income households based on past trends or other characteristics demonstrating suitability such as anticipated parceling or mixed income approaches. Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should add or modify programs.

Ac
cessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element is projecting 38 ADUs per year for a total of 304 ADUs that will accommodate a portion of the RHNA during the planning period.

This assumption is based upon averages from 2018-2021. However, the data provided in the element is inconsistent with the City’s production numbers provided in the Annual Progress Reports. HCD’s records indicate that the City permitted 19 ADUs in 2018, 18 in 2019, 24 in 2020, and 40 in 2021 for an average of 25 ADUs per year. The element should

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 November 14, 2022
reconcile these figures to include a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs and include policies and programs that incentivize the production of ADUs and data updated to reflect most recent information. Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. Additional actions, if necessary, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within six months). Finally, if necessary, the degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate.

Publicly Owned Sites:

The element identifies city-owned sites to accommodate the RHNA.

The element must include additional discussion on the publicly owned site. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

Environmental Constraints: The element must describe any known environmental constraints within the City that could impact housing development in the planning period.

While the element generally describes environmental constraints, the element must relate those constraints to the actual sties identified in the inventory. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).)

Infrastructure Capacity: While the element generally describes water and sewer infrastructure, it must clarify sufficient existing or planned capacity to accommodate the RHNA or include programs if necessary.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:

• Employee Housing: The element must demonstrate the zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 and 17021.6. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone.

The element must describe compliance with these requirements or include a program to be compliant.

• Emergency Shelters: While the element has identified various standards required for permitting emergency shelters, the element must analyze these standards for

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 November 14, 2022
potential constraints on developing emergency shelters. Specifically, the element must analyze distancing requirements for emergency shelters such as distance from schools, libraries, residentials zones and requirements that emergency shelters must be located within transit routes, and the various facility requirements.

The element should also describe compliance with AB 139 (Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019) parking requirements. Lastly, the element must clarify if emergency shelters are allowed by right (without discretion) in the identified zones i.e., OBP, IBP, and IMX. Upon a complete analysis, the element may need to include a program to address any identified constraints.

• Manufactured Housing: Manufactured homes that are built on a permanent foundation must be allowed in the same manner and in the same zones as conventional or stick-built structures. Specifically, manufactured homes on a permanent structure should only be subject to the same development standards that a conventional single-family residential dwelling would be subject to. The element must demonstrate consistency with this requirement or add or modify programs as appropriate.

• Other Housing Types: The element should also clarify the definition of various uses noted in the element including a “Family Day Care Home”, Live/Work units, and Work/Live units. Additionally, while the element describes where Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are allowed, the element should ensure this information is consistent with the Zoning table provided in the element (Table 2).

4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)

Land Us
e Controls : The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types (e.g., multifamily rental housing, mobilehomes, transitional housing). The analysis must also evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the cost and supply of single family and multifamily development, including the ability to achieve maximum densities. The analysis should evaluate setback requirements in the RM and RH zone, height limits for the RL, CO, and CMX zones and that allow for multifamily housing and 32 units/acre, and parking requirements for single family and multifamily housing.

Fees and Exaction: W
hile the element identifies the total amount of fees and their proportion to the development costs for both single family and multifamily housing, it must also describe all required fees for single family and multifamily housing development, including impact fees, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis and tables, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/fees-and
-exactions.

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 November 14, 2022

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: T
he element must describe and analyze the
City’s permit processing and approval procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development. For example, the element notes several required permits including a Use Permit, Minor Use Permit, Administrative Permit, and Zoning Clearance. The analysis should address the required permits for each use, the approval body, the number of public hearing if any, approval findings and any other relevant information. Additionally, the element should clarify whether the timelines for permit process is the same for both single and multifamily housing. The element should also clarify whether permitted uses are required to obtain a zoning clearance or allowed by-right. The analysis should analyze these and other requirements for impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. Based on a complete analysis, the element should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints.

T
he element notes that multifamily housing is allowed in the Downtown District and Mixed- Use Zones subject to a use or conditional use permit. The element also discusses that the City is focused on building this type of housing in these areas and identifies sites in these zones for multifamily housing. As noted above, the element must identify any approval findings or decision-making criteria for this requirement. The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing and approval certainty. For your information, subjecting multifamily housing to an exception process in zones where multifamily housing is already allowed is generally considered a constraint. Based on a complete analysis, the element should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints.

Design Review: T
he element briefly describes the City’s design review requirements; however, the analysis should analyze the approval timelines, approval procedures and decision-making criteria. The analysis should evaluate this process for potential constraints on housing supply, affordability, and timing. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate.

On/Off-S
ite Improvements: The element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width), and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes-an
d-enforcement-of-onsite-offsite-improvement-standards.

Codes and Enforcement: T
he element must describe the City’s building and zoning code enforcement processes and procedures, including the degree and type of enforcement, and any local amendments to the building code and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes-and-enf orcement-of-
onsite-offsite-improvement-standards.

Zoning and Fees Transparency: W
hile the element references the Government Code
requirements for transparency of all fees and zoning on the City’s website, the element must specifically clarify whether it complies with new transparency requirements for

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8 November 14, 2022
posting all zoning and development standards for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website pursuant to Government Code section 65940.1(a)(1).

Local Ordinances: T
he element must analyze any locally adopted ordinances that directly impacts the cost and supply or residential development (e.g., inclusionary requirements, short term rentals, growth controls).

Constraints on Hous
ing for Persons with Disabilities:

• Definition of Family: The element notes that the City’s definition of family is not a constraint because the City does not regulate family based on related individuals.

However, the definition noted in the element does pose a constraint because of the number of restrictions placed on households. The element should analyze this definition and include a program to address the constraint. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/constraints/constraints-for-people-with-disabilities.shtml.

• Group Housing Parking: The element indicates that group housing is required to provide one parking space per bed, unit, or bedroom, whichever is greater in addition to guest parking spaces. These requirements are a constraint on providing housing for persons with disabilities and requires more parking spaces than other similar uses in these zones (i.e., single family residences). The element must analyze this requirement and include a program to address the constraint.

• Group Homes/Residential Care Facilities: The element currently details that residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential zones. However, residential care facilities serving seven or more persons require a conditional use permit in most zones. The element should analyze the process as a potential constraint on housing for persons with disabilities and add a program to ensure zoning permits group homes objectively with approval certainty.

5. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)

Price of Land: The element must also identify the actual land costs for single family and multifamily development.

Developed Densities and Permit Times: The element must be revised to include analysis of requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits that potentially hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.

City of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9 November 14, 2022

6. A nalyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)

Persons with Development Disabilities:

The element must quantify the number of persons
with developmental disabilities and analyze the special housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. An analysis should generally discuss types of developmental disabilities, housing needs, housing issues or challenges and resources, policies and programs including existing housing and services, for persons with developmental disabilities.

7. A
nalyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non- low- income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).).

While the element included a list on assisted housing developments at-risk of converting, it must also identify public and private nonprofit corporations known to the City to have the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk units and federal, state and local financing and subsidy programs to assist in maintaining affordability.

For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-dev
elopment/building-blocks/housing-needs/assisted-
housing-developments.shtml and for more information on identifying units at-r isk, see the California Housing Partnership Corporation at http://www.chpc.net.

B. H ousing Programs

1. I nclude a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)

T
o address the program requirements of Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1-6), and to facilitate implementation, programs should include: (1) a description of the City’s specific role in implementation; (2) definitive implementation timelines; (3) objectives, quantified where appropriate; and (4) identification of responsible agencies and officials. Programs to be revised include the following:

• Timing: The following programs should discuss the frequency and milestones for certain actions including but not limited to Program 2, 8, 13, and 21

Ci
ty of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10 November 14, 2022
• Additional Actions: To facilitate implementation and achieve the intended outcomes, programs should include a proactive outreach component. These programs include but not limited to Program 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17.
• Pro
gram 9 should clarify the types of incentives that will be provided during the planning period.
• Pr
ogram 11 should include an action continue to monitor state density bonus law and update as needed.
• Pr
ogram 12 should clarify the percent required for affordable housing for inclusionary requirements
• Pr
ogram 22 should provide quantified objectives e.g., number of homeless people the City anticipates to place into permanent housing.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A4, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Shortfall of Sites: If the element does not identify adequate sites, including available zoning and development standards, to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households, it must include a program(s) to specifically commit to rezoning sites, including acreage, anticipated units, zoning and development standards and meet all requirements pursuant to Government Code section, 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). For example, the program should permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right (without discretionary action) for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

Publicly-Owned Sites: The element identified publicly-owned sites to accommodate a portion of the RHNA. The element should include a program with numerical objectives that ensures compliance with the Surplus Land Act, provides incentives and actions along with a schedule to facilitate development of publicly- owned sites. Actions should include outreach with developers, issuing requests for proposals, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing and financial assistance.
52

Ci
ty of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11 November 14, 2022
Program 1 – A ccessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The City is relying on ADUs to accommodate a portion of its RHNA. Additionally, while the element states it will monitor ADU applications and implement additional incentives, this program should commit to frequent monitoring (i.e., every two years) and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time period (e.g., six months).

3. The h
ousing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).)
Program 3 – Special Needs Households: The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing special needs populations including Extremely Low-Income (ELI) households and persons with disabilities. The element includes a program to coordinate with providers; however, the element should include stronger program(s) such as commitments to priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, and granting concessions and incentives for housing developments that include units affordable to ELI households.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Findings A5 and A6, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

In addition, since the element indicates the City does not have a reasonable accommodation procedure, it must include a program to develop specific procedures for requesting and granting a reasonable accommodation. The procedure should not be limited to the installation of accessibility improvements and must provide reasonable accommodations to zoning and land-use requirements for housing for persons with disabilities. For additional information and a sample program and ordinance, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing_element2/PRO_mitigate.php.

5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
Program to AFFH: As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have

Ci
ty of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 12 November 14, 2022
specific commitments, milestones, geographic targeting, and metrics or numeric objectives.

6. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a)... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
Pro
gram 18 (Preservation) should be modified to include noticing requirements within three years and six months of the affordability expiration dates, coordinating with owners and qualified entities such as non-profit organizations and establish specific time parameters around such actions.

C. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).) The element must include quantified objectives to establish an estimate of housing units by income category that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the planning period. While the element includes these objectives by income group for low-, moderate- and above-moderate income, the element must also include separate objectives for very low- and ELI households.

D. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) The e
lement states that the City made diligent efforts to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element and describes these efforts. However, the element must also describe outreach efforts to lower income segments of the community.

For example, the element could discuss the availability of translation services, efforts to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate-income households, and any outreach with key stakeholders that represent these groups. In addition, Appendix H describes responses to public comments, but must also describe how public input was considered and incorporated into the element. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/public-participation.

E. Consistency with General Plan
The Housing Element shall describe the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) 62

Ci
ty of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 13 November 14, 2022
While the element described how consistency was achieved, it must also describe how it will be maintained during the planning period. For example, the element could include a program to conduct an internal consistency review of the General Plan as part of the annual General Plan implementation report required by Government Code section 65400. The annual report can also assist future updates of the housing element. For additional information and a sample program, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/analysis-o f-consistency-
with-general-plan.

July 25, 2022
Aaron Sage
Principal Planner, Community Development Department
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Dr, MS 53
Concord, CA 94519
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Dear Aaron,
Conversations with Joan Ryan regarding AB 2923 indicated interest by the City of Concord in including BART’s land in its 2023-2031 Housing Element . As you are aware, BART’s Transit-Oriented Development Program Work Plan currently does not categorize the Concord station areas as ‘Near-term (project initiation in 2020-2025)’.

Additionally, issues with the North Concord area and specific plans, a near-term project, are creating development bottlenecks.

It is our collective goal to deliver as much housing near transit as possible while supporting local jurisdictions in achieving the Bay Area’s regional housing goals.

However, BART has limited staff resources and few funding sources for the infrastructure - most notably parking replacement - that is often required to free-up space on BART’s land fo r development. Given current resources, it will be challenging for BART to support development of all the land proposed in BART partner jurisdictions’ Housing Elements during the 2023-2031 cycle.

Delivering transit -oriented development (TOD) projects on BART’s land is much more complex and time consuming than development projects on private land and requires strong partnerships and commitment between BART and local jurisdictions.

As noted in the previous letter issued on March 7, 2022, BART’s TOD Work Pla n prioritizes development in its station areas based on the following three criteria:

1. Market readiness for TOD

2. Local support for TOD

3. Infrastructure needs
If conditions have changed since the last assessment in 2019/2020, the timeframe for TOD development in station areas can be updated in BART’s TOD Work Plan .

Additional key considerations by BART for prioritizing development projects are 1) availability of local funding and resources to support development, including community outreach, affordable housing, and infrastructure , and 2) seamless coordination with local jurisdiction staff.

