Page | 125 Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table 9
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Action Matrix
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 8-Year Metrics business assistance, improving quality
of life and economic opportunity, and
public improvements. Specific
investments will be informed by a
community outreach process, which
will take place by July 2024
Corridor in Four
Corners/Ygnacio Valley, Central
Concord, or in Olivera/Port
Chicago (Racially/ethnically
diverse areas of poverty).
Funds$30,000 per year in
funding
$28,000 targeted to at-
risk youth; expected to
benefit 50 students per
year.
Expect to engage with at
least 50 individuals to
receive input on where to
direct remaining funds.
Program 26. Place-Based
Strategies
Apply for grant funds for investments
within low-resource areas.
Ongoing
Within the City’s low-resource
areas such as the Monument
Corridor in Central Concord, or
in Olivera/Port Chicago
(Racially/ethnically diverse
areas of poverty)
At least 3 grants
Program 26. Place-Based
Strategies Conduct an analysis to build a
comprehensive picture of the
community’s language needs that will
inform community engagement and
outreach strategies of investments
funded by the program .
July 2024
Within the City’s low-resource
areas such as the Monument
Corridor in Four
Corners/Ygnacio Valley, Central
Concord, or in Olivera/Port
Chicago (Racially/ethnically
diverse areas of poverty).
Not applicable
Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement
Program 8. Fair Housing Conduct outreach for the Concord Tenant/Landl Lord Services program
to make tenants and landlords aware
of available contract mediation and
legal services.
Ongoing Targeted outreach in low
resource areas with increased
racial/ethnic diversity and high
rates of poverty such as the
Monument Corridor in Central
Concord and the Olivera/Port
Chicago area.
Conduct outreach at least
16 times.
Program 18. Preservation of At-
Risk Affordable Housing Units
Provide funding assistance, technical
assistance with grant pursuits, or
letters of support for grants to
preserve affordable housing.
At least 3.5 years prior to
conversion of units to
market-rate.
At-Risk Units in specific sites
throughout the City. Preserve 767 units.
Program 20. Residential Tenant
Protections
Enforce Rental Tenant Protection
Program to provide tenant protection
through minimum relocation funds
Ongoing Citywide Require relocation
assistance of two times
the monthly rent or
Page | 126 Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table 9
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Action Matrix
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 8-Year Metrics and minimum lease terms to be
offered.
$5,000, whichever is
greater.
Require that landlords
offer tenants a 12-month
lease.
Program 20. Residential Tenant
Protections
Distribute outreach materials on the
Residential Tenant Anti-Harassment
Protection Ordinance
September 2022 Low resource areas and areas
with high concentrations of
poverty and high racial/ethnic
diversity.
Conduct outreach at least
twice per year.
Program 20. Residential Tenant
Protections
Conduct an evaluation of best
practices and funding sources for
implementation of Tenant/Community
Opportunity to Purchase Act
programs.
December 2026 Citywide Not applicable
Program 20. Residential Tenant
Protections
Adopt rent stabilization and just cause
for eviction ordinances.
December 2023 Citywide Not applicable.
Program 20. Residential Tenant
Protections
Expand tenant protections across the
City through various strategies
including:
• Requiring all multifamily
complexes with 4 or more units to
register through the City’s Rent
Registry online portal and
provide data including rent
increases and tenancy changes.
• Enforcing the Rental Tenant
Protection Program by
establishing minimum relocation
fund and lease term
requirements.
• Distributing relevant outreach
and education materials on the
Residential Tenant Anti-
Harassment Protection
Ordinance.
• Conducting best practices and
funding research to implement
Tenant/Community Opportunity
to Purchase Act programs.
Ongoing Citywide, with a focus in lower
resource areas and areas with
high concentrations of poverty
and high racial/ethnic diversity
such as Central Concord and
Olivera/Port Chicago.
The City will publish 8
reports on the results of
the rent registry to
provide transparency
around the available data.
Will require relocation
assistance of two times
the monthly rent or
$5,000, whichever is
greater. Will require
landlords offer tenants a
12-month lease. And will
conduct outreach at least
twice per year.
The City hopes to assist
100% of households at
risk of displacement, with
a target to reduce
evictions by at least 25%
of 2022 levels, as reported
through the Concord Rent
Registry Program.
Page | 127 Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Table 9
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Action Matrix
Program Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 8-Year Metrics • Adopting rent stabilization and
just cause for eviction ordinances.
Page | 1 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Introduction
As provided under California State law (Government Code Sections 65583[a][3]), the Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for all types of residential development. Suitable land includes vacant sites and non-vacant sites, having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the local housing need at all income levels. As further detailed in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) discussion below, every local government is assigned a number of housing units representing its share of the State’s housing needs for an 8-year period. The City of Concord’s (City) housing need for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (6th Cycle) 8-year period (2023–2031) consists of 5,073 total units.
