Supplement No. 2 To Procedure 4.38
40. Certified six-sack mix is the minimum acceptable concrete batch to be used on the pipelines right- of-way. Concrete compression strength shall be 3,000 per square inch (PSI) or better at 28 days .
If samples do not reach 3,000 PSI at 28 days, the entire section of slab or encasement related to that sample must be removed and replaced at applicant’s expense.
41. Each truckload of concrete to be placed on the right- of-way may be sampled by the District. No water may be added to the mix after sampling.
42. Maximum allowable slump is three inches . All concrete exceeding three inches will be rejected and cannot be used on the right-of-way.
43. No traffic will be allowed over protective slabs until 3,000 PSI is reached.
44. All work areas shall be inspected by the District for final approval .
As-built drawing submittals are
required for District approval.
45. No work is allowed on weekends or District-recognized holidays unless otherwise authorized in the required permit.
?×
?×
%&p(
%&p(
A¿
Ygnacio Valley Rd
DetroitAve
Diamond
Bl
vd
OakGroveRd
Clayton Rd
Kirker Pass Rd
Concord Ave
SunvalleyBlvd
Cowell Rd
Concord Blvd
Port
ChicagoHwy
Willow Pass Rd
Meadow
Ln Monument
Blvd
Treat Blvd
Concord Naval
Weapons
Station
2022 TCAC Opportunity Areas/ R/ECAP I
0 4,000 8,0002,000
Feet
S:\MapRequest\Engineering\CIPPavement\CIPPavementProjects.aprx Map Created: 1/10/2023
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
R/ECAP Area
Low Resource
Moderate Resource
High Resource
City Boundary
CNWS
ATTACHMENT 4
I 1
Concord HEU CBO Listening Session
December 21, 20222
Overview
On December 21, 2022, the City of Concord met with representatives from local organizations to discuss their concerns and comments on the City’s Housing Element Update (HEU). The meeting was held over Zoom. Participants included City Planning Division staff, a facilitator, and community- based organizations (CBOs) who had submitted letters to the City and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding the City’s latest draft HEU. The purpose of the meeting was to learn about the community history regarding the origins of the area of Concord classified as a Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP), and to further understand the CBOs’ comments and concerns on the HEU.
The following individuals were in attendance:
• Mindy Gentry, City of Concord
• Aaron Sage, City of Concord
• Kristi Laughlin, EBASE
• Alex Werth, EBASE
• Debra Ballinger, EBHO and Monument Impact
• Aaron Tiedemann, EBHO
• Vanessa Chena Davila, Monument Impact
• Tony Bravo, Monument Impact
• Jenna Tourje, Facilitator, Kearns & West
The meeting agenda included a welcome and introductions, a review of the meeting purpose, a discussion on the R/ECAP, a listening session to further clarify the CBOs’ comments and concerns on the HEU, and a discussion on next steps and process items.
R/ECAP Discussion
Aaron S. shared information on HCD’s request for more information on how the R/ECAP in Concord developed. After clarifying questions on where the R/ECAP is in Concord and what it means, CBOs shared the following themes:
• The Monument Corridor has been an area of concentrated poverty for decades. The City could identify the history of Monument Impact and other community-based groups to determine how long the area has been a R/ECAP.
• Exclusionary zoning and the limited availability of multi-family housing in surrounding areas have created an area where there is a higher concentration of multi-family housing and poverty.
• Discriminatory lending practices and racially restrictive covenants in single-family neighborhoods have contributed to the existence of the R/ECAP. • Designating sites for market-rate housing in the Monument Corridor will lead to displacement in the R/ECAP. Instead, the City should rezone exclusionary-zoned areas to prevent displacement and create greater opportunities for affordable housing. • Factors such as exploitation by housing developers and landlords, a history of discriminatory lending practices, and single-family or other exclusionary zoning have impoverished R/ECAP residents. Apartment owners in the RECAP have exploited the segregation of working-class people of color and immigrants in the R/ECAP to charge higher rents, despite low incomes, ATTACHMENT 5
I 2
because many tenants have no other choice but to find an apartment in the district. This coupling of segregation and exploitation actually contributes to the impoverishment of local renters. It's not just that residents naturally experience poverty; segregation in the R/ECAP is part of what produces poverty in the first place.
Debra provided the following information following the conclusion of the meeting:
• A Concord-focused report on mapping segregation (linked here) • An article in The Mercury News on racial covenants in the East Bay (linked here) • Reports on the history of redlining and racial segregation in Contra Costa County (linked here), the Bay Area (linked here), and California (linked here) Concerns and Comments on the Housing Element
Each participant in the meeting had an opportunity to share their concerns and comments on the HEU. Key concerns, comments, and action items are identified below:
Anti-Displacement Measures: The programs identified in the HEU are unlikely to address displacement and some may actually exacerbate displacement. Regarding the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) and Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) program, participants identified that without a dedicated funding source, this program is unlikely to address displacement of low-income renters at scale. In addition, because the TOPA/COPA program is designed to operate and provide benefits over a long-term horizon, and is designated as a homeownership strategy, it is incapable of addressing the rapid displacement of the renters with the lowest incomes and greatest rent burdens, who are at the center of the City’s Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH).