Jurisdictions with station areas that are currently listed in BART’s TOD Work Plan timeframes of Mid -term or Long -term need to meet the following conditions to be considered for prioritization:

1. Local Support for TOD:
a. Local Support and Funding: First and foremost, BART views TOD projects on its land as BART and local jurisdiction partnerships. BART TOD projects are civic destinations, transformative to the community, and often includes off-site improvements. The City of Concord must be committed to working closely with BART to find funds and resources to facilitate community outreach, discussions, and decisions on TOD development and area-wide parking.

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT
2150 Webster Street, P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6000
2022
Rebecca Saltzman

PRESIDENT
Janice Li

VICE PRESIDENT
Robert Powers

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTORS
Debora All
en
1ST DISTRICT
Mark Foley
2ND DISTRICT
Rebecca Saltzman
3RD DISTRICT
Robert Raburn, Ph.D.
4TH DISTRICT
John McPartland
5TH DISTRICT
Elizabeth Ames
6TH DISTRICT
Lateefah Simon
7TH DISTRICT
Janice Li
8TH DISTRICT
Bevan Dufty
9TH DISTRICT
www.bart.gov
ATTACHMENT 3

July 25, 2022

It takes several years of pre-development work prior to issuance of a Request for Proposal for developers, therefore, any development of BART land within the planning period of 2023-2031 requires sufficient dedicated BART and C ounty staff time to advance a TOD project within a reasonable timeframe.
b. Prohousing Designation: BART will prioritize projects in jurisdictions that are pursuing a Prohousing Designation by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Prohousing Designation is emblematic of local support for housing and provides jurisdictions with an advantage such as priority processing or funding points for certain funding programs. This is a designation that has emerged from HCD since BART originally completed its work plan.
c. Environmental Studies: Locally supportive zoning is a minimum standard for gauging local support. For BART’s purposes, BART will determine that local zoning is supportive of TOD if the density allowed is 75 units per acre or greater, and such a density is assumed in environmental documents.

2. Infrastructure Needs:
a. Station Access and Parking Strategies: BART has evaluated its development priorities based on the anticipated cost of new infrastructure, including parking replacement. As such, until BART is able to secure external sources of funding to support construction of necessary infrastructure, BART ca nnot pursue development. In areas requiring substantial amounts of parking (e.g. auto dependent and auto reliant stations, partner jurisdictions will need to support BART in securing funding for parking replacement or other station access improvements.

Further, to address potential community opposition to replacing surface parking with housing, the City of Concord should plan for and implement a locally led parking resource assessment and management plan for at least ¼-mile radius around the station area. I t should identify parking opportunities for BART riders that would minimize the number of spaces to be included the TOD project and address spillover parking concerns by neighbors. BART staff will work with the jurisdiction to provide support and guidance as needed but implementation of a parking management plan will be a local requirement.

3. BART Policies and Standards: Any development on BART’s land is subject to BART’s review procedures and approval s and shall follow relevant guidelines, policies, and regulations. The jurisdiction should commit to support and meet BART ’s policies and standards. Most of these policies and are summarized on our TOD Guidelines and Procedures webpage.

We look forward to building our partnerships with the City of Concord to realize our shared goal of increasing the amount of housing near transit. Please contact us to further our conversation on advancing TOD projects on BART’s land.

Sincerely,

________________________________________
Tim Chan
Group Manager – Stations Planning

1 Sage, Aaron
From: Alex Werth <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2022 4:21 PM
To: Sage, Aaron; Gentry, Mindy; Asha Bleier; [email protected]; Aliano, Dominic; Hoffmeister, Laura; McGallian, Tim; Obringer, Carlyn; Birsan, Edi; Planning Commission Public Comments; City of Concord
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Failure to Incorporate Public Comment into the Revised Draft Housing Element “EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Dear Concord Housing Element Planning Team, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,

On behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition, I'm writing to submit the attached letter (with separate attachment), which details our deep concerns about the planning team's failure to meaningfully incorporate the outpouring of public comment on the need for more effective tenant protections -- in particular, rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections -- in Concord's 6th Cycle Housing Element. We will be submitting another letter in the coming weeks that responds to what we collectively see as the inadequacies of the planning team's responses to the recommendations submitted by 37 community-based and community-serving organizations on June 27th, 2022. However, we felt an immediate need to point out that, while the overwhelming majority of written comments received called for stronger tenant protections (83%), these requests were summarily ignored due to the political opposition of three out of five City Councilmembers -- a reason that runs counter to State requirements for public participation and affirmatively furthering fair housing.

We look forward to continuing to engage in this process to ensure that Concord's Housing Element takes meaningful steps to address increasing displacement and homelessness among low-income renters and members of protected classes.

With appreciation,
Alex

--
Alex Werth | Policy Manager
East Bay Housing Organizations
413-222-8880 (cell) | [email protected]
538 9th St. Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
Pronouns: He/Him/His

Browse EBHO's educational resources in The Study Room. Now updated and expanded for 2022! Attachment A - Ellis Lake Park Petitions.pdf
The linked image cannot
be displayed. The f ile m ay have been m ov ed, renam ed, or deleted. Verify that the link poin ts to the correct file and location.

Raise the Roof Response to Concord Revised Hous...

The linked image cannot be displayed. The f ile m ay have been m ov ed, renam ed, or deleted. Verify that the link poin ts to the correct file and location.

August 12, 2022

To: Aaron Sage, Principal Planner
Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Asha Bleier, Consultant Project Manager, Dudek
Elizabeth Dickson, Planner, Dudek

Dominic Aliano, Mayor
Laura Hoffmeister, Vice Mayor
Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember
Tim McGallian, Councilmember
Edi Birsan, Councilmember

Jason Laub, Planning Commissioner
Mark Weinmann, Planning Commissioner
Raymond Barbour, Planning Commissioner
John Mercurio, Planning Commissioner
Craig Mizutani, Planning Commissioner

Cc: David Zisser, Assistant Deputy Director, HCD
Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD

RE: Failure to Incorporate Community Input on the City of Concord’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element

Dear Planning Staff, Consultants, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,

We, the members of the Raise the Roof Coalition, who serve and work alongside the most vulnerable residents of Concord, write to follow up on the comment letter that we submitted on June 27th, 2022 regarding Concord’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. In that letter, we–along with 28 other community-based and -serving organizations–called upon the City of Concord to revise the Draft Housing Element to include effective tenant

protections, increase funding for affordable housing and community land trusts, and affirmatively further fair housing by promoting desegregation of exclusionary areas.

We appreciate the planning team’s transparency regarding the comments received and relative thoroughness of its responses as well as the opportunity to review and respond to the Revised Draft. However, we remain deeply concerned that our recommendations were not meaningfully incorporated into the revisions and that the reasons given do not make sense from an empirical or policy perspective. As such, we intend to write a more detailed comment regarding the responses provided to the previous letter we submitted to share our deepening concerns with City and State stakeholders.

In the meantime, we feel an urgent need to comment on the planning team’s general refusal and failure to meaningfully incorporate the public input received from impacted community members and organizations that serve them, specifically regarding the need for stronger tenant protections. Rather than reiterate our arguments about why stronger tenant protections are needed from an empirical and policy perspective, we write to express our concerns about the process itself, including possible violations of State Housing Element law and guidance.

Under State law, Concord is required to make “a diligent effort...to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.”
1 According to HCD, a “diligent effort” means “going beyond simply giving the public an opportunity to provide input”; rather, community engagement must be “proactively and broadly conducted through a variety of methods to assure access and participation.”
2 Over the last year, Concord has sought–with some missteps and corrections–to realize this mandate. But it is not enough to merely record the input of low-income residents and members of protected classes if those ideas are then wholly disregarded. Indeed, the checklist that HCD will use to determine whether the City’s Housing Element complies with AB 686 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) states that Concord must “describe and incorporate meaningful engagement that represents all segments of the community into the development of the housing element, including goals and actions.”
3 By this measure, we maintain that the planning team has failed to meaningfully “incorporate” the feedback received from impacted residents.

Specifically, the planning team has not responded to and incorporated comments about the need for stronger tenant protections in a way that is commensurate with the scale of

1 Gov. Code 65583(c)(9).
2 HCD. April 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, p. 21.
3 HCD, April 2021, p. 62.

the comments received. As mentioned in our previous letter, of the approximately 800 residents who responded to the City’s Housing Element survey, large numbers named unaffordable housing costs (54%), sudden rent increases (52%), sudden lease termination (39%), lack of maintenance (37%), and eviction (35%) as the main causes of displacement in Concord.
4 Therefore, it follows that rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections were the main solutions identified by impacted community members and the organizations that serve them at almost every Town Hall, City Council meeting, and Housing and Economic Development (HED) Committee study session held as part of the Housing Element Update.
5 However, this is not a new conversation in Concord. Appendix G (Community Input and Council Actions on Tenant Protections and Displacement Since 2016) documents a torrent of public testimony on the impacts of the housing affordability and displacement crises on local renters as well as the need for rent stabilization and eviction protections.

Over the last six years, Concord has held 13 City Council meetings, 10 meetings of an Ad Hoc Committee on Rental Housing, and numerous HED meetings at which tenant protections have been discussed.
6 At these meetings, there have been speakers both
for and against rent stabilization and eviction protections. But according to Appendix G, the overwhelming majority have spoken to the severe burdens of trying to rent a home in Concord, and thus their support for these policies; out of 243 individual commenters and 438 comments, Appendix G shows that 63% of commenters and 64% of comments were in favor of tenant protections–in both cases, twice as many as those opposed.7

Public comment is only one of many ways that residents have voiced their opinions on these matters. According to Appendix G, in 2016, Father Ismael Guttierez of St. Francis of Assisi Church presented a letter signed by 2,500 members of the Catholic faith urging the City Council to pass policies to put an end to unjust evictions. 8 This outpouring of
community support was mirrored in 2021, when approximately 500 residents signed a petition calling for the creation of an anti-displacement task force to develop strategies, like rent stabilization and just cause, designed to combat gentrification in the vicinity of Ellis Lake Park (see attached). This request was denied; rather than create a task force, the City stated that the Housing Element Update was the proper time to consider anti-

4 City of Concord. May 2022. Draft Housing Element (2023-2031), p. F70. 5 City of Concord, May 2022, pp. F7, F8, F23, F24, F26. 6 City of Concord, May 2022, p. 396.
7 The complete data is as follows: 152 out of 243 commenters (63%) and 281 out of 438 comments (64%) were in favor of tenant protections; 77 out of 243 commenters (32%) and 140 out of 438 comments (32%) were opposed; and 14 out of 243 commenters (1%) and 17 out of 438 comments (0%) were neither clearly for or against.
8 City of Concord, May 2022, p. 401.

displacement measures.9 So members of protected classes and their representatives have overcome the barriers to participation, once again, to reiterate their concerns as part of yet another public planning process; including the letter from 37 organizations, which we submitted, 54 out of 65 of the individuals or organizations who submitted comments on the Original Draft (83%) expressed the need for more robust tenant protections, including rent stabilization and just cause eviction policies.

These forms of community input all contribute to the “local knowledge” that Concord is required to consider in the development of fair housing policies. 10 So it is dispiriting to
see the planning team, at the behest of the City Council and City Manager, consciously and continuously ignore the solutions proposed by a large segment of the community in favor of policies that have no basis whatsoever in the public engagement process.

As a case in point, at a City Council hearing on June 21st, 2022, two individuals raised concerns about the location of short-term rentals (STRs) in their neighborhoods. Based on those two comments alone, the City Council directed the planning team to include a Program to regulate STRs as a means to address “displacement.” Since then, Program 24 was added to the Revised Draft because, according to the planners, “[t]he Concord community has expressed concern over displacement of tenants through conversion of conventional rental dwelling units to short-term rentals.”11 But this is plainly incorrect.

There is no mention of STRs anywhere in the Original Draft, including Appendix F (Community Engagement Summary) and Appendix H (Public Comments); there is no data that demonstrates the link between STRs and Concord’s displacement crisis in Appendix D (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing); and none of the written comments submitted in response to the Original Draft raise concerns about STRs in general or as a cause of displacement in particular.

By contrast, there is extensive data and community input that indicates the importance of rent stabilization and eviction protections as anti-displacement measures; indeed, at that same meeting on June 21st, 14 individuals spoke to the need for stronger tenant protections. But those policies were excluded from the Revised Draft because three out of the five City Councilmembers voted against them.12 By contrast, Program 24 (STRs) was immediately included because all five Councilmembers stated an interest in doing so, with Councilmember McGallian saying on the record that his personal “goal” was to “eliminate [STRs].”13

9 City of Concord, May 2022, p. 399.
10 HCD, April 2021, p. 24.
11 City of Concord. August 2022. Revised Draft Housing Element (2023-2031), p. 39. 12 See “Master Response #4.” City of Concord, August 2022, pp. H2-H3. 13 See video recording of Concord City Council Special Meeting, June 21, 2022, 2:27:37.