This appendix of the Housing Element contains an analysis and inventory of sites within the Concor
d city limits that are suitable for residential development during the planning period.
The Sites Analysis identified capacity through several methods, including currently vacant sites available for housing development; identification of underutilized sites available for development at higher densities with realistic development potential; housing development projects that are underway and will have Certificates of Occupancy issued within the planning period; and the potential for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) based on recent production trends; and housing unit production that will be realized through the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Area Plan. Through the Sites Analysis, the City has identified adequate capacity for 4,495 478 units through vacant sites, underutilized sites, and projected ADUs. Additionally, the City has identified 624 total units in the development permit pipeline to be credited toward the RHNA. Furthermore, a minimum of 1,000 units will serve as a buffer to accommodate a lower-income RHNA throughout the planning period which will be identified through a future rezone program to affirmatively further fair housing (see Program 8, Fair Housing); 300 units have been identified as a conservative estimate of units to be delivered during the 6th Cycle on the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) through the CRP Area Plan as a buffer to accommodate moderate-income RHNA. These units will help provide a sufficient buffer to ensure that there is adequate remaining capacity throughout the planning period.
The sites identified in the Sites Inventory, coupled with the analysis of zo ning standards and infrastructure capacity (see Appendix C, Constraints and Zoning Analysis), has informed the programs needed for the Housing Element. These programs will help ensure that the identified sites are developed at or above the realistic capacity established for each site. This Sites Analysis discusses the sites identified, development that is currently underway (which counts toward the City’s housing need), the expected number of ADUs to be developed within the planning period, the methodology for determining realistic development capacity, and the approach used to select sites for the inventory.
State law requires a land inventory that relies largely on vacant sites, and if the inventory inclu
des non-vacant sites, the City must make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development as presumed by State law (Government Code Section 65583.2). However, with the exception of the CRP site, vacant sites in Concord are nearly nonexistent. The vacant sites that are suitable for residential development are included in Table A, found at the end of this appendix as Exhibit A. Due to the shortage of vacant sites, the City’s opportunities for residential development must largely rely on non-vacant sites. Furthermore, the lack of vacant land is not
Page | 4 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
approximately 75% of parcels can be consolidated to form larger sites adequate for accommodating the lower-income RHNA. These sites consist of contiguous parcels that are vacant or underutilized, sharing features such as common ownership, adjacency, and high- density zoning.
In addition to the research conducted to confirm adjoining parcels, common ownership, and densities that could reasonably facilitate the creation of housing sites through lot consolidation, development trends in Concord indicate that lot consolidation is a common tool used for facilitating residential development.
Lot consolidation was used for the 26-unit Willow Terrace development, which originally consisted of two approximately 0.5-acre parcels. Additionally, three projects currently planned or under construction that involve lot consolidation are Clayton Road Townhomes, Galindo Terrace, and The Grant (North and South). The Clayton Road Townhomes project used multiple vacant parcels to create an approximately 4-acre site for the development of 70 dwelling units. Galindo Terrace merged two parcels less than 0.5 acres to create a 0.53-acre site, which accommodates 62 dwelling units, all of which are affordable to lower-income households, with the exception of one manager’s unit. The Grant North and The Grant South consolidated nine smaller parcels in Downtown Concord to create sites that are roughly 1.4 acres and 0.6 acres, respectively, and collectively accommodate 228 dwelling units. Galindo Terrace and The Grant (North and South) are both located within the Transit Station Overlay, which permits additional density above the base zoning that allowed these projects to achieve their planned number of dwelling units.
The above projects are listed in detail in Table 2, Recent Development Permit Activity. Due to the smaller size of many parcels in Concord, it can be assumed that developers will continue to consolidate lots, as demonstrated by recent development trends and site-specific research identifying sites with potential for lot consolidation. The City also provides programs to facilitate the development of lower-income housing and will implement regulatory and financial incentives to facilitate lot consolidation, as detailed in Program 13, Lot Consolidation Incentive, which aims to facilitate development on smaller parcels through incentives in exchange for lot consolidation. All sites identified in the Sites Inventory with the potential of being consolidated are denoted by a letter in Exhibit A, on Table A of the Sites Inventory Form.