Participants identified that by-right development policies are likely to exacerbate displacement by accelerating the production of market-rate housing in low-resource areas, thereby contributing to gentrification. It was also noted that the program on middle-density housing development opportunities is not related to displacement and should not be identified as an anti-displacement program.
Participants noted there is no program dedicated to anti-displacement in the HEU. Instead, various programs are identified as having a nexus to anti-displacement, but in many cases the program is not a significant action as defined by HCD. Participants identified several ways to address displacement in the HEU. These included creating an overall anti-displacement program with measures empirically proven to prevent displacement caused by economic pressures (the most prevalent form of displacement identified in the City’s AFH and public testimony). Participants also noted that adding rent stabilization and just cause evictions to the HEU’s tenant protections program (Program 20) will clearly address anti-displacement in Concord.
Participants noted that the timeline needs to be updated to respond to HCD’s comments, and that these measures should be adopted by the end of 2023.
Affordable Housing Creation: Participants noted there is no realistic way for Concord to meet its lower-income housing need within this RHNA cycle with the programs identified. There is concern regarding the lack of a program with adequate support and funding for affordable housing, particularly for 100% affordable housing projects. It was noted this type of affordable housing cannot be developed without land donation or monetary support. Therefore, sites identified as lower-income in the HEU sites inventory will actually be developed with less affordable housing or with fewer than 25 percent affordable units. This may violate the State’s no-net-loss law as there would not be enough sites remaining to meet the City’s RHNA obligation.
I 3
A recent example of the City’s lack of support for affordable housing is the developer selection process for the City-owned Town Center II site. The HEU sites inventory identifies this site for lower- income housing development, but the City did not include a 100-percent affordability requirement in the Notice of Availability for the site, and has not proactively sought affordable housing developers or offered any financial support for such a development.
Participants identified ways the City can address these issues. One way is for the City to discount or donate surplus land. The City should also support a future regional housing bond measure through the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) in 2024. Finally, the City should place a local affordable housing tax measure on the ballot early in the HEU planning period to provide a dedicated funding source for the creation of affordable housing.
Participants also noted the Affordable Housing Trust Fund does not include an adequate level of in lieu fees to allow for a significant impact. It was also noted that the City’s current direction on updating its inclusionary housing provisions will not be effective, because it is not proposing the maximum possible in lieu fee and minimum percentage of affordable units.
Site Selection: Participants noted that State law requires, and HCD has requested, further analysis to show how the City’s proposed site selection complies with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. Per State law and HCD’s review letter, the site selection must consider whether sites "improve" or "exacerbate" racial and economic segregation. One concern with the sites analysis is that the lower-income sites identified are not located in higher-resource areas. Sites located in higher-resources would be more competitive for State funds, and are therefore more likely to be built.
Participants identified that the City should redo its sites analysis in a way that “places race at the center,” meaning that it follows State AFFH requirements by considering whether or not the sites inventory improves or exacerbates historical and ongoing patterns of race/class segregation, which must be documented as part of the AFH. And, when future rezoning does occur, engagement needs to take place to center the voices of those being displaced and those negatively impacted by exclusionary zoning, not just the homeowners who have benefited financially from decades of exclusionary zoning.
Naval Weapons Station: While the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) site is not included in the sites inventory, the HEU states that it will include 25% affordable housing. Participants questioned and raised concerns on how this requirement would be met based on a recent proposal by the CNWS developer to designate Junior Accessory Dwelling Units as affordable units.
Process: Participants identified that the HEU’s community engagement process focused on equity and listened well to the community and to community advocates. However, they expressed concern that the City Council has not been responsive to the overwhelming input received through this process on displacement, racial inequity and lack of affordable housing. An example was shared from the last Council meeting on the HEU, where the Council declined to include tenant protections that were supported by the vast majority of public comments, but included a program on short-term rentals that was supported only by the comments of one white homeowner.
Participants also noted that HCD’s comments cite the City’s obligation to incorporate local knowledge and data where appropriate, and that in State housing element law the political preferences of the Council do not outweigh public comments, demonstrated housing needs, and empirically based programs.
I 4
Next Steps:
City staff shared next steps in the HEU process. These include sharing this summary with participants to confirm their comments are correctly documented. This summary will also be attached to the staff report for the January 10 City Council meeting on the HEU.