The Housing Element is meant to be driven by the data on community needs and community input, not the personal and political preferences of five legislators. So we strongly request that you reconsider the public input received and revise Program 20 to include concrete and proactive steps to consider rent stabilization and just cause for eviction policies by 2024.

Sincerely,

The Members of the Raise the Roof Coalition

The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Contra Costa Central Labor Council
Central County Regional Group (CCRG) of First 5 Contra Costa East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County The Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy (FAME)
Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay
Monument Impact
Tenants Together
Todos Santos Tenants Union

Ellis Lake Park Petitions

https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/9027/Alex-Werth- Attachment-A---Ellis-Lake-Park-Petitions

1

October 10th, 2022
To: Aaron Sage, Principal Planner
Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Asha Bleier, Consultant Project Manager, Dudek
Elizabeth Dickson, Planner, Dudek
Dominic Aliano, Mayor Jason Laub, Planning Commissioner Laura Hoffmeister, Vice Mayor Mark Weinmann, Planning Commissioner Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember Raymond Barbour, Planning Commissioner Tim McGallian, Councilmember John Mercurio, Planning Commissioner Edi Birsan, Councilmember Craig Mizutani, Planning Commissioner Cc: David Zisser, Assistant Deputy Director, HCD
Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
2

RE: Concerns with City of Concord’s Response to Comments on Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Planning Staff, Consultants, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, On June 27th, 2022, we submitted a comment letter on the City of Concord’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (“Original Draft”) in which we called upon the City to commit to policies that will affirmatively further fair housing in a manner commensurate to the severe inequalities identified in the plan. Specifically, we recommended that the City revise the Original Draft to include effective tenant protections, promote desegregation by upzoning exclusionary areas, and increase local funding for affordable housing and community land trusts. This letter was signed by 37 (now 38) organizations that serve and work alongside those residents who are most impacted by the city’s housing and homelessness crises, including low-income renters, immigrants, and people of color.

As noted in the follow-up letter submitted by the Raise the Roof Coalition on August 12th, 2022, we were deeply disappointed to see that the City failed to address these concerns in its Revised Draft, thus disregarding the preponderance of empirical data and community input that pointed to the need for more meaningful action to stem the tide of displacement harming members of protected classes in Concord. Moreover, we found the City’s stated reasons for refusing to incorporate public comment on the need for stronger anti-displacement and fair housing measures to be insufficiently responsive to our comments and/or logically unsound.

Therefore, in this letter, we’ve provided a point-by-point reply to the responses included in Appendix H of the Revised Draft (pp. 30-44), which are colored purple. Our remarks are organized according to the three recommendations made in our original letter.

1. Include Clear Commitments for the City Council to Consider Local Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Protections by 2024 “See Master Response #4.”
The City responded to the clear and overwhelming call for rent stabilization and local just cause eviction protections to be included in the plan by stating that the City Council feels that existing policies and programs “may be sufficient to address community needs and should be allowed to operate and have their effectiveness measured before further actions are taken.”1 Those policies and programs include the Tenant Anti-Harassment 1 City of Concord. August 2022. Revised Draft Housing Element (2023-2031), pp. H2-H3. 3Page 147 of 256
Ordinance, Multifamily Rental Housing Inspection Program, Rent Registry, and Rental Tenant Protection Program, which provides for written leases, minimum lease terms, and relocation assistance when the tenant is subject to a no-cause eviction.2 These measures are an important part of maintaining safe, healthy, and stable homes for Concord residents. But they have little to do with the data and public input documented in the plan.

The Original Draft clearly and correctly states that “displacement due to economic pressures” is the primary contributing factor to fair housing problems in Concord.3 As median rents have increased by over 44% since 2010,4 outpacing the growth of renter incomes, a majority of tenants have become forced to pay too much in housing costs.5 This means that renters–who are disproportionately low-income, Black, and Latinx6–are structurally vulnerable to eviction and displacement, as landlords seek to replace lower- income tenants, who are now more likely to fall behind on rent, with higher-income ones who can afford the higher rents. In simple terms, rents have risen to unaffordable levels, causing displacement in ways that exacerbate racial, economic, and gender inequities and homelessness in Concord.7 (According to Contra Costa County’s most recent Point in Time Count, 23% of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness named eviction or foreclosure as the main reason they became unhoused.8 At 35%, Contra Costa saw the largest increase in homelessness of any county in the Bay Area.9) This much is clear. What isn’t clear is how the policies and programs identified by the City will meaningfully redress these harms. How, for example, will a rent registry, one- year lease term, or housing inspection address the core issue–the structural mismatch between market rents and the incomes of members of protected classes?10 The City continues to assert that they will. But this is based on speculation, rather than data. 10 The one possible exception is the anti-harassment ordinance. However, anti-harassment measures aren’t fully effective unless they’re paired with rent stabilization and eviction protections. On their own, anti-harassment protections aren’t enough to protect renters from displacement, as landlords who might have resorted to harassment to replace their tenants can use unaffordable rent increases and pretextual evictions as alternative means to remove renters from their homes. 9 Lauren Hepler, Sarah Ravani, and Yoohyun Jung. May 16, 2022. “Homelessness Surged 35% in One Bay Area County. Here’s What New Data for Each Region Reveals.” San Francisco Chronicle. 8 Contra Costa County Department of Health Services. 2022. Homeless Point-in-Time Count & Survey Executive Summary, p. 2.
7 While it isn’t discussed extensively in the either Original or Revised Draft, the gender inequities of the housing crisis are thoroughly documented in a recent report from the Gender Equity Policy Institute, which was written at the behest of the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development. Gender Equity Policy Institute. August 2022. Gender & Housing in California: An Analysis of the Gender Impacts of California’s Housing Affordability Crisis.
6 City of Concord, May 2022, p. D63.
5 City of Concord, May 2022, p. D67.
4 City of Concord, May 2022, p. B16.
3 City of Concord. May 2022. Draft Housing Element (2023-2031), p. D81. 2 City of Concord. 2020. Residential Tenant Protection Program Fact Sheet. 4Page 148 of 256
Allowing yet more time to pass while low-income families and residents of color are forced out of their homes and, in some cases, into the streets so as to evaluate the effectiveness of the City’s existing policies would be to willfully and knowingly allow these harms to continue unabated.

Whether in one year or ten years, these measures are unlikely to address the displacement crisis because they aren’t specifically designed to do so. Rather than require vulnerable residents to wait for the efficacy of these measures to be studied, the City should present concrete research and data demonstrating that the policies and programs preferred by the sitting City Councilmembers are likely to stop displacement due to economic pressures in the first place. If no such data exist, then the City should commit to evidence-based policies proven to prevent displacement, such as rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections. “Program 20 explicitly addresses residential tenant protections.” In our original letter, we stated that the data provided in Appendix D (Assessment of Fair Housing) clearly demonstrate that the policies included under Program 20 (Residential Tenant Protections) have failed to meaningfully mitigate displacement during the 5th Cycle. Indeed, the harmful and disparate impacts of displacement have only grown worse over the course of the current planning period, when many of these measures were in place. To reassert that Program 20 already provides tenant protections is to ignore the essence of our original comment–namely, that the City’s current tenant protection program is evidently incapable of addressing the full scope of the problem.
“Several program objectives have been revised to strengthen anti-displacement strategies, including Programs 10 and 24.”
The City added reference to a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA)/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) under Program 10 (Homeownership Assistance).

We applaud and appreciate this addition, as TOPA/COPA can serve as a valuable tool to stabilize low-income communities by converting rental properties from speculative commodities into permanently affordable homes and, in some cases, asset-building opportunities for residents of color who’ve been systematically denied homeownership opportunities.
5Page 149 of 256
As drafted, however, Program 10 remains inadequate to address our original concerns.

First, Program 10 only commits to study “best practices” in TOPA/COPA policies by the end of December 2026.11 This objective is neither concrete nor timely enough to prevent the displacement of members of protected classes. Moreover, it doesn’t meet the basic statutory requirements for Housing Element programs, which must ensure “beneficial impacts…within the planning period.”12 Second, by filing this item under Program 10, the City indicates that it intends to pursue TOPA/COPA as a homeownership, rather than an anti-displacement, strategy. These two are not identical; as we remarked in our original letter, it’s clear from the City’s own data that, while important, homeownership programs are incapable of addressing Concord’s displacement crisis at the scale documented in Appendix D.13 This category error could be remedied, in part, if the City were to follow our previous recommendation to create a stand-alone Program “dedicated to proven, effective, and immediate anti-displacement strategies.” In addition, the City added Program 24 (Short Term Rentals) to the Revised Draft. Short term rentals (STRs) can contribute to the displacement of low-income renters if property owners, compelled by the promise of higher profits, convert large numbers of affordable rental housing units into STRs. As described in detail in our August 12th letter, however, this item was clearly added to the Revised Draft to satisfy the political preferences of the Concord City Councilmembers, rather than empirical data or community input. There’s no mention of STRs at any point in the Original Draft, including Appendix F (Community Engagement Summary); there’s no data that demonstrates a connection between STRs and Concord’s displacement crisis in Appendix D; and none of the written comments on the Original Draft raise concerns about STRs in general or as a cause of displacement in particular. (Out of hundreds of verbal comments throughout the public engagement process, only two mentioned STRs.) This stands in stark contrast to the overwhelming support, including from 54 out of 65 (83%) of the individuals or organizations who wrote comments on the Original Draft, for data-driven anti-displacement measures, like rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections. To be clear, while we agree that large- scale conversion of rental housing to STRs can contribute to displacement, we find the statement that “[t]he Concord community has expressed concern over displacement of tenants through conversion of conventional rental dwelling units to short-term rentals”14 to be disingenuous and deceiving.

Further, Program 24 is written in such a way as to limit any potential positive impact on members of protected classes. First, like Program 10, it merely commits to study “best practices” in STR regulations by the end of 2026. Second, it states that, if STR policies 14 City of Concord, August 2022, p. 39.
13 City of Concord, May 2022, pp. A5-A8.
12 Gov. Code § 65583(c).
11 City of Concord, August 2022, p. 24.
6Page 150 of 256
are adopted, then the City will conduct “intensive, bilingual [Spanish/English] outreach” among tenants in the Monument Corridor and include such information in its materials on tenant protection policies.15 However, this implies that the City sees STR regulations as tenant protections, when, in fact, they simply govern when and how property owners can use their units for short-term tenancies. This is another category error that makes it seem as though the City is committing to stronger anti-displacement measures without actually working toward meaningful tenant protections.

Thus, in contrast to the City’s claims, the revisions made to Programs 10 and 24 are unlikely to address the “displacement due to economic pressures” identified in Appendix D as the primary contributing factor to fair housing problems. “Programs 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 24 all include objectives that directly or indirectly address displacement risk.”
We’ve already outlined our concerns regarding the inadequacy of Programs 10, 20, and 24, and we explain our concerns regarding Programs 9, 17, and 18 in the next section.