Development Permit Activity
The City’s recent residential development permit activity (Table 2) was used to determine resid
ential development trends in the area, and to assist in the analysis of realistic development capacity (see Realistic Capacity section below) to inform the realistic capacity of the sites identified in the sites inventory, and support the methodology for underutilized site factors used to identify sites suitable for housing development, specifically nonvacant sites identified in the sites inventory (see Underutilized Sites section below). Projects listed in Table 2 varied in stages of the development permit process, including application completion, entitlement, issuance of a building permit, and obtaining a certificate of occupancy, many of which have since completed construction. Since 2014, more than 20 residential developments were permitted (some of which may or may not have received a building permit or certificate of occupancy), with nearly three-quarters of these developments being in multifamily and mixed-use zones. The unit counts for each of these respective developments were as low as two dwelling units and as high as 313 dwelling units. Developments in higher-density zones were more likely to be approved at or near the maximum density compared to projects in
Page | 5 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
lower-density zones. The average density achieved across all developments is 70% of the maximum density. It should be noted that this number includes a variety of zoning designations. Site size does not seem to be a significant factor in how much density is achieved relative to the maximum density permitted in the designated zoning district.
In addition to recent permit activity, we have provided historic imp rovement to land value
ratio (ITL), building age, and floor area ratio (FAR) for any development that existed prior to the project listed in Table 2, where this data is available and applicable. City staff have reviewed all available project data, development staff reports, and available accessor data to identify the assessed factors of these sites prior to redevelopment. Where data is not listed, it is not available.
Page | 6 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Table 2
Recent Development Permit Activity
Parcel
Number
Name Zone Units Permitted Max Units
(units
allowed
per max
density)
Under
Zone
Percent
Density
Achieved
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Year
Approved
/Last
Activity*(
a)
Notes Redevelopment 5th Cycle
Site
Underutilized
Criteria (e):
Improvement to
Land Value Ratio
(ITL)
Building
Year(YR)
FAR (FAR)
Total AM/M
I**(b)
LI***
(c)
11705000
8 Myrtle
Creek
Estates
RR-
20 7 7 0 9 78 3.76 2020 Construction
Completed
Redevelopmen
t of single-
family home
Not
identified
No data available
13202006
0 Villa De La
Vista
PD 12 12 0 27 44 0.85 2019 Construction
Completed.
Inclusionary
housing.
Development
of a vacant
property
Identified
for 12
units
No data available
11337000
1 Willow
Terrace
RM 26 26 0 38 68 1.21 2021 Construction
Completed.
Consolidated
parcels for site
development.
Inclusionary
housing.
Development
of a vacant
property
Identified
for 26
units
No data available
12621004
5 Oak
Terrace
RM 28 28 0 46 61 1.44 2018 Construction
Completed
Development
of a vacant
property
Identified
for 28
units
No data available
12630005
2 Oakmont
of Concord
DMX 51 51 0 240 21 2.40 2016 Construction
Completed
Redevelopmen
t of a
telephone
switching
station.
Identified
for 224
units
ITL: 0.74
YR: Not available
FAR: 0.82
12606201
3 Renaissanc
e Phase 2
DMX 180 180 0 234 77 2.34 2020 Construction
Completed
Redevelopmen
t of
underutilized
commercial
(storage).
Identified
for 179
units
No data available
12609301
7 The Grant
(North)
DMX 139 139 0 138 100 1.38 2023 Construction
completed.
Redevelopmen
t of
underutilized
commercial
Not
identified
ITL: 0.02
YR: 1973
FAR: 0.14
Page | 7 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Table 2
Recent Development Permit Activity
Parcel
Number
Name Zone Units Permitted Max Units
(units
allowed
per max
density)
Under
Zone
Percent
Density
Achieved
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Year
Approved
/Last
Activity*(
a)
Notes Redevelopment 5th Cycle
Site
Underutilized
Criteria (e):
Improvement to
Land Value Ratio
(ITL)
Building
Year(YR)
FAR (FAR)
Total AM/M
I**(b)
LI***
(c)
Consolidated
parcels for site
development.
office and
retail.
12609301
7 The Grant
(South)
DMX 89 89 0 57 156 0.57 2022 Construction
completed.
Consolidated
parcels for site
development.
Redevelopmen
t of
underutilized
commercial
office and
retail.
Not
identified
ITL: 0.22
YR: 1973
FAR: 0.14
12608301
1 Concord
Village
DMX 230 230 0 234 98 2.34 2019 Redevelopmen
t of
underutilized
commercial
(retail).
Identified
for 109
units
No data available
12608200
8 The Argent DMX 181 2 179 164 110 1.64 2022 Granted a density bonus.
Currently under
construction .
Redevelopmen
t of
underutilized/
vacant
commercial
site
Identified
for 102
units
ITL: 0.0
YR: 1980
FAR: Not
available
12613300
9 Avesta
Assisted
Living
DMX 117 117 0 109 107 1.09 2021 Construction
expected to begin
in early 2023.
Redevelopmen
t of single-
family home
Identified
for 60
units
No data
Available
12616404
7 RMG
Affordable
Housing
DMX 75 45 30 55 136 0.55 2022 Density Bonus and
Affordable
Housing Incentive
Program utilized.