?×
?×
%&p(
%&p(
A¿
Ygnacio Valley Rd
DetroitAve
DiamondBl
vd
Treat BlvdOakGroveRd
Clayton Rd
Kirker Pass Rd
Concord Ave
SunvalleyBlvd CowellRd
Concord Blvd
Port
Chica
goHwy
Willow Pass Rd
Meadow
Ln
MonumentBlvd
I
0 0.75 1.5
Miles
S:\MapRequest\Engineering\CIPPavement\CIPPavementProjects.aprx Map Created: 1/4/2023
By GIS Division of Information Technology
Legend
RCAA Area
City Boundary
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
ACS (2015-2019)
ATTACHMENT 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY
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
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 29, 2022
TO: Planning Directors and Interested Parties
.
FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Divi sion of Housing Policy Development
SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 2339 – Legislation Effective January 1, 2023:
Housing Element: Emergency Shelters
Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339), adds additional specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient capacity for low-income housing in their housing elements. Generally, AB 2339 amends State Housing Element Law regarding identification of zones and sites for emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing as follows:
Amendments to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(4) • Expands t
he definition of “emergency shelters” to include other interim interventions, including but not limited to, navigation centers, bridge housing, and respite or recuperative care.
• Requires that zoning designations identified to allow emergency shelters as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit must allow residential uses. This could include zones that allow mixed uses that permit residential.
• The local government must demonstrate the adequacy of sites identified to accommodate emergency shelters. Specifically, if a vacant site is zoned for a nonresidential use but allows residential development, the site must be located near amenities and services that serve people experiencing homelessness. If the site is nonvacant, the analysis must provide substantial evidence that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
ATTACHMENT 7
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
Assembly Bill 2339 – Legislation Effective January 1, 2023:
Housing Element: Emergency Shelters
• Sites owned by the local government can be included if the analysis demonstrates that the sites will be made available for emergency shelters during the planning period, are suitable for residential use, and are located near amenities that serve people experiencing homelessness.
• Provides a calculation methodology for determining the sufficiency of sites available to accommodate emergency shelters in the identified zoning designation. • Requires analysis of any adopted written objective standards for potential governmental constraints.
Appl
icable Timing (Government Code section 65583, subdivision (e)) Amendments to Housing Element Law apply per the following timing:
• January 1, 2023 for any housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when the city, county, or city and county fails to submit the first draft to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) before the due date specified in Section 65588 or 65584.02.
• April 1, 2023 for a housing element or housing element amendment prepared pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 65588 or Section 65584.02, when a city, county, or city and county submits a draft to the Department for review pursuant to Section 65585 more than 90 days after the effective date of the amendment to this section.
An electronic copy can be found at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.
You m
ay also obtain copies of published bills from the Legislative Bill Room by calling (916) 445-2323. If you have any questions, or seek additional technical assistance, please contact [email protected].
?×
?×
%&p(
%&p(
A¿
Ygnacio Valley Rd
DetroitAve
Di
amond
Bl
vd
Treat Blvd
OakGroveRd
Clayton Rd
Kirker Pass Rd
Concord Ave
SunvalleyBlvd Cowell Rd
Concord Blvd
Por
tChicagoHwy
Willow Pass Rd
Meadow Ln
Monume
ntBlvd
RL
RL RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RR15
RR15
RR15
RR15
RR15
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR20
RR40
RR40
RR40
RR40
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS10RS10
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS10RS10
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS10
RS12
RS12
RS12 RS12
RS12
RS12
RS12
RS15
RS15
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS6
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7RS7
RS7RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7 RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7
RS7.5
RS7.5RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS7.5
RS8
RS8
RS8 RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS8RS8
RS8
City of Concord Zoning
I
0 2,500 5,0001,250
Feet
S:\MapRequest\Engineering\CIPPavement\CIPPavementProjects.aprx Map Created: 1/4/2023 By GIS Division of Information Technology
Zoning Classification
Planned District
Rural Residential (RR15)
Rural Residential (RR20)
Rural Residential (RR40)
Single Family Residential (RS6)
Single Family Residential (RS7)
Single Family Residential (RS7.5)
Single Family Residential (RS8)
Single Family Residential (RS10)
Single Family Residential (RS12)
Single Family Residential (RS15)
Residential, Low Density (RL)
Residential, Medium Density (RM)
Residential, High Density (RH)
North Todos Santos (NTS)
Community Office (CO)
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX)
Neighborhood Commerical (NC)
Regional Commercial (RC)
Service Commerical (SC)
Downtown Pedestrian (DP)
Downtown Mixed Use (DMX)
West Concord Mixed Use (WMX)
Office Business Park (OBP)
Industrial Business Park (IBP)
Industrial Mixed Use (IMX)
Heavy Industrial (HI)
Public/Quasi-Public (PQP)
Open Space (OS)
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Rural Conservation (RLC)
Wetlands/Resource Conservation (WRC)
Study District (S)
Unzoned (U)
Concord Reuse Project – Green Frame (CRP-GF)
Concord City Boundary
BART Track
BART Station
ATTACHMENT 8
Page | 122 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Figure 1: Sites Identified
ATTACHMENT 9
Page | 123 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Figure 2: Downtown
Page | 124 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Figure 3: Clayton Valley (West)
Page | 125 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Figure 4: Clayton Valley (East)
Page | 126 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Figure 5: Ygnacio Valley
Page | 127 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Figure 6: Lime Ridge
Page | 128 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Figure 7: Olivera/Port Chicago
ATTACHMENT 10
(2023-2031 H
ousing Element Up date –
Redline/Strikethrough Version)
https://www.cityofconcord.org/DocumentCenter/View/9033/Dra ft-6th-Cycle-Housing-Element-and-Appendices_Tracked-
Changes
From: Aaron Tiedemann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 10:59 AM
To: Concord City Council Email <[email protected]>; Sage, Aaron <[email protected]> ; Gentry, Mindy <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: EBHO & RTR Comments on Draft Housing Element
Dear Council,
Please find attached comments on the draft Housing Element, made on behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition and the East Bay Housing Organizations, ahead of your consideration on the 14th.