This leaves the following programs to be examined in more detail:
○ Program 2 (Addressing Constraints to Development): This program is meant to make it easier to develop new housing, including for people with extremely low incomes and/or disabilities. But it merely lists policies that will speed up housing development in general, not affordable or special needs housing in particular. In the absence of targeted strategies to incentivize subsidized versus market-rate housing and protect tenants from the effects of gentrification, encouraging new development is likely to increase displacement, rather than reduce it. ○ Program 6 (By-Right Development): The same applies to this program, given that a developer would only need to provide 20% affordable units–a low threshold–to receive streamlined approvals.
○ Program 12 (Inclusionary Housing): While we support efforts to implement and strengthen the City’s inclusionary housing policy, we’re concerned that allowing moderate-income units to meet inclusionary requirements will cause developers to prioritize building units for these households. This would increase gentrification pressures (for a family of four, moderate-income households can make anywhere between $110,000 and $171,000 per year16) while reducing the production of 16 City of Concord. 2022. Maximum Income Limits.
15 Ibid.
7Page 151 of 256
new affordable units for people with the lowest incomes, who, as demonstrated in Appendix D, are most rent burdened and thus most vulnerable to displacement. ○ Program 19 (Replacement Requirements): This program is meant to ensure that demolition resulting from new development doesn’t lead to a loss in the number or affordability of rental housing units, or displacement of low-income tenants, in conformance with SB 330 (2019). While theoretically important, it’s clear from the City’s Annual Progress Reports that Concord hasn’t been the site of considerable new development; as of 2021, it had only permitted enough units to meet 16.4% of its 5th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).17 It thus follows that the City didn’t document evidence of demolition as a cause of displacement in its Original Draft, as compared to displacement due to economic pressures. Further, as contemplated, Program 19 merely commits the City to provide education and enforcement around existing State law. However, SB 330 doesn’t go far enough to prevent loss of affordable housing capacity and ensure the displaced tenants have a meaningful right of return. The City should thus commit to develop more robust demolition protections. It has clear legal authority to pass regulations on the demolition of residential dwellings that are “more protective of lower income households, [require] the provision of greater number of units affordable to lower income households, or that [require] greater relocation assistance to displaced households.”18
In sum, in contrast to the City’s claims, Programs 2, 6, and 12 could actually increase displacement by accelerating market-rate and/or moderate-income development while undermining the provision of affordable housing for those most at risk of displacement. Meanwhile, Program 19 merely commits to the minimum requirements under State law to discourage demolition-induced displacement, a relatively rare occurrence.
“Programs 9, 10, 17 and 18 are intended to supplement other tenant protections and anti-displacement strategies, rather than serving as the City’s primary anti-displacement strategy.”
The City provided this statement in response to our concern that Appendix D identified programs, e.g. Middle Density and Homeownership Assistance, as anti-displacement strategies despite the lack of any data linking them to Concord’s displacement crisis in the Assessment of Fair Housing. If the City doesn’t see these programs as its “primary” 18 Gov. Code § 66300(d)(3).
17 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2022. Housing Element Implementation and APR Data Dashboard, Slide 10.
8Page 152 of 256
anti-displacement measures, then we ask that it stop categorizing them as such, since doing so seems calculated to make it appear as though the City is committed to a large number of anti-displacement policies when it has intentionally avoided tenant protection policies with the most direct evidentiary basis in the Assessment of Fair Housing. This further begs the question: What is the City’s “primary anti-displacement strategy”? In our original letter, we requested that the City create a program dedicated to data-driven and immediate anti-displacement measures, rather than cobbling together many programs that are only tangentially related to the main problem identified in Appendix D–namely, “displacement due to economic pressures.” The City didn’t address that request in the Revised Draft, so we reiterate it now.

2. Promote Integrated and Balanced Living Patterns by Rezoning Exclusionary Areas
“See Master Response #5...Several commenters have expressed concern regarding language in Appendix D…which indicated that ‘identification of moderate- and above moderate-income sites in [the central/western] area…will reverse the patterns of segregation…by promoting the area as a mixed-income neighborhood.’ However…the sites inventory has little if any effect on actual project income levels.” To start, we find the City’s claim in Master Response #5 that the Sites Inventory “should not be understood as ‘encouraging’ any particular project type” to contradict the premise and purpose of Housing Element law in general, and the Sites Inventory in particular. To the contrary, we believe that the City should work proactively to make sure that the sites identified for a particular income level are developed as such within the planning period to meet the city’s growing housing needs and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH).

While it may technically be true that including a parcel in the Sites Inventory doesn’t guarantee that it’ll be developed for a particular income level, in Concord, it’s empirically true that the preponderance of high-density sites identified for new multi-family housing have been pursued for market-rate development that serves higher-income households.

The tables in Appendix 1 to this letter show which of the recently permitted development projects, as outlined in Table 2 of Appendix E (Sites Analysis), are located on land that was included in the Sites Inventory of Concord’s 5th Cycle Housing Element. It reveals that, of the market-rate units in the development pipeline, nearly 70% were included in the previous Sites Inventory. It also reveals that, of the high-density sites included in the previous Sites Inventory, five out of seven (amounting to 82% of the units permitted on these sites) have since been permitted for market-rate housing–almost all of them in areas that are sensitive to gentrification and displacement. Indeed, across all recently 9Page 153 of 256
permitted developments, the vast majority of market-rate units (90%) were permitted in sensitive communities.

This implies that inclusion in the Sites Inventory is strongly correlated with development activity, and that high-density zoning–which in Concord is over-concentrated in sensitive communities and under-concentrated in exclusionary zones–is also strongly correlated with market-rate development that’s likely to increase gentrification pressure. Thus, the City’s comments on this issue disregard empirical data on development patterns, including the ways that uneven zoning patterns across lower- and higher-income neighborhoods, and a lack of affordable housing resources, tend to steer market- rate development into communities where it increases displacement pressures, rather than equitable development outcomes.
“This section of Appendix D has been revised as follows: ‘The Sites Analysis’ identification of sites in this central/western area does not exacerbate patterns of segregation, because: (1) the Sites Analysis is merely an indicator of capacity for new development but does not itself influence or determine what income levels the market will ultimately provide; (2) the programs of the Housing Element will help to reverse and improve patterns of segregation throughout the community…by strengthening tenant protections, incentivizing the production and preservation of deed-restricted affordable units, targeting investments grants funds and outreach to the R/ECAP, and leveraging and advocating for more affordable housing funds…; and (3) the Housing Element Update will increase opportunities for medium and high residential densities in areas with access to resources, outside of lower-resource areas, through the rezoning program in Objective 8.6.’”
The City responded to our comment by striking the most concerning language from p.

D36–that is, the claim that encouraging housing for Whiter and wealthier residents in the Monument Corridor was a means of “integrating the community”19–but it didn’t do anything to address this issue in the Sites Inventory. While the language and logic presented in the Original Draft is telling, the actual inclusion of moderate- and above- moderate income sites in the city’s lowest-income neighborhood is the actual concern.

Simply revising the language without modifying the underlying policy amounts to disregarding the issue.

Still, we’ll respond to each of the three comments in the amended language in turn. 19 City of Concord, May 2022, p. D36.
10Page 154 of 256
“(1) The Sites Analysis is merely an indicator of capacity for new development but does not itself influence or determine what income levels the market will ultimately provide.”
We’ve already questioned the accuracy of the idea that the Sites Analysis “does not itself influence or determine what income levels the market will ultimately provide.” But setting that aside, this statement makes it sound as if the City has only identified land in the Monument Corridor for higher-income housing to show that there’s capacity to meet the RHNA for all income levels under existing zoning. As we argued in our original letter, this approach reinforces the status quo of existing land use patterns, which, as shown in Appendix D, have created racial and economic segregation in Concord. Indeed, the disproportionate focus on zoning capacity–to the exclusion of other considerations, like equity–ignores a critical point: not all new residential development is good development.

While, in some communities, new development leads to equitable opportunity, in others, it leads to displacement. In contradiction to its expressed concern about displacement, Concord continues to double down on the latter when it should prioritize the former. By scrounging up capacity for new development, including moderate- and above-moderate- income units, in the Monument Corridor, the City is in effect deferring the more urgent work of increasing capacity in exclusionary communities, where new units would affirmatively further fair housing.
(2) “The programs of the Housing Element will help to reverse and improve patterns of segregation throughout the community…by strengthening tenant protections, incentivizing the production and preservation of deed-restricted affordable units, targeting investments grants funds and outreach to the R/ECAP, and leveraging and advocating for more affordable housing funds.” While important, the activities listed here–for example, strengthening tenant protections or preserving and producing affordable housing under the current zoning–won’t actually do anything to reduce segregation, which is a key part of the AFFH requirement. The most direct and equitable way to reverse harmful patterns of segregation is to promote more multi-family and deed-restricted affordable development in racially concentrated areas of affluence, which, in Concord, requires intentional and immediate upzoning of the most segregated tracts in the city.
(3) “The Housing Element Update will increase opportunities for medium and high residential densities in areas with access to resources, outside of lower-resource areas, through the rezoning program in Objective 8.6.” 11Page 155 of 256
We provide our comments on the need for more targeted and measurable elements of Objective 8.6 further below.
“See Master Response #6...While the City has sufficient and adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels, the City has committed to a series of programs to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing through increased housing opportunities across the city.”
We take this as a tacit recognition that neither the existing zoning nor Sites Inventory is capable of meeting the AFFH mandate to “[replace] segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.”20 This simply reinforces our concerns and adds urgency to this letter and related comments.
“See Master Response #8…Timing associated with program objectives represents the point at which the program is expected to be fully implemented. Timeframes consider the full length of time needed between the initial and final stages of program implementation, which includes any associated California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, as well as the availability of staff and other needed resources for program implementation. The planning period for the Housing Element is 2023-2031 and all programs are scheduled to be implemented within the first half of the planning cycle, no later than 2026.”
We appreciate this point as well as the inclusion of a start time in Objective 8.6. At the same time, countless members of protected classes have already been displaced from Concord, and countless more are at risk of displacement in the near future. Thus, even if all of the Housing Element programs are meant to be implemented within the first half of the 6th Cycle, frontloading certain programs within the 2023-2026 time period still amounts to prioritizing some actions over others. This is time that vulnerable residents can’t afford for us to waste. Therefore, we ask the City to prioritize programs that meaningfully address the top contributing factors to fair housing problems, such as policies to stop displacement and reduce segregation, over issues that bear no relationship to the Assessment of Fair Housing.
“Regarding the areas to be considered for rezoning, see revised language in Program 8…[R]ezoning will occur in areas that are not designated as ‘Low Resource’ on the TCAC Opportunity Maps, which encompasses a large portion of the City designated 20 Gov. Code § 8899.50(a).
12Page 156 of 256
either as ‘Moderate Resource’ or ‘High Resource.’ The language regarding ‘amenities and/or public transit’ is found in the introductory text for Program 8 and is not in the actual objective. This language has been revised to clarify that amenities and public transit will be considered during the rezoning, but would not be a quantifiable objective.

Therefore, this rezoning program allows adequate flexibility to increase housing opportunities in middle- and upper-income areas outside of existing lower-income areas with amenities and transit.”
We appreciate that the City has tried to clarify the language of Objective 8.6, especially by noting that amenities and transit are relevant but not sufficient criteria to affirmatively further fair housing. Still, we think more can and should be done to ensure that rezoning efforts meaningfully mitigate the harms of racial and economic segregation in Concord.

First and foremost, the City should commit to a race-conscious approach when making decisions about where to upzone land and promote affordable housing development.

AFFH is meant, in part, to remedy the intergenerational harms that have been created and perpetuated through intentional racial segregation. Race-conscious harms require race-conscious solutions. However, the City continues to organize its approach around the race-blind “resource” designation used by the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), while more appropriate race-conscious data sources exist. For example, the Bay Area Equity Atlas has recently published an analysis of regional segregation that uses a metric called the “index of concentration at the extremes” (CE) to identify where racial segregation intersects with economic inequality.21 The CE, in other words, can be used to identify and target exclusionary areas of White wealth and economic advantage for zoning reform, thus advancing AFFH goals.

The Equity Atlas has provided data on race/class segregation in Concord according to two measures: (1) the segregation of White homeowners from renters of color and (2) the segregation of high-income White households (those earning more than $150,000 per year) from low-income households of color (those earning less than $40,000 per year). These data, which are provided at the Census Tract level, are based on the American Communities Survey 5-Year Estimates from 2020.22 Our side-by-side analysis of the TCAC and Equity Atlas scores for the top ten most segregated Census Tracts in Concord (see Appendix 2) shows that TCAC is a poor proxy for racial and economic segregation, and thus shouldn’t be used as the primary basis for rezoning efforts when desegregation is the aim. For example, 22 Bay Area Equity Atlas. 2022. “Mapping Racial and Economic Segregation in Concord.” 21 Bay Area Equity Atlas. July 27, 2022. “One in 10 Bay Area Neighborhoods Are Segregated Areas of White Wealth.”
13Page 157 of 256
TCAC actually designates two out of the ten Tracts with the highest aggregated CE scores as areas of “High Segregation and Poverty,” but this overlooks considerable inequalities. Census Tract 3300 in North Concord, for instance, is designated “High Segregation and Poverty” even though, according to the Equity Atlas, it’s home to over 400 high-income White households and zero low-income Black and Latinx households.

Meanwhile, several Census Tracts that are designated “Moderate Resource” by TCAC actually demonstrate severe patterns of racial and economic segregation. Census Tract 3381.02 in Southwest Concord, for example, is home to 768 White owner households but no Black or Asian American/Pacific Islander renter households, and only 41 Latinx ones.

In sum, relying upon TCAC’s “resource” designation system to determine where to increase residential densities and affordable housing development will in no way guarantee that the most racially and economically segregated areas of the city will be prioritized for efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. Again, the AFFH mandate calls upon localities to “[replace] segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.” In Concord, it’s evident that these patterns are deeply racialized. The City should thus commit to using data that considers both racial segregation and economic inequality, like those provided by the Equity Atlas, to direct its rezoning program. In addition, it should include a clear commitment to consult with members of the communities most harmed by segregation and the organizations that serve them at every stage of the rezoning process; specify a minimum amount of new multi-family units to be zoned for; and proactively encourage affordable development in exclusionary communities by identifying prime sites, dedicating financial resources, and recruiting non-profit development partners. This more robust and intentional approach is the only way to ensure that the inequities identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing will truly be addressed.