Currently under
construction.
Redevelopmen
t of an
underutilized
commercial
retail
Identified
for 57
units
ITL: 0.28
YR: 1960
FAR: 0.17
Page | 8 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Table 2
Recent Development Permit Activity
Parcel
Number
Name Zone Units Permitted Max Units
(units
allowed
per max
density)
Under
Zone
Percent
Density
Achieved
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Year
Approved
/Last
Activity*(
a)
Notes Redevelopment 5th Cycle
Site
Underutilized
Criteria (e):
Improvement to
Land Value Ratio
(ITL)
Building
Year(YR)
FAR (FAR)
Total AM/M
I**(b)
LI***
(c)
10509200
8 Clayton
Road
Townhom
es
RM 70 70 0 138 51 4.33 2022 Currently under
construction.
Consolidated
parcels for site
development.
Redevelopmen
t of
underutilized
commercial
retail.
Identified
for 42
units
ITL: 0.93
YR:1951
FAR: 0.03
12616405
1 Galindo
Terrace
DMX 62 1 61 53 117 0.53 2022 Currently under
construction.
Density Bonus
utilized.
Consolidated
parcels for site
development
Redevelopmen
t of gas station.
Identified
for 57
units
ITL: 0.57
YR: 1949
FAR: 0.09
:12610400
8 Salmon
Run
Apartment
s
DMX 32 32 0 47 68 0.47 2022 Currently under
construction.
Redevelopmen
t of
commercial
offices.
Not
identified
ITL: 0.75
YR: 1989
FAR: 1.83
12604203
4 Six-Plex at
2150
Fremont
Street
RH 6 6 0 22 27 0.22 2021 Application for
building permits
received.
Redevelopmen
t of single-
family home.
Identified
for 36
units
ITL: 0.25
YR: 1925
FAR:0.09
12613200
5 The
Ashbury
DMX 183 183 0 184 99.5 1.84 2021 Not
identified
ITL: 0.81
YR: N/A
FAR: N/A
11430001
4 Farm
Bureau
Two-Lot
Subdivisio
n
RS-8 2 2 0 5 40 0.56 2021 Rehabilitation to
convert single
family home into
two units.
Applying for
building permits.
Subdivision of
large lot for
additional
home.
Not
identified
ITL: 0.29
YR: 1952
FAR: 0.12
Page | 9 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Table 2
Recent Development Permit Activity
Parcel
Number
Name Zone Units Permitted Max Units
(units
allowed
per max
density)
Under
Zone
Percent
Density
Achieved
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Year
Approved
/Last
Activity*(
a)
Notes Redevelopment 5th Cycle
Site
Underutilized
Criteria (e):
Improvement to
Land Value Ratio
(ITL)
Building
Year(YR)
FAR (FAR)
Total AM/M
I**(b)
LI***
(c)
14718000
2 Heckmann
Subdivisio
n
RS-
7.5 15 14 1 21 71 2.19 2022 Inclusionary
housing.
Construction is
underway.
Redevelopmen
t of a single-
family home.
Identified
for 5 units
ITL: 0.78
YR: 1928
FAR: N/A
14725101
5 Walnut
Grove
Subdivisio
n
RS-7 14 12 2 14 100 1.41 2022 Density Bonus
utilized. Applying
for building
permits.
Redevelopmen
t of a single-
family home
Not
identified
ITL: 0.58
YR: 1964
FAR: N/A
11422001
9 Clayton
Way
Subdivisio
n
RS-10 14 13 1 16 108 1.28 2023 Density Bonus
utilized. Planning
application filed
1/30/23.
Redevelopmen
t of a single-
family home.
Identified
for 4
units.
ITL: 0.07
YR: 1907
FAR: 0.019
12621004
8 Villas at
Walters
Place
RM 17 16 1****
(d)
23 74 0.74 2022 Application for
building permits
received
Redevelopmen
t of three
detached
homes
Identified
for 14
units.
ITL: 0.54
YR: 1947
FAR: 0.017
*(a) Approval includes completed applications, entitlements, the issuance of building permits, or certificates of occupancy, depending on the most recent stage of development.
**(b) A bo ve Moderate- and Moderate-Income Units.
***(c) Lower Income Units (Extremely Low-Income, Very Low-Income, Low-Income Units). ****(d) Permit allows one lower-income unit or two moderate-income units to satisfy affordability requirements. (e) Underutilized criteria is based on historic assessor parcel data, prior to redevelopment or new development.