--
Aaron Tie de mann
Policy Manager
EAST BAY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS (EBHO)
[email protected]
538 Ninth Street, Suite 200 | Oakland, CA 94607
pronouns: he/him
Join us or renew y our membership for 2023! Thank you for supporting our efforts to protect, preserv e and create affordable housing for all!
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 9.a
March 14, 2023
Laura Hoffmeister, Mayor
Edi Birsan, Vice-Mayor
Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember
Laura Nakamura, Councilmember
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Aaron Sage, Principal Planner
Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
CC: Paul McDougall, Senior Manager, California HCD
RE: Concord Draft Housing Element
East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) and other members of the Raise the Roof Coalition (RTR) would like to express several concerns with Concord’s draft housing element and the City’s process. Specifically, as this letter will detail, the Concord City Council’s direction to staff at their January 17th, 2023 meeting puts into doubt Concord’s ability to meet its affordable and fair housing requirements. Additionally, while City staff made proactive efforts to respond to State feedback and stakeholder concerns—including meeting with RTR members on several occasions—their efforts were largely removed from the new draft. While the City Council did make important positive changes to the Housing Element by prioritizing much needed tenant protections, the overall direction eliminated or weakened several sections of the Housing Element that address urgent housing needs and State requirements.
Affordable Housing Funding
One of our main concerns prior to the January 17th meeting was the lack of local funding for affordable housing in the plan; without such funding, it is extremely unlikely that any of the 100% affordable projects in Concord’s site inventory will be built. In response to this concern, staff recommended that the City develop an affordable housing tax measure for the 2024 ballot. However, Council directed staff to remove this item, citing their desire that the State, County, or another regional body provide funds to
build new affordable housing. While there is a regional plan for an affordable housing bond being developed by the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) for 2024, this will not preclude the need for the City to take action within the 6th cycle planning period, as regional funds will not be sufficient to address Concord’s lower-income RHNA. There are also a variety of funding methods that the Council did not touch on that could be explored besides a sales tax increase, including a City bond measure—which has been pursued successfully in many East Bay cities, such as Oakland in 2022 with Measure U—a special tax, real property transfer tax, or an increase to inclusionary housing fees. The latter is especially necessary considering the currently proposed reduction to the City’s inclusionary requirements to just 4% moderate, 1% low, and 1% very low income units–a proposal that this plan does not account for.
Without any plan for affordable housing funding—either in 2024 or later in the cycle—Concord will struggle to meet its lower-income RHNA. With this in mind, Council should add this program back to the Housing Element with additional language allowing a variety of funding methods and election dates to be explored.
Fair Housing
In response to HCD feedback, staff added details and additional goals to the Housing Element’s Fair Housing measures. Specifically, Concord staff set a specific target capacity of one thousand affordable units and date for passage of rezoning measures in racially exclusionary high resource areas to make them more accessible to development. Staff also proposed a new program allowing 8 units to be developed on a parcel, going further than the State’s 4 unit per parcel minimum standard set by SB9.
Council directed staff to remove the latter program, citing concerns about a change in “neighborhood character,” a concern that echoes precisely the exclusionary practices that AFFH requirements are meant to redress. Council expressed similar reservations regarding rezoning in general, but kept these programs because they were specifically included in HCD’s feedback—albeit while indicating that Council might reject rezoning when it came before them for a vote. Concord’s Housing Element should include a strong commitment to Fair Housing by strengthening these programs rather than weakening them, especially given HCD’s consistency this cycle rejecting plans that do not adequately affirmatively further fair housing.