3. Increase Funding for Affordable Housing Development, Acquisition-Rehab, and Community Land Trusts
“Additional objectives related to the pursuit of funding have been added to Program 8, and Program 25 is a newly incorporated program to address funding.” The City added some additional specificity to the affordable housing funding measures included under Program 8 (Fair Housing). Program 8 now calls for learning more about the potential for new regional resources to support affordable housing development and preservation in Concord and, if necessary, “coordinating” with the agencies responsible for the Contra Costa County Measure X Housing Fund (MXHF) and Bay Area Housing 14Page 158 of 256
Finance Authority (BAHFA).23 In addition, the City included Program 25 (Advocacy for State Housing Legislation, Policies and Funding), which commits to lobbying for State policies that might increase affordable housing funding in Concord.

While we appreciate the City’s responsiveness to our letter on this point, we remain concerned that Objectives 8.4 and 8.5 and Program 25 are still too vague to ensure that Concord can generate the increase in local source funding that it needs to meet even a portion of its greatly expanded lower-income RHNA. This approach is consistent with the pattern we described in our original letter, whereby the City relies upon County and State agencies rather than cultivate its own opportunities to generate funding resources.

The City should commit to concrete actions that will increase local funding for affordable housing development, acquisition-rehab, and community land trust purchases. This should include establishing or increasing taxes on higher-cost real-estate transactions, vacant properties, or large landlords, and supporting community benefit negotiations at large developments, such as the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

Conclusion
We, the undersigned organizations, thank you for considering our additional comments and urge you to continue to work with directly impacted residents and the organizations that serve them to ensure that Concord’s 6th Cycle Housing Element meets the City’s equity goals and the State’s AFFH requirements.

Sincerely,

1. East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy

2. Monument Impact

3. Public Advocates

4. Center for Human Development

5. Central County Regional Group

6. Centro Legal de la Raza

7. Choice in Aging

8. CoCoKids

9. Concord Communities Alliance

10.Contra Costa Asian American Pacific Islander Coalition

11. Contra Costa Crisis Center
23 City of Concord, August 2022, p. 20.
15Page 159 of 256

12.Contra Costa Immigrant Rights Alliance

13.Contra Costa Labor Council

14.Contra Costa Senior Legal Services

15.East Bay Community Foundation

16.East Bay Housing Organizations

17.East County Community Leaders Network

18.Ensuring Opportunity Campaign

19.Faith Alliance for a Moral Economy

20.Faith in Action East Bay

21.Greenbelt Alliance

22.Healthy & Active Before 5

23.Hope Solutions

24.Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay

25.Latino Community Foundation

26.Meals on Wheels - Diablo Region

27.NAMI Contra Costa

28.Neto Community Network

29.Portia Bell Hume Center

30.Richmond Community Foundation/RCF Connects

31.Shelter, Inc.

32.SparkPoint Contra Costa

33.STAND! For Families Free of Violence

34.Tenants Together

35.Todos Santos Tenants Union

36.Trinity Center

37.Urban Habitat

38.We Care Services for Children
16Page 160 of 256
17

18

19

October 13, 2022
To: Bay Area Local Planning Directors
RE: Proposed Update Process for Bay Area Housing Elements to Achieve Meaningful Public Participation
Dear Bay Area Planning Directors,
We, the Bay Area Housing Element Working Group, are writing to urge you to prioritize community input to develop strong housing policy in the final stages of the 2023-2031 Housing Element Planning process. The Bay Area Housing Element Working Group is convened by the 6 Wins for Social Equity Network, a regional equity coalition founded in 2010. The Housing Element Working Group consists of housing law and policy experts working together to ensure the region is one where everyone can find a home. We believe that strong housing policy and planning is an essential step towards that vision.

Deep community engagement is at the heart of the Housing Element process in California. True community engagement requires more than just extensive outreach to the community. It must be designed to facilitate the meaningful dialogue and co-planning with your residents necessary to realize the potential of the Bay Area as a vibrant, diverse, and healthy community. After months of work, the Bay Area jurisdictions have largely submitted first drafts of your 2023-2031 Housing Elements to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and have recently received or are awaiting a letter from HCD reviewing your draft and recommending changes. In this next stage it is important not only to respond to HCD’s comments, but to do so in a way that meaningfully involves the community in that response.

This requires that you give community members an adequate opportunity to read, analyze, and comment on the updates, and then transparently incorporate that feedback into your final Housing Element before submitting a final version to HCD.

State law requires local governments to make “a diligent effort...to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.” (Gov. Code 65583(c)(9) (emphasis added)). “A diligent effort means going beyond simply giving the public an opportunity to provide input and should beproactively and broadly conducted through a variety of methods to assure access and participation.” (Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Guidance Memo, April 2021, p. 21).

In order to ensure that your communities continue to have the opportunity to understand and influence your decisions, we recommend you take the following steps:

1. Publish the review letter you receive from HCD on your Housing Element website as soon as you receive it. This will ensure that community members have as much time as possible to understand HCD’s opinions and concerns, so that they can best participate in updating your Housing Element and ensure it prioritizes equity and fairness.

2. Hold one or more community meetings, work sessions, and/or public hearings to take comments on the HCD review findings and how best to address them before the next draft is prepared.Incorporate as much community input as possible, including expertise from local community based organizations, about housing needs and solutions. Consider all proposed analyses and recommendations. A diverse range of methods for soliciting comments from the community will facilitate the input of residents with disabilities and language access needs. This input is necessary to your ability to fully consider the housing needs of disabled residents and English Language Learners in your jurisdiction, as the State Housing Element law requires.

3. Once the revised draft is finalized, post it on your Housing Element website in both a clean version and a version with visible redlines against the initial public review draft.This will allow community members to more easily review the changes you have made, which will in turn: enable the community to help ensure compliance with state law; clarify the reasons behind the jurisdiction’s decisions regarding revisions and community input; and help build trust. Ensuring transparency and accountability in the process will yield the strongest possible final Housing Element.

4. Publish a summary of comments received and a list of changes made to the original draft identifying which comments or policy suggestions were accepted, which were not, and why.This, again, enables the community ease in reviewing and understanding the changes the jurisdiction has made. It is similar to the federal Administrative Procedure Act standards for public input in decision-making processes, and provides a best practice towards developing trust between governments and their constituents. That trust is even more important at the local level.

5. While state law only requires a 7-day comment period, you should provide a 30-day public comment period after releasing revised drafts.Allowing the necessary time for community members to review the Housing Element will improve the quality of the public input received by the city. Cities that use higher-quality public input to inform their Housing Elements will increase the likelihood of certification by HCD, as their Housing Elements will better address the needs of the community. Providing a 30-day public comment period additionally furthers the spirit of the legal requirements under California Housing Element law, and will allow for better policy outcomes.

The Housing Element Working Group remains committed to working in partnership with Bay Area jurisdictions to ensure that, from start to finish, the Housing Element update process is inclusive, laying out a roadmap to effectively and equitably address the affordable housing crisis. All Bay Area residents deserve a safe, accessible, and affordable place to call home, with a range of choices free of barriers to fair housing. The Housing Element update process provides the tools to do just that. We look forward to continuing this work with you.

Regards,
Bay Area Housing Element Working Group

December 16th, 2022
To: Aaron Sage, Principal Planner
Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Asha Bleier, Consultant Project Manager, Dudek
Elizabeth Dickson, Planner, Dudek
Laura Hoffmeister, Mayor Jason Laub, Planning Commissioner Edi Birsan, Vice Mayor Aeysha Corio, Planning Commissioner Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember Raymond Barbour, Planning Commissioner Laura Nakamura, Councilmember John Mercurio, Planning Commissioner Dominic Aliano, Councilmember Craig Mizutani, Planning Commissioner Cc: David Zisser, Assistant Deputy Director, HCD
Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
RE: Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Comments on City of Concord’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element
Dear Planning Staff, Consultants, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, On November 14th, 2022, HCD issued a letter listing the changes the City of Concord must make to its 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element in order to comply with State law. If the City fails to make these changes, then it risks incurring a range of State-mandated penalties, from fines and disqualification from state and federal funding streams to the loss of land use and permitting powers.1 In the following letter, submitted on behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition, we wish to return to the recommendations that we made in the letters dated June 27th, 2022 and October 10th, 2022 to highlight the ways that our proposals address HCD’s comments, thus contributing to a clear path to certification. As a reminder, these recommendations were endorsed by over 37 organizations that serve 1 See Gov. Code § 65755.
1

and work alongside the residents most impacted by Concord’s affordable housing and homelessness crises–people whose input is meant to be centered in the development of the Housing Element–including low-income renters, immigrants, and people of color.2 In order to distinguish HCD’s comments from our own, all quotations and paraphrases from HCD’s letter are marked in red.

1. Include Clear Commitments for the City Council to Consider Local Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Protections by 2024 HCD noted that, in order to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) in accordance with AB 686, the Housing Element must include programs that directly address fair housing problems identified through a complete and thorough Assessment of Fair Housing. It is not enough to claim, without evidence or reason, that a general program is adequate to address the specific and acute fair housing problems impacting the community. Rather, according to HCD, “[g]oals and actions must specifically respond to the…identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends (italics added).”3 In our letter dated October 10th, 2022, we came to an identical conclusion. We agreed with the Assessment of Fair Housing (Appendix D) that “displacement due to economic pressures” is in fact the primary contributing factor to fair housing problems in Concord.4 However, through careful consideration of each of the City’s proposed anti-displacement strategies, we concluded that the draft Programs neither “respond[ed] to…the identified and prioritized contributing factors,” i.e. displacement due to economic pressures, nor were “significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends.” Indeed, in certain cases, we noted that Programs that were identified by the City as anti-displacement measures actually had the potential to make displacement worse.

As a reminder, we raised the following concerns regarding the proposed Programs that the City claimed would either “directly or indirectly address displacement risk.”5 ● Program 2 (Addressing Constraints to Development) , Program 6 (By-Right Development), and Program 12 (Inclusionary Housing) may actually increase displacement by accelerating market-rate and/or moderate-income development 5 City of Concord. August 2022. Revised Draft Housing Element (2023-2031), p. H35. 4 City of Concord. May 2022. Draft Housing Element (2023-2031), p. D81. 3 California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). November 14th, 2022. “Appendix: City of Concord,” p. 11.
2 Per Gov. Code § 65583(c)(9), localities are required to make a “diligent effort…to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element.” 2Page 167 of 256
while undermining the provision of affordable housing for people with the lowest incomes and greatest rent burdens.
● Program 9 (Middle Density), Program 10 (Homeownership Assistance), Program 17 (Preservation and Housing Rehabilitation), andProgram 18 (Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing Units) are–in the City’s words– meant to “supplement other tenant protections and anti-displacement strategies, rather than serving [sic] as the City’s primary anti-displacement strategy.”6 Given their secondary–and, in some cases, tenuous (e.g. Middle Density)–relationship to the forms of displacement identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing, these programs distract from the core need to address “displacement due to economic pressures.”
● Program 10 (TOPA/COPA), while potentially important, is treated as a long-term homeownership strategy, and thus, as written, is unable to quickly and effectively mitigate the displacement of low-income renters at the scale required to ensure the impact is “significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends.”
● Program 19 (Replacement Requirements) merely commits to the minimum requirements under State law to discourage demolition-induced displacement.

Moreover, given the lack of direct redevelopment in Concord, as documented in the City’s Annual Progress Reports (APRs), demolition-induced displacement is far less threatening to the housing security of low-income renters than excessive rent increases and profit-motivated evictions.
● The City’s own data (Appendix D) show that Program 20 (Residential Tenant Protection Program) has proven inadequate to address displacement. Instead, displacement has increased during the 5th Cycle, when most of these programs have been in effect.
● Program 24 (STRs), while potentially important, bears no empirical relationship to the Assessment of Fair Housing or Local Knowledge. Like Program 10, it is designed as a long-term and indirect strategy, rather than one that is likely to have a “beneficial impact” on reducing displacement during the 6th Cycle.7 We concur with HCD that these programs, as a whole, are simply not “significant and meaningful enough” to address displacement due to economic pressures. In order to receive HCD certification, and thus have a legally compliant Housing Element, the City must “add or modify programs.”8 While HCD did not specify any particular additions or modifications, we reiterate that rent stabilization and local eviction protections are 8 HCD, November 14th, 2022, p. 11.
7 Per Gov. Code § 65583(c), programs must be timed to ensure “beneficial impacts…within the planning period.”
6 City of Concord, August 2022, p. H35.
3Page 168 of 256
needed to reduce displacement due to economic pressures, and thus meet the statutory requirements of Housing Element law.