Page | 13 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Further, for mixed-use developments, the maximum permitted floor-area ratio (FAR) for non- residential uses may be increased by an additional 25% above the FAR permitted by the base zone. The additional density provided by the Transit Station Overlay District has been considered in the calculations for realistic capacity on sites within the Transit Station Overlay District. The permitted density and FAR, including bonuses provided by the Transit Station Overlay District, where applicable, are shown in Table 4, Residential Density and FAR in the Transit Station Overlay District.
Table 4
Residential Density and FAR in the Transit Station Overlay District Zone Density of Base Zone
(du/net acre)
Max. Density in TS
District (du/net acre) FAR of Base Zone* Max. FAR in TS District
Single-Family
Residential (RS)
2.5–10 12.5 N/A N/A
Low Density Residential
(RL)
2.5–10 12.5 N/A N/A
Medium Density
Residential (RM)
11–32 40 N/A N/A
High Density Residential
(RH)
33–100 125 N/A N/A
North Todos Santos
(NTS)
2.5–32 40 0.3–0.5 0.625
Community Office (CO) 11–40 50 1.0 1.25
Commercial Mixed-Use
(CMX)
11–40 50 1.0 1.25
Neighborhood
Commercial (NC)
11–24 30 0.35 0.4375
Downtown Pedestrian
(DP)
33–100 125 4.0 5
Downtown Mixed-Use
(DMX)
33–100 125 1.0 –6.0 7.5
FAR = floor-to-area ratio; TS = Transit Station; du/ = dwelling units per; N/A = not applicable. * FAR only applies to commercial portions of mixed -use developments. However, these commercial portions can support project feasibility and provide services to residents.
The permitted increase in density will help facilitate more robust developments that can accommodate affordable units, especially near the Concord (Downtown) BART Station and Downtown area. The area surrounding the North Concord/Martinez BART Station is mostly zoned for lower-density residential development, and the increased density provided by the overlay in this area increases opportunities for more-dense homeownership development types such as townhomes and small-lot developments. The North Concord/Martinez Station is also adjacent to the future Concord Reuse Plan, which will provide high-quality, transit- oriented development and affordable housing opportunities through conversion of the existing Concord Naval Weapons Station.
The provisions of the Transit Station Overlay District increase the density that can be achieved, as demonstrated through the analysis of recent development activity. Those sites that fall within the Transit Station Overlay District have an increased likelihood for achieving densities above the realistic capacities identified, further solidifying that the realistic capacity identified through this Sites Analysis is a conservative estimate. Recent developments that took advantage of the additional density granted by the Transit Station Overlay District include the Argent and the Grant, which are detailed in Table 2.
Page | 14 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Environmental Concerns and Infrastructure Capacity
Environmental and infrastructure constraints cover a broad range of issues affecting the feasibil
ity of residential development. Environmental issues include the suitability of land for development, and the provision of adequate infrastructure as it relates to sewer capacity, water capacity, and access to dry utilities needed to accommodate the City’s RHNA. All sites at all income levels identified in the Sites Inventory have been determined to have sufficient existing infrastructure including planned dry utilities, as well as adequate sewer and water capacity. Sites identified are on nonvacant or vacant sites adjacent to existing developed properties or nearby developed areas where infrastructure is already established. The City's utilities receive necessary upgrades and improvement based on future growth and development anticipated in the General Plan. The CRP area is the only site in the Sites Inventory that does not have existing utilities; however, the utilities have been planned for at a conceptual level. Further, the CRP area has been included only to provide an additional buffer of sites beyond what has been identified, as further detailed below.
All parcels in the Sites Inventory were reviewed for any known environmental constraints including wildfire, flood, and seismic hazards, and the sites in the Sites Inventory have all been designated for residential development and have no known site-specific constraints that would limit development. Wildfire was determined to be of little to no threat to any of the sites identified because there are no Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the City boundaries. Moreover, the 2030 General Plan includes Policy S-6.1.1 which requires developments adjacent to wildland open space to incorporate firebreaks, fire- resistant landscaping, and/or fire-resistant building materials, and Policy S-6.1.2 which requires developers to maintain firebreaks on the property.
An analysis of the sites identified relative to the location of Flood Hazard Areas identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) demonstrated that there are areas in the City which are at risk of a 100-year flooding event and some above moderate-income sites included in the Sites Inventory lie within the 100-year flood event areas. However, many of the 100-year flood event areas shown are creek beds, parks, or green belts containing vegetation and/or stormwater infrastructure to help manage floodwaters. Additionally, the Concord 2030 General Plan includes Policy S-4.1.1 which requires site plans to include features that minimize flood damage and Policies S-4.1.2 and S-4.1.4 which require the City to maintain adequate stormwater infrastructure (including ecosystem services like wetlands and creeks). In addition, the Concord Municipal Code contains enforceable regulations regarding floodplain management which details the process of minimizing or removing all together any losses due to flood conditions. Because the City has infrastructure, policies, and regulations in place to address flooding hazards, any of the sites identified that are within a 100-year flood event area are still suitable for housing development.