Site Inventory
While the Council did not discuss the Site Inventory extensively during the meeting on January 17th, the current draft does not meaningfully respond to HCD’s feedback. Instead of selecting more realistic sites, the current draft Site Inventory relies on two sites—both owned by the city—for the majority of its lower income units. Without serious support from the City, it is unrealistic to think these sites will be developed with over seven hundred affordable units, especially given that one of the properties has already been offered via the Surplus Land Act in a Notice of Availability that prioritizes but does not require that 25% of the site’s units be affordable. The updated Housing Element specifies that the other City owned site will be offered using the same process, meaning there is no guarantee that even 25% of the units will be affordable, let alone 100%. The Site Inventory also still lacks any affordable housing in the more affluent parts of Concord. While rezoning is necessary to build such sites, this should not be an impediment to including affordable housing in these areas in the analysis, especially given the inclusion of a rezoning program in the plan. Concord’s Site Inventory should be made realistic and equitable by including a variety of sites in the South and East areas of the City and should not rely on one highly uncertain site for such a large share of the City’s affordable housing.
Response to HCD Comments
Despite HCD’s clear feedback that programs should set clear and aggressive targets and include actionable timelines, the Council repeatedly directed staff to remove timelines and make programs more vague and less forceful. In addition to the examples provided above, this approach typified the Council’s discussion of a variety of programs including the proposed development of objective design standards, which Council kept in the proposed plan but specified should still allow as much subjective input as possible—with all the additional cost and difficulty to develop housing that such input entails. The Housing Element is meant to be a realistic long term plan that, if implemented, will make it substantially easier to construct needed housing in Concord and ensure historic inequalities are addressed for current and future residents. Given the tenor of discussion up to this point, EBHO and RTR do not believe the City is committed to fulfilling this promise—meaning that this draft will likely be rejected by HCD.
The most recent proposed changes brought before the City Council represent the culmination of over a year and a half of diligent research, community engagement, and planning on the part of staff; hundreds of contacts with and comments by residents and community-based organizations; and consideration of the guidance received from HCD. The Housing Element update is an opportunity to incorporate this work and create a plan that meets the needs of all residents, including low-income households and members of protected classes. We thus urge the Council to reassess its positions, heed State law, and follow staff’s suggestions in order to produce a plan that is both equitable and compliant.
Sincerely,
Aaron Tiedemann
Policy Manager, EBHO
From: Jan Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:59 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on item 9a March 14, 2023 City Council Meeting 2023-2031 Housing Element
March 14, 2023
Concord City Council Meeting, comments on agenda items 9a
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I want to commend you for the 8 listening sessions, 3 townhalls, pop-up tents where residents could engage in online surveys in English and Spanish, and the time you have committed to incorporate resident suggestions.
I have read the top priorities that residents have expressed and the reasons why they chose to move to Concord. HCD and Fair Housing Laws require entities to identify lower income sites throughout the City. The City’s choice to select 2 sites owned by the City to develop over 700 units doesn’t adhere to the Fair Housing Law requirements. There are issues with using the Surplus Land Act that calls into question the actual fulfillment of these site locations.
I encourage you to work with affordable housing developers to see what support they need to build 100% lower income housing on one of these sites. Consider donating the land of one of these sites to reduce the costs. Look into public/private partnerships for building lower income housing in various places throughout the City.
Consider the possibility of engaging with a developer who has a site in the City they might be willing to trade for the City owned site to build affordable housing elsewhere in the City.
The Monument Corridor continues to exhibit racial segregation, poverty and gentrification. Invest capital improvements in the Monument corridor and form partnerships to leverage the dollars invested.
Encourage acquisition and rehab of at-risk apartments for permanently affordable housing. This improves the area and reduces gentrification.
Consider whether site locations improve or exacerbate conditions that isolate residents by income.
Residents have expressed for years the need for robust tenant protection, including rent stabilization and just cause eviction policies. Specific language and timelines need to remain in the sixth Housing Element to make sure they are implemented.
Jan Warren
Chair, Multifaith Action Housing & Shelter Task Force of CCC
From: Monica Strauch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:56 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Traci Young <[email protected]>
Subject: 3/14 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 9A
To whom it may concern,
My name is Monica Strauch and I am a Public Policy Manager at United Way Bay Area (UWBA), which is a supporter of the coalition Raise the Roof Concord. As an anti-poverty organization, UWBA works to ensure all residents of the Bay Area are able to maintain their basic needs, including affordable housing. We want to thank Concord City Council for including tenant protections as a priority for this year and for including protections in the Housing Element draft. However, we urge that you pass tenant protections by June of this year.