As revealed in our letter dated August 12th, 2022, in painstaking numeric detail, these policies represent the primary recommendation made throughout not only the Housing Element Update, but also a number of policy debates about displacement in Concord that have occurred since 2016. Indeed, 54 out of 65 of the individuals or organizations who submitted comments on the Draft (83%) called for more robust tenant protections, including rent stabilization and just cause eviction policies. Therefore, in line with HCD’s remarks, we wish to remind the City that its Assessment of Fair Housing is required to “utiliz[e] knowledge from local and regional advocates, public comments, and service providers.”9 And given that the Programs must be “[b]ased on the outcomes of that analysis,”10 it follows that the City has, to date, failed to adequately consider and incorporate Local Knowledge into the creation of the Housing Element.11

2. Promote Integrated and Balanced Living Patterns by Rezoning Exclusionary Areas
HCD stated that, while the Sites Inventory must demonstrate that there is adequate capacity to meet Concord’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), it must also demonstrate that these sites are “distributed throughout the community in a manner that AFFH.” In other words, it must show how the location of development sites by proposed income level “improves or exacerbates conditions” of racial and economic segregation.12 This accords exactly with the concerns that we raised in our previous letters. Namely, we argued that by identifying sites in the Monument Corridor for moderate- and above- moderate-income housing, and by treating the purported lack of sites for lower-income housing in exclusionary areas as a problem to be addressed in the future, the Housing Element failed to meet the AFFH mandate to “[replace] segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns.”13 Indeed, the City has studiously avoided identifying even one site for lower-income housing in the southern and eastern parts of Concord. It has thus worked to maintain the immoral and illegal status quo of racial and economic segregation.
13 Gov. Code § 8899.50(a).
12 HCD, November 14th, 2022, p. 2.
11 Per State law, localities are required to consider “local data and knowledge” in their evaluation of fair housing issues. See HCD. April 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements, p. 24. See also Gov. Code § 65583(c)(9-10). 10 HCD, November 14th, 2022, p. 11.
9 HCD, November 14th, 2022, p. 2.
4Page 169 of 256
This, as we argued, stems in part from the City’s failure to consider existing patterns of segregation and targeted strategies for desegregation in terms of race. HCD addressed this exact issue, stating that the Assessment of Fair Housing must analyze regional and local patterns of segregation by race. Likewise, HCD stated that the City mustidentify Concord’s existing Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence.14 In our previous letter, we drew attention to these deficiencies by providing data from the Bay Area Equity Atlas that reveal that there are many neighborhoods in which high-income and/or homeowner White households are segregated from low-income and/or renter households of color. If the City were to compare the Sites Inventory against these maps, it would be clear that the distribution of sites “exacerbates,” rather than “improves,” fair housing problems in Concord.

Therefore, we state again that, in order to comply with State law, the City should (a) immediately identify sites, funding, and non-profit partners to build lower-income housing in exclusionary areas of opportunity, (b) immediately remove moderate- and above-moderate-income sites from areas that are sensitive to gentrification, and (c) commit to consulting race-conscious data and communities with lived experience in making future decisions about where to upzone land to promote affordable and balanced housing development.

3. Increase Funding for Affordable Housing Development, Acquisition-Rehab, and Community Land Trusts
Despite the large size of the City’s lower-income RHNA, the Draft does not take enough proactive measures to expand local source funding for affordable housing development, acquisition-rehab, and community land trusts. While HCD did not comment on the issue of revenue generation directly, it did state that the City must “clarify the percent required for affordable housing for inclusionary requirements” under Program 12 (Inclusionary Housing).15 Given that this represents the only Program that would help the City make up for the current gap in local source funding, we too would like to see the City specify not only (a) the percentage and income levels for the inclusionary ordinance, but also (b) the number of lower-income units that the policy is likely to create during the 6th Cycle, whether through on-site development or in-lieu fees.

At the November 29th, 2022 meeting of the Housing and Economic Development (HED) Committee, staff proposed that the City set its inclusionary requirement at 5 or 6%, the vast majority of which would be moderate-income units.16 This is an unacceptable 16 See staff report for HED Meeting, November 29th, 2022. 15 HCD, November 14th, 2022, p. 10.
14 HCD, November 14th, 2022, p. 1.
5Page 170 of 256
proposal. First, it is less supportive of affordable housing development than the policies of surrounding cities. Second, it will have a minimal impact, at best, on the City’s lower- income RHNA. In the absence of other Programs to increase City funding for affordable housing, it is obvious that such a minimal approach will put the City on a path to, once again, miss the mark of its RHNA requirements, especially for extremely-low-income (ELI) residents. Indeed, HCD noted that the Draft fails to demonstrate how it will fund these much-needed ELI homes.17
Therefore, we repeat that the City should commit to additional actions that will increase local funding for affordable housing development, acquisition-rehab, and community land trust purchases, such as increasing taxes on higher-cost real-estate transactions, vacant properties, and large landlords and supporting community benefit negotiations at large developments like the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

In conclusion, there is substantial alignment between our existing recommendations and HCD’s requirements regarding legal compliance with Housing Element law. As it revises its Housing Element, we urge the City to heed these recommendations and, in so doing, finally put the voices and expertise of impacted community members at the center of its Housing Element Update. There are severe consequences for non-compliance, ranging from fines and disqualification from state and federal funding streams to the loss of land use and permitting powers.18 Now is the time to correct course and produce a Housing Element that will put Concord on a fair, equitable, and inclusive path for the future.

Sincerely,
Alex Werth
Policy and Research Advisor
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE)
On behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition
18 See Gov. Code § 65755.
17 HCD, November 14th, 2022, p. 11.
6Page 171 of 256

December 19, 2022

To: Aaron Sage, Principal Planner
Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Asha Bleier, Consultant Project Manager, Dudek
Elizabeth Dickson, Planner, Dudek

Laura Hoffmeister, Mayor
Edi Birsan, Vice-Mayor
Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember

Jason Laub, Planning Commissioner
Mark Weinmann, Planning Commissioner
Raymond Barbour, Planning Commissioner
John Mercurio, Planning Commissioner
Craig Mizutani, Planning Commissioner

Cc: David Zisser, Assistant Deputy Director, HCD
Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD

RE: Comments on HCD’s Response Letter to Concord’s Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element

Dear Planning Staff, Consultants, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Concord’s Draft Housing Element. East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) works to produce, preserve, and protect affordable housing opportunities for low-income communities across Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Many of our 400+ individual and organizational members live, work, or provide affordable homes in Concord.

Having reviewed the Draft Housing Element and the response letter from HCD, we would like to submit the following comments in support of creating a Housing Element that will adequately address the goals of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), provide affordable housing and tenant protections to Concord residents, and receive the approval of the State.

To start, EBHO recommends increasing the percentage of affordable housing required as part of Program 12 to improve Concord’s Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP) as well as raising in lieu fees to the maximum feasible level. As we stated in our comments during the recent hearing of the Housing and Economic Development (HED) Committee, the 6% inclusionary requirement recommended for rental housing developments is far below the standard used by any other city. This

is especially worrying considering that most of the units created by this requirement would be for moderate income residents as opposed to lower incomes residents—an imbalance that makes Concord an outlier among similar jurisdictions. In their letter, HCD specifically requires the City to include the proposed inclusionary percentage as well as an analysis of the effects of this requirement in the next draft of the Housing Element. We do not believe the current low percentage of units required meets the intent of the State’s requirements, as a thorough analysis would illustrate the extremely low number of deeply affordable units and modest amount of affordable housing funding this program would create. This is supported by our own analysis of the proposed requirement as well as academic studies that show that inclusionary requirements in California do not impede new construction.1

We also find it worrying that City staff and Council members repeatedly stated during the November 29th HED committee meeting that the inclusionary requirements they were considering were “not the means to solve our RHNA.” The inclusion of this program in the Housing Element, as required by HCD both statutorily and in their response letter, belies this claim and calls into question the City’s commitment to fulfilling the promises as part of this process.

Setting productive inclusionary requirements and associated in-lieu fees is necessary to fulfill Concord’s RHNA allocation as it not only creates affordable units directly, but offers the chance to bring in much more affordable housing funding than previously. Despite explicit interest in affordable development among local officials and residents, Concord is currently constrained in its ability to meet the demand for affordable homes by the small size of its Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). As of March 2022, there was only $6 million in the AHTF, which is less than the $7.8 million used to fund the 62-unit Galindo Terrace project–the only development to receive a grant from the AHTF in recent years. It is thus critical that the Inclusionary Housing requirements, and their in lieu fee structure, are revised to create the maximum amount of lower-income homes and fee revenue.

Making program 12 more aggressive is also clearly supported by the Draft Housing Needs Assessment (Appendix B), which finds that low-income households experience cost burden at a much higher rate than those of moderate-income in Concord. 71% of households making less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) experience cost burden, while only 37% of households making between 80 and 100% of AMI do.2 The City, in its recent discussion of their ordinance, turns this metric on its head; justifying their all but nonexistent requirement for deeply affordable units by pointing to the difficulty and cost gap for private developers to provide lower income units as opposed to moderate. This reasoning seems to forget that the goal of an inclusionary requirement should be to reduce the affordability gap for lower income residents, rather than maximize developer profit by minimizing the cost of providing units that fulfill the requirement. Thus, as a measurable goal for Program 12, we strongly urge the city to rebalance the requirement away from moderate income units and towards low and very- low income units.

1 Mukhij, V., Regus, L., Slovin, S., & Das, A, “Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective and Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties” Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 2. April 2010 2 City of Concord. May 2022. Draft Housing Element (2023-2031), p. B17.

Unfortunately, Program 12 is the only significant proposal in the draft Housing Element to increase the scale of affordable housing funding in any form. While the City has amended Program 8 to take account of the fact that Contra Costa County has already approved the creation of the Regional Housing Trust Fund (RHTF), exploring this program’s potential to fund housing is not enough to address the need.

The RHTF will only disperse $12 million per year and covers the entire county as well as all activities related to housing production, preservation, and protection. It will not meaningfully increase Concord’s investment in affordable housing development. The City should amend this item to explicitly commit to development of additional funding sources for affordable housing creation as well as create a realistic timeline for doing so. The lack of such local funding currently makes it nearly impossible for 100% affordable projects to be competitive for state, federal, and regional funding. This should be especially vital considering the comments highlighted earlier regarding Inclusionary requirements: if the city does not expect to meaningfully address its affordable unit allocation via the inclusion of affordable units in market rate projects, it must propose an alternate means of funding 100% affordable projects. No such proposal is currently present in the draft Housing Element, casting doubt on the City’s commitment to meeting their required affordable housing goals.

Next, we want to emphasize HCD’s requirement in several sections of their letter that the City must analyze and propose changes to their incentive structure and approval process for certain types of housing. As mentioned in our previous letter, the City should consider reducing or waiving fees and applying streamlined review processes for affordable developments, as these kinds of administrative hurdles can significantly hamper construction. As pointed out by HCD, the City is required to take some of these actions for developments that provide certain special needs housing, including housing for Extremely Low-Income (ELI) residents. Their response also notes the need for the City to more comprehensively analyze its approval process, design review, and permitting procedures, in order to firmly establish that they are not constraints on housing production. We urge the city to completely analyze these processes and commit to proactive measures as part of Program 11 to alleviate constraints on the development of affordable and special needs housing. These efforts should be a top priority for completion early in the effective term of this housing element.

HCD also points to the statutory requirement that the City develop a comprehensive program to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). As pointed out by our partners in the Raise the Roof (RTR) coalition; the City’s proposed response to the lack of fair housing—most seriously illustrated by ongoing displacement of low income residents—is too broad and does not adequately address the root causes of the problem, as identified in the City’s own Assessment of Fair Housing. HCD’s findings support this conclusion closely, concluding that the current draft does not “specifically respond to the…identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues” or include programs that are “significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends.” We strongly support both RTR and HCD’s conclusion that the city must develop a more robust program to AFFH, complete with specific commitments, milestones, geographic targeting, and numeric objectives.

Specifically, the City should commit to developing local eviction protections and rent stabilization measures, as these policies offer the best chance of fulfilling the State’s requirements by addressing the core issue.