An analysis of the sites identified relative to Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones shows that the Concord Fault lies directly under certain portions of the City, including downtown. There are a few sites included in the Sites Inventory which intersect with the Fault Zone and, thus, are more susceptible to damage during earthquakes. However, the 2030 General Plan includes Policies S-3.1.1-3 which require all development sites to conduct a seismic risk evaluation, geologic study, and comply with all Building Code standards. With these mitigation measures in place, risks are minimized and housing development in the Fault Zone is permissible.
Page | 16 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Vacant Sites
Concord is a relatively large city with areas of urban and suburban development. Analysis of assessor and local data and ground-level inspections show that 135 of the 148 vacant parcels in Concord were zoned for residential uses. Furthermore, 98 of those 135 parcels were developable. This number encompasses about 56 acres of vacant land, which primarily exists in the form of infill opportunities. Vacant sites are sites without any buildings or other significant improvements. Furthermore, many vacant sites are unsuitable for development due to their irregular shapes or steep slopes, are designated as a right-of-way, or lack street access. Sites not defined as vacant include open space and parking lots.
Some vacant sites that are zoned for residential uses and available for development are still not eligible for lower-income housing, because they either do not meet the City’s default density of 30 dwelling units per acre, or they do not meet the State’s minimum size of 0.5 acres for this income level. Sites that do not meet the above-stated criteria are used to accommodate the moderate- and above moderate-income RHNA. Vacant parcels that meet the default density but are smaller than 0.5 acres can sometimes be consolidated with adjacent parcels to create a larger site to qualify for accommodating the lower-income RHNA. The potential for lot consolidation is important, as only 6% of the City’s total developable parcels are zoned for residential uses, and only 27% of the 98 vacant parcels meet the minimum size criteria for the lower-income RHNA. Therefore, in this analysis, many vacant parcels are shown to be consolidated with adjacent underutilized or vacant parcels.
Some recent development examples on vacant sites include 2150 Fremont Street, Avesta Assisted Living, The Grant, Myrtle Creek Estates, Oak Terrace, Villa De La Vista, and Willow Terrace. Myrtle Creek Estates, Oak Terrace, Villa De La Vista, and Willow Terrace were subdivided into smaller parcels for single-family homes or townhomes. Avesta Assisted Living and The Grant consolidated vacant and underutilized lots. This highlights the value of the ability to redevelop vacant parcels along with underutilized parcels. These developments are further detailed in Table 2. Table 6, Vacant Site Capacity, provides a breakdown of vacant site capacity that has been identified to accommodate a portion of the RHNA by income level.
These sites are further detailed in Exhibit A, Table A of the Sites Inventory Form.
Table 6
Vacant Site Capacity
Total Dwelling Units Lower-Income Units Moderate-Income Units Above Moderate-Income Units
1,0236 769 115 152142
Note: These numbers are based on the realistic capacity under the designated zones, as described in Table 3.
Underutilized Sites
The non-vacant sites identified to accommodate a portion of the RHNA have strong potential for redevelopment and do not have any existing uses that would impede new residential development. Strong opportunities for redevelopment on underutilized sites in Concord are due in part to the high densities permitted in many areas of Concord. Opportunities for redevelopment exist primarily where the Transit Station Overlay District intersects the already high densities of multifamily and mixed-use zoning districts, allowing a 25% increase above the base density. This increase permits a significant number of net new dwelling units, resulting in densities as high as 125 dwelling units per acre. Redevelopment is also more
Page | 17 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
likely to occur when parcels are consolidated with adjacent vacant sites, or when there is a large grouping of underutilized sites in areas with high development interest, such as the Transit Station Overlay District.
Selection Methodology
Underutilized sites are identified using thorough and selective criteria to determine which existing uses are likely to redevelop when paired with the right zoning designation, regulations, and policies. Underutilized sites were analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software with multiple datasets to identify potential sites based on certain criteria indicating a high potential for redevelopment. Local datasets and tools were used to aid in the analysis, including the Association of Bay Area Governments’ Housing Element Site Selection tool, County of Contra Costa assessor parcel data, and the City’s zoning and land use data. The following factors helped to narrow down sites with redevelopment potential:
• Building Age – This is often an indicator of structure condition because buildings that are more than 50 years old (built prior to 1971) often require costly repairs and are more likely to be replaced with newer, more efficient buildings that are easier to maintain.
• Existing Use – When there are no existing structures, or the existing structure is a vacant building, development is more likely. On-the-ground research and knowledge of existing long-term leases and known vacancies are considered in site selection. • Under Valued – Th
is is a common indicator for developers to help them minimize the cost of purchasing land while maximizing profits associated with new development. An assessed improvement-to-land-value ratio less than 1 indicates that the value of the improvements (e.g., buildings, facilities) on the site is less than the value of the land, and therefore the site is not being used to its fullest potential and could be redeveloped without overpaying for land.