With rental protections provided throughout the pandemic no longer in effect statewide, we must provide local solutions to ensuring tenants are able to stay in their homes. Without such protections, our region's homelessness crisis will only dramatically increase. We know that tenants are paying significant portions of their income toward housing, putting them at risk of losing their housing should rent increase or should tenants face any financial hardship. We also know that our strongest assets in our communities are our people. You have the opportunity to protect Concord’s tenants and prioritize this community – please take this opportunity to support our neighbors and their families.
Please ensure that tenant protections are on Concord City Council’s agenda to be considered by June.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Monica Strauch
Monica Strauch
(
She/Her/Hers
)
Manager, Public Policy
Unite d Way Bay Area
|
uwba.org
415.808.4338
550 Kearny Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Give. Advocate. Volunteer.
|
Tw itter
|
|
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Costanzo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 2:28 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Rent Control Is Not Good
City Clerk-
If rent control yields positive results, San Francisco would be an ideal place to rent. There are long term consequences (unintended?) that result in less rental housing than would be with controls.
Consider tenants and landlords. I remember a landlord who said they left Berkeley for Concord and over time the policies are becoming less favorable.
We sold one Concord rental and don’t rent the other. We are still living here.
Sent from Ron’s phone
Housing Element Update
City Council Adoption Consideration
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda
Consideración de Adopción del Concejo Municipal
March 14, 2023
Marzo 14, 2023
2 Land Acknowledgement / Reconocimientode tierras
The primary inhabitants of Concord
were the Chupcan tribe of the Bay
Miwok language group. Concord is
also home to members of other tribal
groups, including Ohlone.
Los principales habitantes de la zona
eran la tribu Chupcandel grupo
lingüístico Bay Miwok. Concord
también es hogar de miembrxs de otras
tribus, incluyendo Ohlone.
City of Concord location
Borde Ciudad de Concord
Source: East Bay Regional
Parks District Page 227 of 256
Tonight’s Agenda / Agenda de estanoche
• Project Team / Equipo del Proyecto
• Background & Next Steps / Antecedentey Pasos Siguientes • Sites Inventory & Capacity Summary / Resumen de Capacidad y Inventario de Sitios
• Major New Programs / Nuevos Programas Importantes
• Recommended Actions / Acciones Recomendadas
3
Project Team / Equipodel Proyecto
Aaron Sage
Principal Planner
PlanificadorPrincipal
Mindy Gentry
Planning Manager
Manager de Planificación
Jenna Tourjé Ivana Rosas
Asha Bleier Elizabeth Dickson
Community Engagement
Alcance al público
Community Engagement
Alcance al público
Consultant Project Manager
Manager del Proyecto -
Consultora
Planner
Planificadora
Ben Ulrey
Planning Technician
T écnico de Planificación
4
Background / Antecedentes
• Jan. 17 – C ouncil input on HCD comments
10 de enero – Aportes del Consejo sobre los comentarios del HCD • Feb. 24 – R evised HEU released
24 de febrero – Publicación de la HEU revisada
• Feb. 27 – P lanning Commission recommendation
27 de febrero – Recomendación de la Comisión de Planificación • Mar. 14 – C ouncil considers adoption of Final Draft HEU 14 de marzo –El Consejo considera adoptar el borrador final de HEU 5
Next Steps / Próximos Pasos
• Mar . 21 (approx.) – F inal Draft HEU submitted to HCD 21 de marzo (aprox.) – Borrador final de HEU presentado a HCD • May 21 (60 days after submittal) – H CD certifies HEU or provides further comments
21 de mayo (60 días después de la presentación) – HCD certifica HEU o proporciona más comentarios
• May 31 – E nd of “grace period” for HCD enforcement
31 de mayo – Fin del "período de gracia" para la aplicación de HCD 6
7N
Sites Inventory
with TCAC areas
Inventario de Sitios con
áreas de TCAC
Sites Inventory
with TCAC areas
Inventario de Sitios con
áreas de TCAC
8N
Category
Categoría
Lower-Income
Units
Unidades de
bajos ingresos
Moderate- and Above
Moderate-Income Units
Unidades de ingresos
moderados y superiores
Total Units
Unidades
totales
Regional Housing Need | Necesidad de
vivienda regional 2,036 3,037 5,073
Vacant Sites | Sitios Vacantes 769 267 1,036
Underutilized Sites |Sitios infrautilizados 1,022 2,205 3,227 ADU Projection | Proyección de ADU 0 232 232
Pipeline Projects | Proyectos de oleoductos 274 350 624 Concord Reuse Plan | Plan de reutilizaciónde
Concord 0 300 300
Program 8 Rezone | Programa 8 Rezone 1,000 0 1,000
Total 3,065 3,354 6,419
Buffer (Total – RHNA) 1,029 317 1,346