As noted by HCD, the requirements of AFFH extend to the site inventory in this draft, which does not do enough to distribute housing throughout the community in a manner that addresses socioeconomic and racial segregation. This is especially egregious along the Monument Corridor, which bears an oversized portion of market rate housing despite being the most clearly segregated area of the City; an action that will only contribute to gentrification. HCD further requires the next draft include specific commitments to rezoning publicly owned areas to ensure that the sites identified are capable of absorbing the units required by RHNA. We would especially like to repeat our concern, echoed by HCD, that the City has not justified their assumptions around affordable housing creation. Considering the lack of local investment and appropriately zoned high resource areas—both factors vital to the competitiveness of affordable housing projects for other funding, particularly tax credits—it is not realistic to assume that all of the sites identified for 100% affordable development will actually be built. In fact, the City is already reneging on these commitments, as a site identified in the draft for 100% affordable housing, Town Center II, is currently being offered for development with no requirement that it include any affordable units and no resources offered to make an affordable project possible. Considering that the parcel for this project was also recently reassessed to increase its asking price substantially, there is no chance it will be developed with the affordability and density identified in the Site Inventory. We therefore agree with HCD’s assessment that the City’s site inventory needs significant work to become realistic as well as meet Fair Housing and Affordable Housing requirements. We particularly emphasize the requirement to analyze the likelihood that sites will develop with the affordability and densities predicted, considering the lack of the competitive features and local resources that are necessary to develop affordable projects. Failure to provide such analysis runs counter to the requirements to AFFH and represents another sign that the City does not realistically expect to meet its RHNA allocation again.

Finally, we would like to call special attention to the link between this draft and the recently released term sheet proposed by Concord First Partners (CFP). Due to the changes made by CFP to the commitments of the Area Plan for the Reuse Area—namely increasing the number of units from 12,272 to 15,595 while maintaining the same number of affordable units—the information presented in the draft housing element is no longer accurate. This is of particular importance because HCD specifically requires a more complete analysis of units located within the Reuse area as well as a justification for the requirement that 25% of Reuse units be affordable. Any analysis that responds to this requirement must explain why the Reuse project is no longer requiring 25% of the units to be affordable; with the new term sheet only 3,020 out of 15,595 units (or 19%) are planned to be permanent affordable housing. CFP plans to make up the difference with deed-restricted junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) attached to market-rate single family homes that are put up for sale.

We have serious concerns with this strategy for developing affordable housing due to the myriad difficulties attached to monitoring that JADUs are rented in compliance with affordability restriction.

While HCD did not have the chance to review the proposed JADU program, they do note that the Housing Element already relies too heavily on assumptions about ADU production and affordability, and require the City to develop realistic plans to monitor these factors and take necessary action to correct if they are falling below targets. We strongly support HCD’s requirement that the updated Housing Element draft include a thorough analysis of the feasibility of the affordable

percentage required by the Area Plan and specified in the draft Housing Element. We further recommend that this analysis give extra attention to the proposed JADU units and offers a realistic assessment of the City’s ability to monitor their compliance with affordability requirements as part of HCD’s wider requirement that the City develop such a program for non- Reuse Area ADUs.

We look forward to the new draft Housing Element, and encourage the City to reach out to us to discuss the changes that must be made to ensure a compliant and successful plan.

Sincerely,

Aaron Tiedemann
Policy Manager
East Bay Housing Organizations.

1 Sage, Aaron
From: East Bay for Everyone <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Sage, Aaron
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Comment on Housing Element item
“EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.”

Thanks very much for reading our letter and responding to many of our concerns. This draft sounds like it will be significantly improved from the last draft.

One note we had in our letter but did not see in the staff report (apologies if we missed it, we were reading quickly) was that Concord's setback requirements are very high. It would be great to reduce setbacks to make housing more feasible on a lot of these parcels, and also decrease walking times.

We would love the language in the Housing Element to be stronger around rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections.

We appreciate the commitment to rezoning in the southern and eastern parts of the city and would love to see a concrete commitment to include affordable housing in these areas.

We second the requests from Monument Impact to call for a "ballot measure" which would give flexibility about issuing a bond vs. a new tax in order to finance new housing development.

We would also love to see more information about your plans at North Concord to ensure housing is feasible there by 2031, after a developer pulled out.

Kevin

Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
February 9, 2023
Mr. Aaron Sage
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive, MS/53
Concord, CA 94519
[email protected]
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CITY OF CONCORD 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE – DATED JANUARY 2023 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2023010598)
Dear Mr. Sage:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Negative Declaration (ND) for the City of Concord 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the ND:

1. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that project sites are safe for construction and the proposed use.

2. The ND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near project sites to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment

Mr. Aaron Sage
February 9, 2023

should be evaluated. The ND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

3. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance.

This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the ND.

4. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.

5. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

6. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the ND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

Mr. Aaron Sage
February 9, 2023

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ND. Should you choose DTSC to provide oversight for any environmental investigations, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: ( via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

EFFECTIVE 08 JUL 20

AUTHORIZED USES OF PIPELINE

RIGHTS-OF-WAY
SUPERSEDES 25 MAY 17

LEAD DEPARTMENT O&M
PURPOSE – To establish procedures and criteria for review and authorization of overhead, surface, and sub- surface use of District-owned and easement established property containing raw and distribution water aqueducts and pipelines (“pipelines”) for purposes other than installation, maintenance, and operation of District pipelines.

Forms Used L-14 Limited Land Use Permit
K-47 Work Request Agreement
N-15 Certificate of Public Liability Insurance
N-17 Certificate of Workers’ Compensation Insurance
Application for Use of EBMUD Property or Request for Information General Fund Receipts for Miscellaneous Payments
Authority and
Responsibility
Use, development, and control of fee-owned and easement established rights-of-way for District and non-District uses must be consistent with the District’s operations, maintenance, security, and the rights and obligations of the District. District and non- District uses of District-owned pipeline rights-of-way may be permitted, at the District’s sole discretion, only if the uses conform to Policy 7.01, Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance and the requirements of this Procedure.  No use of District pipeline rights of way or property by others will be permitted as a condition to meet city/county zoning requirements or to obtain any land use permit, approval, or entitlement affecting properties not owned by the District.  No use of District properties by others will be permitted except under terms of a written agreement.
 Use of pipeline rights-of-way for District purposes shall have the concurrence of the Director of Operations and Maintenance and shall include all applicable protections required for similar third-party use.
 The Board of Directors has exclusive authority to approve any proposed right-of-way use requiring the adoption and implementation of one or more mitigation measures to minimize potentially significant environmental impacts.  The decision whether to authorize any party other than the District to use District - owned property containing pipelines for any non-District purpose is a legislative act undertaken at the sole discretion of District staff. No notice or hearing is required to consider an application for use of such property, and staff’s decision is not subject to appeal.

Acceptable long-term uses of the pipeline rights-of-way include but are not necessarily limited to: utility crossings, road crossings, limited agriculture, equestrian and pedestrian trails, parks, oil and gas leases, and District-owned ground water wells. Acceptable long-term uses of rights-of-way and easements for future pipelines will be evaluated upon facility completion. Such uses will be authorized in writing. All approved uses will conform to the requirements and limitations described in the attached EBMUD Requirements for Entry or Use of Pipeline Rights-of-Way (Requirements for Entry or Use) and all other conditions as specified in the written approval.

The Water Supply Division and the Water Treatment and Distribution Division are each primarily responsible to implement this Procedure with respect to proposed uses of rights-of-way containing a facility “owned” by that Division. Facility “ownership” for t his purpose is determined based on which Division has “Overall Responsibility” for the facility according to Table 1 of Procedure 706 – Facilities: Inspection, Maintenance and Repair. Wherever this Procedure allocates responsibility to both Divisions in th e Attachment B
Procedure 718

Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718

2 08 JUL 20

alternative, the responsibility shall rest with the Division which owns the facility within the right-of-way which is proposed to be used.

The Water Supply or the Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions are responsible for monitoring permitted uses and detecting and preventing unauthorized uses of pipeline rights-of-way, respectively.

The Office of General Counsel and the Manager of Real Estate Services will be consulted when an unauthorized user will not voluntarily desist.

The Water Supply or the Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions are responsible for coordinating the development of recommendations with respect to the terms and conditions to be stipulated when a District or non-District use of a pipeline right-of-way is to be permitted.

The Director of Engineering and Construction shall be consulted as necessary to provide location analysis or to determine what structural, grading, drainage, corrosion protection or other engineering measures are required and to obtain estimates of engineering, design and inspection costs.

Inquiries and
Applications for
Use

Applications and inquiries for use of pipeline rights-of-way shall be processed by the Water Operations Department. Applications for non-District uses will not be processed unless accompanied by the appropriate application fees specified in the District’s “Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees”.

The Water Operations Department is responsible for:

 Providing requirements for use of the District’s pipeline rights-of-way to applicants requesting use of the right-of-way. See the attached Requirements for Entry or Use.  Providing requirements to applicants for proposed work located adjacent to the District’s pipeline rights-of-way which has the potential to impact the District’s pipelines (e.g., proposed excavations that may include use of tiebacks that could result in a vertical encroachment and/or excavations that have the potential for ground movements that could damage District pipelines).  Checking for completeness of any permit (e.g., Encroachment Permit Application) to ensure compliance with the requirements for entry or use of pipeline rights-of-way contained in Requirements for Entry or Use plus any other conditions applicable to the proposed use.
 Collecting engineering, plan review and construction inspection costs and documentation of insurance coverage, if necessary.
 Monitoring existing encroachments and inspection of the construction of new approved encroachments.
 Providing information to the Engineering and Construction Department for technical input regarding additional permit requirements or special restrictions that may be applicable (in addition to those outlined in the Requirements for Entry or Use).  Assuring proper environmental documentation for proposed uses through consultation with the Water Distribution Planning Division, when appropriate. Policy

7.01, Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance, requires the District to ensure that any construction impacts from third-party use of District rights of way are mitigated to the level of “no significant impact.”

Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718

3 08 JUL 20

Real Estate Services is responsible for:

 Advising the Manager of Water Supply or the Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution of any real estate matters which relate to a specific proposed use.  Collecting application fees and charges, preparing and executing limited land use permits, leases, easements, and all other property-related agreements (except for revocable licenses and temporary entry permits) and recommending fees and charges appropriate to the property use allowed, and for securing payment. See the current applicable Water and Wastewater System Schedule of Rates and Charges and Fees.
 Maintaining records relating to rights-of-way crossings and use, and providing information to the Engineering and Construction Department for the update of District pipeline drawings.

Types of Permit
License or
Easement
The Manager of Water Supply or Manager or Water Treatment and Distribution shall keep available the forms listing the general requirements set forth in Requirements for Entry or Use for each of the following:

Temporary Entry/Temporary Construction Permit

For temporary access to pipeline rights-of-way such as for surveying, potholing, construction, for temporary access via the District’s right-of-way to property adjacent to the right-of-way, and other similar short-term situations.

Revocable License and Revocable Landscape License

For pipelines, sewers, storm drains, overhead and underground cables, public trails, landscaping and other crossings or lateral encroachments.

Limited Land Use Permit

Provides for agricultural or other surface use of the right-of-way for a period not to exceed one year (vehicular parking is prohibited). These permits are renewable annually if inspection reveals satisfactory conformance to conditions of permit.

Easement

For streets, highways, large pipelines, canals and railroads, and other permanent publicly-owned encroachments. Easements are officially recorded with the county having jurisdiction. The consideration for the easement (e.g., fee) will be based on the value of the property being encumbered.

The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution shall request review of any proposed revisions to application forms and lists of requirements from the Engineering and Construction Department, Real Estate Services Division, Office of General Counsel, and the District’s Pipe Committee.

Processing
Applications

Temporary Entry Permits

The Manager of Water Supply or Manager or Water Treatment and Distribution may issue temporary entry and construction permits including imposing standard and temporary conditions relating to the use. The Manager of Real Estate Services and the Office of General Counsel will be consulted regarding unusual circumstances.

Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718

4 08 JUL 20

Revocable Licenses

The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution, if warranted, shall conduct a field investigation to determine pipeline protection requirements and in consultation with the Design Division or the Pipeline Infrastructure Division, will set forth the engineering and operating requirements.

The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution, shall then specify any and all requirements, including special conditions to the applicant, and discuss the terms and conditions of the license agreement as well as any processing, design and inspection costs and license fee. The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution may then enter into a standard license agreement with relevant special conditions on behalf of the District. The Manager of Real Estate Services and the Office of General Counsel shall be consulted regarding any unusual circumstances.

Copies of all revocable licenses issued by the Water Supply Division or the Water Treatment and Distribution Division shall be provided to the Manager of Real Estate Services.

Limited Land Use Permits

The Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution, shall convey the District’s requirements to the applicant and investigate to determine any special conditions.

Real Estate Services shall prepare the Limited Land Use Permit (Form L-14) in duplicate, including special conditions or stipulations, accompanied by a District - prepared location sketch that will refer to pipeline stationing and other appropriate location identifiers, including adjacent pipeline structures.

Engineering and Construction Department shall prepare the location sketch.

After payment of the stipulated consideration determined by Real Estate Services, the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution shall review and execute the permit. These copies are then returned to the Manager of Real Estate Services, together with any stipulated consideration.

Forty-five days before expiration of a Limited Land Use Permit, the Manager of Real Estate Services shall notify the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution, who shall investigate the permittee’s operations. If renewal of the permit is recommended, the permit will be renewed by letter from the Manager of Real Estate Services.