• Underbuilt – When the existing FAR and/or density on a site is less than the maximum permitted, this indicates that there is unrealized capacity for more dwelling units.
When a site is substantially underbuilt, it is more likely to be redeveloped to near full capacity.
The above factors were used to allow for a more informed approach to site selection. Sites that satisfied these criteria were more likely to be chosen for candidacy in fulfilling the 6th Cycle RHNA. Furthermore, on-the-ground research and discussion with City staff due to their local knowledge aided in predicting and identifying potential for a positive yield count of net new units. This included meetings with the City’s Economic Development Department to identify sites with known potential for development; the use of Google Maps to identify current uses and vacancies; knowledge of past and current pipeline projects; and developer interest in particular zoning districts, neighborhoods, and sites. The Economic Development Department has firsthand knowledge of development interest of specific sites because it works closely with local businesses, community groups, and potential developers to identify opportunities in Concord.
Selection Criteria Analysis Based on Recent Development Trends Housing development projects included in Table 2, Recent Development Permit Activity demonstrate the trends in current housing projects in the City and serve to validate the
Page | 18 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
factors used to identify and prioritize nonvacant sites in the Sites Inventory. Of the 22 projects included in Table 2, 17 of the projects are redevelopment projects. This section analyzes recent development trends to support the methodology and selection criteria to identify nonvacant sites suitable for housing development that have been identified in the Sites Inventory.
Building Age
As demonstrated in the Underutilized Criteria column of Table 2, 13 of the 17 redevelopment projects listed occurred on parcels where existing structures were built before 1971 and the remaining four were built before 1989. Therefore, all existing structures were at least 30 years old at the time of redevelopment, whereas the criteria used for this analysis only considers structures that are at least 50 years old. Generally, structures over 30 years old are considered to be aging and are more likely to need repairs, making redevelopment a more attractive option for property owners and developers. Because older developments are more likely to be redeveloped with new housing, building age is an important factor in identifying sites to be included in the Sites Inventory. This analysis only considers structures that are 50 years old or more, which is a conservative approach compared to what recent trends show in Concord.
Existing Uses
Undervalued
The improvement to land value ratio (ITL) compares the value of improvements made on a unit of land (i.e., the value of any development on the land or investments made) to the assessed value of the land itself. An ITL less than 1.0 indicates that the value of the land is higher than the value of any land improvements made and, therefore, any additional improvement or development of the land would yield a greater return on investment. As demonstrated in the Underutilized Criteria column of Table 2, all recent residential development has occurred on parcels with improvement to land value ratios (ITLs) less than
1.0. This is consistent with this analysis which only considers parcels with a ITL less than 1.0.
As described in this analysis and supported in recent development trends, parcels with lower ITLs are more likely to be redeveloped and low ITL is an important factor in narrowing down sites to be included in the Sites Inventory.
Underbuilt
The floor area ratio (FAR) compares the square footage of any structures on a parcel to the square footage of the parcel itself. A lower FAR indicates that the development is small in comparison to the size of the parcel and, thus, the parcel may be able to support more development. As demonstrated in the Underutilized Criteria column of Table 2, 10 of the 11 redevelopment projects, with available data on FAR, occurred on parcels with an FAR less than 1.0, and one has an FAR greater than 1.0. The underbuilt nature of such sites provides opportunity for increased intensities through additional development or redevelopment.
Parcels with lower FAR are more likely to experience new development at greater intensities, resulting in a higher FAR. Therefore, FAR serves as an important factor in identifying sites to be included in the Sites Inventory and recent development trends in the City demonstrate that FAR is a key indicator for anticipating new development in the City.
Page | 19 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Existing Uses and Condition of Structures Prior to Redevelopment As demonstrated in the Redevelopment column of Table 2, most recent residential development has occurred on parcels with underutilized, deteriorating, or vacant commercial and office buildings or single-family homes. Visual analysis of the redevelopment sites on commercial/retail spaces included in Table 2, show the conditions of the buildings were generally in good condition; and some of the examples with vacated spaces varied from poor to good condition, which indicates a strong redevelopment interest within the City despite the current condition of a structure. Further, an on-the-ground visual analysis of the nonvacant commercial sites identified in the Sites Inventory shows that most of the existing structures are in relatively poor condition; therefore, based on the trends of the condition of buildings in Table 2, the sites identified have strong redevelopment potential. Further, visual analysis of the underutilized sites identified with single-family structures shows that a majority of the homes are aging, in poor to moderate condition, and mostly located on large lots which can support additional structures (as supported by Programs 1 and 9). These sites have strong redevelopment potential because they are underbuilt and aging. Therefore, underutilized sites with low to moderate-intensity non-residential uses and those with low-density residential uses are more likely to experience redevelopment. Considering this trend, existing uses and the condition of existing structures are important factors in identifying sites to be included in the Sites Inventory.