Summary of Capacity and Credit
Resumen de Capacidad y Crédito
9
Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
10 TOPIC / TEMA PROGRAMS / PROGRAMAs
RECAP /
Low-Resource Areas
/ Áreas de bajos
recursos
• (Obj. 26.1): 20% of Cannabis Community Benefit Fund / 20% del Fondo de Beneficios Comunitarios de Cannabis
• (Obj. 26.2): $150,000 for Monument Corridor
businesses / $150,000 para negocios de Monument Corridor • (Obj. 26.3): Safety/mobility project (min. $1 million) / Proyecto de seguridad/movilidad (mín. $1 millón)
• (Obj. 26.4): Project Homekey funds / Proyecto Homekey fondos
• (Obj. 8.2(d)): Outreach on fair housing laws, housing programs and social services / Divulgación sobre leyes de vivienda justa, programas de vivienda y servicios sociales
11 TOPIC / TEMA PROGRAMS / PROGRAMAs
AFFH and RHNA
Sites (Rezoning) –
Program 8
(Obj. 8.6)
• Focus on moderate-and high-resource areas with
majority white population / Enfóquese en áreas de
recursos moderados y altos con población mayoritariamente blanca
• Rezone 20 acresat min. 60 units per acre / Rezonificar 20 acres a un mínimo de 60 unidades por acre
• Rezone for min. 1,000 units/ Rezonificación para un
mínimo de 1.000 unidades
• Complete by Dec. 2024 / Completado para Dec. 24
Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
Sites Inventory
with RCAAs
Inventario de Sitios con
RCAAs
12N
13 TOPIC / TEMA PROGRAMS / PROGRAMAS
AFFH and RHNA
Sites
• (Obj. 20.6): Rent stabilization by Dec. 2023 / Estabilización de alquileres para diciembre de 2023
• (Obj. 20.6): Just cause by Dec. 2023 / Causa justa para diciembre de 2023
• (Obj. 9.3): SB 9 capacity increase / Aumento de capacidad SB 9 • (Obj. 16.1): Tiny homes and other affordable housing types on religious sites / Casas pequeñas y otros tipos de viviendas asequibles en lugares religiosos
• (Obj. 4.7): Facilitate affordable housing on school district properties / Facilitar viviendas asequibles en propiedades del distrito escolar
Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
14 TOPIC / TEMA PROGRAMS / PROGRAMA
Emergency Shelters
Refugios de
emergencia
• (Obj. 22.6) Simplify regulations / Simplifiquelas
regulaciones
Multi-Family
Constraints
Limitaciones de la
construcción
multifamiliar
• (Obj. 15.2) Staff-level Design Review / Revisión del diseño a nivel de personal
• (Obj. 15.2) Allow by right in commercial districts /
Permitir por derecho en distritos comerciales
Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
15 TOPIC / TEMA PROGRAMS / PROGRAMAS
Persons with
Disabilities
Constraints /
Limitaciones de
Personas con
Discapacidad
• (Obj. 16.2) Reduce group housing parking standards /
Reducir los estándares de estacionamiento de viviendas
grupales
• (Obj. 2.5) Objective criteria for Large Residential Care/ Facilities / Proceso objetivo para grandes instalaciones de cuidados residenciales
Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
16 Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
• Objective 1.4: Adopt financial and regulatory incentives for affordable ADUs. / Objetivo 1.4: Adoptar incentivos financieros y regulatorios para ADU asequibles. • Objective 4.6: Collaborate with BART to discuss development of its Monument Boulevard site; complete any necessary amendments by December 2024. / Objetivo 4.6: Colaborar con BART para discutir el desarrollo de su sitio Monument Boulevard; completar las modificaciones necesarias para diciembre de 2024.
• Objective 6.1: Allow projects by right on sites listed in a previous housing element. / Objetivo 6.1: Permitir proyectos por derecho en los sitios enumerados en un elemento de vivienda anterior.
17 Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
• Objective 11.2: Clarify that 25% density bonus in Transit Station Overlay D
istrict is above and beyond state density bonus and allowed by right, by July 2026. / Objetivo 11.2: Aclarar que la bonificación de densidad del 25 % en el Distrito Superpuesto de la Estación de Tránsito está por encima y más allá de la bonificación de densidad estatal y está permitida por derecho, para julio de 2026. • Objective 11.4: Amend Affordable Housing Incentive Program to clarify incentives offered, by July 2026. / Objetivo 11.4: Modificar el Programa de Incentivos de Vivienda Asequible para aclarar los incentivos ofrecidos, para julio de 2026.
18 Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
• Objective 12.2: Expand the City’s inclusionary (below market-r ate) requirements to include rental and condominium projects. /Objetivo 12.2:
Ampliar los requisitos inclusivos (por debajo de la tasa de mercado) de la Ciudad para incluir proyectos de alquiler y condominios.
• Objective 12.3: Allow moderate-income rental units to satisfy inclusionary requirements. / Objetivo 12.3: Permitir que las unidades de alquiler de ingresos moderados satisfagan los requisitos de inclusión.