Leases and Easements

The Water Supply or Water Treatment and Distribution Divisions shall conduct a field investigation to determine requirements for pipeline protection and, in consultation with the Design Division or Pipeline Infrastructure Division, if necessary, will set forth the engineering and operating requirements.

If structural or corrosion protective facilities are required, the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution shall request the Manager of Design Division or Pipeline Infrastructure Division to proceed with the required design or plan reviews. (During design, the designer will communicate with the applicant’s engineer.) Upon completion of design, the plans will be delivered to the applicant via the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution, who will arrange for inspection as required.

Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718

5 08 JUL 20

The Manager of Real Estate Services shall discuss with the applicant the terms of the agreement and the amount of the consideration, including any processing, design, and inspection costs. Real Estate Services shall obtain an appraisal and engineering estimates, if necessary.

Upon agreement with the applicant, the Manager of Real Estate Services, shall draft, for review and approval by the Manager of Water Supply Division or the Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution Division and Office of General Counsel, an agreement granting the applicant the property interest under the terms and for the consideration as approved. Real Estate Services shall assure that evidence of insurance is provided, if required. The lease or easement shall be submitted to the District’s Board of Directors for approval, if required by Procedure 108, Real Estate Transactions. Two copies of the lease or easement shall be sent to the applicant with instructions to sign and return the copies, together with the consideration, to the Manager of Real Estate Services .

Easements shall be recorded and the applicant shall provide the Manager of Real Estate Services with the recording data.

Approvals District and non-District uses of pipeline right-of-ways shall be confirmed in writing, listing any special conditions which may apply to the proposed use to the requesting District departments or third parties by the Manager of Water Supply or Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution.

Terminations Any third-party use of the District’s pipeline property may be terminated at the District’s sole discretion, so long as the termination is authorized by and done in a manner compliant with the terms and conditions of the permit, license, or lease that governs the use. If the Water Supply Division or the Water Treatment and Distribution Division terminates any permit or license, the Manager of Real Estate Services and the Design Division shall be so notified by memo. The Office of General Counsel may be consulted before undertaking a termination which may affect the District’s legal interests.

Terms and
Conditions

The final determination of generally applicable terms and conditions appropriate for District uses of pipeline properties rests with the Director of Operations and Maintenance.

A specific third party applicant for use of pipeline property may be required, as a condition of approval of the application, to comply with the generally applicable terms and conditions, or with different or additional terms and conditions that are determined to be in the District’s best interest. The decision to approve or deny an application, and the selection of terms and conditions of any approval, shall rest with the Director of Operations and Maintenance. There is no right to an administrative appeal or hearing, and the decision of the Director or designee is final.

Records

The Manager of Real Estate Services shall maintain a file containing copies of all documents relating to right-of-way crossings or uses, except for temporary encroachment permits, and is responsible for the assignment of right-of-way crossing numbers to approved documents.

The Engineering and Construction Department shall maintain as-built and right-of-way drawings and other information of pipelines. Updates to these drawings shall be made following:

1. Grant of Revocable License or Easement. Notice to be supplied by the Manager of Real Estate Services.

Authorized Uses For Pipeline Rights-of-Way NUMBER:

PAGE NO.:

EFFECTIVE DATE:
718

6 08 JUL 20

2. Completion of crossing construction covered by license or easement. Notice, including “as built” location data, to be supplied by the applicant to the Water Supply Division or Water Treatment and Distribution Division for transmittal to the Engineering and Construction Department. This notice will be routed through the Engineering and Construction Department, as necessary, then to the Manager of Real Estate Services.

3. Termination of any pipeline right-of-way use. Notice to be supplied by the Manager of Real Estate Services.

Required Fees Pipeline right-of-way fees for the processing of applications and documents related to proposed uses are included in the “Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees”. The Manager of Water Supply and Manager of Water Treatment and Distribution are responsible for periodic review and updating of Requirements for Entry or Use. The Manager of Real Estate Services is responsible for review and updating of Fees and Documentation Charges, Use of Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way by Others.

References

Policy 7.01 – Aqueduct and Distribution Pipeline Rights-of-Way Maintenance Procedure 108 – Real Estate Transactions
Procedure 436 – Miscellaneous Accounts Receivable and Cash Receipts Procedure 706 – Facilities: Inspection, Maintenance and Repair Requirements for Entry or Use of Pipeline Rights-of-Way (attached) Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges, and Other Fees (as updated periodically)

EBMUD REQUIREMENTS FOR

ENTRY OR USE OF PIPELINE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

East Bay Municipal Utility District

1. Requests for encroachment rights or for other uses of the District’s raw and distribution water aqueduct and pipeline (“pipeline”) properties shall be directed to the Manager of Water Supply, 1804 West Main Street, Stockton, California 95203. Property uses shall only be permitted subject to appropriate written permit, license, easement, or lease agreement.

2. Requests for property uses shall be in writing and accompanied by a completed application, application fees, plan and profile drawings of the area and work involved. District pipeline stationing and adjacent above-ground structures must be shown. Applicant’s horizontal and vertical control must be correlated to the District’s. Drawings and maps shall be ANSI D size (22x34 inch) or ANSI B size (11x17 inch) and must also be provided in electronic .pdf format .

Application must include complete insurance documentation.

3. The applicant must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the District and associated personnel from and against any claims, losses, and liability arising by reason of the applicant’s use of District’s property or the applicant’s acts or omissions pursuant to any permit or approval issued by the District, on such terms as the District may require. The applicant may be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage.

4. All requests for uses of District property must be consistent with requirements and limitations set forth by Procedure 718 and will be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.

5. District land and facilities shall be restored to a condition as good as that which existed before applicant’s entry on the right-of-way.

6. Applicant’s use of property shall not increase District costs or interfere with District access, operations, maintenance, or repair of its facilities.

7. The applicant must pay the District the appraised value of the easement or lease, if appropriate, for the rights granted to the applicant. Appropriate environmental documentation must be completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act before the rights can be granted. The District may require the applicant to prepare the documentation at its expense before the application will be considered for approval.

The District will review the environmental
documentation to determine whether it (i) adequately describes the applicant’s project, (ii) contains a detailed disclosure and analysis of the project’s impacts, (iii) describes feasible measures to mitigate any construction impacts to the District’s right-of-way to a level of no significant impact, and (iv) is otherwise legally sufficient. The District may rely on any existing environmental documentation for the applicant’s project if the District determines that the existing documentation meets the above-described standards.

8. For any District-approved encroachment, the applicant must pay the District for any of the following measures, as determined necessary by the District:

a. Design of structural protective measures
b. Design of fences or other structures
c. Corrosion control protective measures
d. District engineering, plan review, and inspection of activities e. Environmental documentation
f. Application, permit or license fees.

9. The plan for the execution of the work must be approved by the District.

10. The type and weight of equipment working over the pipelines must be approved by the District.

11. The use of vibratory compaction equipment is prohibited on the pipeline right- of-way unless otherwise approved by EBMUD. Allowable compaction effort, allowable equipment, and maximum depth of each lift of fill shall be subject to District review and approval before start of construction.

12. A minimum of 48 hours notice must be given to the District before work commences on District pipeline right-of-way. Contact information will be provided in permit.

Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 4.38

13. A minimum of 48 hours notice must be given to the District before work commences on District pipeline right-of-way. Contact information will be provided in permit.

14. A preconstruction meeting is required prior to start of work.

15. No building or portions of buildings shall be constructed on the property . No other types of structures shall be constructed unless specific approval is given by the District.

16. No longitudinal encroachments such as drainage ditches; gas, phone, or electrical lines; pipelines, or roads will be permitted. All property line fences (including footings) must be located completely outside pipeline property lines.

17. District staff shall monitor pile driving or other work which can result in vibration and occurs within 100 feet of the aqueducts. District staff shall also monitor other work located within 100 feet of the pipeline right-of-way, if such work has the potential to result in ground movements that could damage the District’s facilities (i.e., large excavations with potential for horizontal or vertical ground deformations within the District’s rights-of-way).

18. Railroad, freeway and highway crossings of the pipeline right- of-way shall be on permanent bridges with a minimum vertical clearance of 14 feet 6 inches between the finished ground surface and the underside of the bridge. Crossings of pipeline rights of way, on grade will be over structurally-encased aqueducts with a sleeve for a fourth aqueduct.

19. Street and road crossings constructed on grade shall incorporate protection of the pipelines .

Protective measures will be designed by applicant’s licensed engineer to District standards with specific District approval of each design.

20. Existing pipeline protective measures such as concrete slabs shall not be cut, penetrated, or otherwise disturbed.

If a protective measure is cut, penetrated, or disturbed, it shall be replaced with a new protective measure, designed by applicant’s licensed engineer to District standards with specific District approval of design.

21. Traffic control fences or approved barriers shall be installed along each side of the street, road or trail before opening to the public.

22. Temporary construction fences and barricades shall be installed by contractor as directed by the District.

23. No geotechnical exploration such as drilling or boring shall be allowed on an pipeline right- of-way without prior written approval from the District.

24. Any changes in finished grade in the pipeline right- of-way must be approved by the Aqueduct Section. Earth fills or cuts on adjacent property shall not encroach onto District property except where authorized for vehicular crossings on grade and where the District determines that there will be no detrimental effect on or maintenance of the pipelines.

25. Crossings shall be perpendicular to the pipelines and on a constant grade across District property .

26. Sanitary sewers, water lines, petroleum product lines, or other lines crossing above the pipelines must be encased in a steel, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or reinforced concrete pipe conduit or be imbedded in reinforced concrete with a minimum vertical clearance of two (2) f eet between the casing/embedment and the top of District pipelines. The casing shall extend the entire width of the pipelines right-of-way.

27. All pipelines crossing below the pipelines must be encased in a steel or reinforced concrete conduit and provide a minimum of three (3) feet of clearance between the casing and the bottom of the District pipelines.

Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 4.38

28. Trenchless construction methods such as horizontal directional drilling or jack- and-bore between the top of the pipelines and the bottom of the protective structure (slab) are prohibited .

29. On pressurized pipe crossings, shutoff valves shall be provided outside and adjacent to both sides of District property.

30. At the point of crossing, steel pipeline crossings and steel casings shall incorporate electrolysis test leads, bond leads, and leads necessary for interference testing. Corrosion control devices, when required, must be approved by the District.

31. Cathodic protection for steel encasements must be installed as follows:

 Provide a dielectric coating to the exterior surface of the steel casing within the District’s right- of-way, 16 mil epoxy or equivalent.
 Provide galvanic protection to the portion of the steel casing within the District’s right-of-way in accordance with the National Association of Corrosion Engineers RP-01-69.  If the carrier pipe is constructed of ductile iron or steel, provide electrical isolation between the carrier and casing using casing insulators; redwood skids are not permitted.  Provide test results to the District demonstrating the adequacy of the cathodic protection system, and the adequacy of the electrical isolation of the carrier (if metallic) from the casing .

The District reserves the right to witness any such tests.

32. Gravity drainage of District property shall be maintained . Open channels constructed across the right-of-way shall be paved with reinforced concrete. Headwalls, inlets, and other appurtenances shall be located outside District property. Drainage facilities shall be provided outside the District’s property at the top and/or toe of fill slopes or cuts constructed adjacent to District property to assure adequate drainage.

33. Overhead electrical power conductors across the property shall be a minimum of 30 feet above ground. Communication and cable TV crossings shall be a minimum of 20 feet above the ground .

Supporting poles or towers shall be located outside the pipelines right-of-way.

34. Buried electrical cables passing over the pipelines shall be installed in PVC conduit and encased in red concrete across the entire width of the right-of-way. In some cases, PVC-coated steel conduit with a red concrete cap may be substituted. All other buried cables shall be installed in conduits and marked in the appropriate Underground Service Alert (USA) colored marking materials and with surface signs installed at 4-foot intervals that include the utility name, type, and emergency contact information across the entire width of the right-of-way.

The minimum vertical
clearance between the conduit and the top of the District’s pipelines is two (2) feet.

35. Electrical or telecommunications cables shall not be allowed to pass under the pipelines .

36. Vehicular parking and storage of equipment or material on aqueduct or distribution pipelines property are prohibited.

37. All District survey monuments and markers shall be undisturbed . If any District survey markers or monuments must be disturbed, they will be replaced or relocated by the District at applicant’s expense prior to the start of any ground disturbing work.

38. All pipeline crossings involving mechanical excavation on the right- of-way require potholing of all pipelines at the site of the proposed crossing. Visible reference markings showing the pipeline alignments and depths to top of pipe shall be maintained for the duration of any mechanical excavation on District property. Excavations within two (2) feet of pipelines shall be made by hand.

Entry permits are required for pothole work.

39. All grading or excavating of the right- of-way requires USA notification and the maintenance of a current inquiry identification number.