• Objective 13.2: Provide financial or regulatory incentives and a density bonus in exchange for lot consolidation by December 2023. / Objetivo 13.2:
Brindar incentivos financieros o regulatorios y un bono de densidad a cambio de la consolidación de lotes para diciembre de 2023.
19 Major New Programs / Programas Nuevos Principales
• Objective 22.1: Appropriate $5.4 million toward the development and i
mplementation of the Strategic Plan to address homelessness. / Objetivo
22.1: Asignar $5.4 millones para el desarrollo y la implementación del Plan Estratégico para abordar la falta de vivienda.
• Objective 22.2: Develop and initiate implementation of a Strategic Plan to address homelessness by December 2024. / Objetivo 22.2: Desarrollar e implementar un Plan Estratégico para abordar la falta de vivienda para diciembre de 2024.
Recommended Actions / AccionesRecomendadas
• Consider public comment. Considerar los comentarios públicos. • Adopt a Resolution to: Considere una Resolución que:
1. Adopt Initial Study/Negative Declaration. / Adoptar el Estudio Inicial/Declaración Negativa.
2. Find the 2023-2 031 HEU exempt from CEQA pursuant to the common sense exemption. / Encuentre el HEU 2023-2031 exento de CEQA, conforme a la exención de sentido común.
3. Find the 2023-2 031 HEU substantially complies with state Housing Element Law. / Encuentre que el HEU 2023-2031 cumple sustancialmente con la Ley de elementos de vivienda del estado.
4. Approve a General Plan Amendment repealing the 2014-2 022 Housing Element and adopting the 2023-2031 HEU. / Aprobar una Enmienda al Plan General que derogue el Elemento de Vivienda 2014-2022 y adopte el HEU 2023-2031.
5. Authorize the City Manager or designee to make non-s ubstantive changes to obtain state certification. / Autorizar al administrador de la ciudad o su designado a realizar cambios no sustanciales para obtener la certificación estatal.
6. Make o ther related findings and delegations as appropriate. / Hacer otras conclusiones y delegaciones relacionadas, según corresponda.
20
Questions?
Preguntas?
21
Income Level
Nivel de ingresos
5th Cycle RHNA
5º ciclo RHNA
6th Cycle RHNA
6º ciclo RHNA
Increase
Aumento
Target Housing Units
Objetivo de Unidades de vivienda
Extremely/Very Low |
Extremadamente-Muy Bajo
798 1,292 494 (61.9%)
Low | Bajo 444 744 300 (67.6%)
Moderate | Moderado 559 847 288 (51.5)%
Above Moderate | Encima de
Moderado 1,677 2,190 513 (31.6)%
Total
3,478 5,073 1,595 (45.9)%
Concord RHNA
23 City 5th Cycle RHNA
6th Cycle
RHNA Increase
Orinda 227 1359 499%
Unincorporated 1367 7645 459%
Lafayette 400 2114 429%
Clayton 141 570 304%
Pleasant Hill 448 1803 302%
Danville 557 2241 302%
San Ramon 1417 5111 261%
Martinez 469 1345 187%
Walnut Creek 2235 5805 160%
Antioch 1448 3016 108%
Brentwood 760 1522 100%
Concord 3478 5073 46%
Pittsburg 2025 2017 0%
County RHNA Increases / Aumentos del RHNA del Condado
RECAP / TCAC Opportunity Map
Mapa de RECAP / oportunidades de TCAC
24 N
Recursos bajos
Límite de la ciudad
Recurso moderado
Alto Recurso
Estacion de Armas Navales
Área de pobreza concentrada
Legend / Leyenda
Estacion de Armas Navales
Área de pobreza concentrada
Legend / Leyenda
Sites Inventory –
Downtown
Inventario de Sitios –
Downtown
25 N
Sites Inventory –
Clayton Valley West
Inventario de Sitios – Clayton
Valley West
26
Sites Inventory –
Clayton Valley East
Inventario de Sitios – Clayton
Valley East
27 N
Sites Inventory – Lime
Ridge / Cowell Rd.
Inventario de Sitios – Lime Ridge
/ Cowell Rd.
28 N
Sites Inventory –
North Concord
Inventario de Sitios – North
Concord
29 N
Sites Inventory –
Southwest Concord
Inventario de Sitios –
Southwest Concord
30 N
400
Town Hall
Participants
868
Survey
Participants
25 Community
Organizations
2 Virtual &
2 In-Person
Town Halls
Engagement by the Numbers
Alcance Según los Números
The City has had nearly
1,500 contacts and worked
with over 25 organizations
in English and Spanish.
La Ciudad ha tenido casi
1.500 contactos y ha
trabajado con más de 25
organizaciones en inglés
y español.
31