Furthermore, the City has a pattern of redevelopment trends for underutilized sites. Recent redevelopment trends of underutilized sites through permit activity, as detailed in Table 2, , Recent Development Permit Activity, include the Heckmann Subdivision, The Ashbury, RMG Affordable Housing, The Argent, Galindo Terrace, The Grant (North and South), Clayton Road Townhomes, Farm Bureau Two-Lot Subdivision, Concord Village, Avesta Assisted Living, Salmon Run Apartments, Oakmont of Concord, and Renaissance Phase 2, Clayton Way Subdivision, and Walnut Grove Subdivision Amendment These projects are redeveloping sites in built-out areas of Concord that are expected to see more redevelopment due to an abundance of older buildings, underutilized strip malls, and other retail-type spaces lacking long-term leases, coupled with zoning regulations that are much more permissive than what is built. Table 7, Identified Capacity for Underutilized Sites, provides a breakdown of identified capacity for underutilized sites by income category.
Table 7
Iden
tified Capacity for Underutilized Sites
Total Dwelling Units Lower-Income Units Moderate-Income Units Above Moderate-Income Units
3,2207 1,022 732 1,473466
Note: These numbers are based on the realistic capacity under the designated zoning districts, as described in Table 3.
Additionally, the following programs of the Housing Element will further facilitate and incentivize redevelopment of underutilized sites. Program 9, Middle Density, will ensure an efficient use of land by facilitating medium-density development and redevelopment on small lots. Program 11, Incentives to Assist in Development, provides density bonuses through the State’s Density Bonus Program and the City’s Transit Station Overlay District, which will allow underutilized sites to achieve a higher density through redevelopment.
Page | 112 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Site 39
1751 First Street; 2 547 Sinclair Avenue; 2565-2575 Sinclair Avenue; Sunset Avenue/Sinclair Avenue
This site is composed of five parcels zoned as CMX for a total acreage of 0.550.19 and a realistic capacity of 14 net new units. The existing use on the parcels include is a single-family residence and two vacant lots that are City-owned and 3 lots that are BART—Owned. If additional capacity is needed to accommodate the City’s above moderate-income RHNA, the City will work with BART to coordinate the availability of land for residential development.
The existing structure was built in 1926 and has an ITL ratio of 0.36, and the parcels have low land to improvement ratios indicating the site has strong redevelopment potential. There are is no known leases nor does the existing residential uses that would preclude the site from being redeveloped or impede additional residential development. The size and shape of the contiguous nature of the lots facilitate lot consolidation. Further, to increase certainty of redevelopment in the planning period and promote development opportunities in Concord, through Program 13 the City will provide incentives for lot consolidation. Through Program 4, the City will also contact property owners adjacent to publicly owned sites (including BART sites) to determine interest in purchasing such sites (or selling their sites) for lot consolidation and potential housing development. Considering the base zone permits a maximum of 27 9 total units, the site is significantly under built. The site falls within the TS Overlay District which permits additional density than what is permitted by the base zone and parking reductions.
Page | 113 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Page | 117 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Site 42
1980 -1985 Beach Street; 2510-2520 and 2600-2360 Salvio Street The site is composed of six three parcels zoned as RM for a total acreage of 0.67 19 and a realistic capacity of 12 5 net new units. The existing uses include a psychiatrist medical offices and , real estate office., chiropractor office, duplex, single-family residence, and Special-district (BART) owned vacant lot. If additional capacity is needed to accommodate the City’s above moderate-income RHNA, the City will work with BART to coordinate the availability of land for residential development. The structures are over 71 years old, and parcels have low land to improvement ratios indicating the site has strong redevelopment potential. There are no known leases or uses that would preclude the site from being redeveloped or impede additional residential development. To increase certainty of redevelopment in the planning period and promote development opportunities in Concord, through Program 13 the City will provide incentives for lot consolidation. Through Program 4, the City will also contact property owners adjacent to publicly owned sites (including BART sites) to determine interest in purchasing such sites (or selling their sites) for lot consolidation and potential housing development. Considering the base zone permits a maximum of 26 12 total units, the site is significantly under built.
Page | 118 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Site 43
Monument Boulevard/Cowell Road (APN 126191016)
This site is a 7.82-acre parcel zoned as RH with a realistic capacity of 782 net new units, of which 671 have been identified to accommodate the above moderate RHNA and 111 have been identified to accommodate the moderate RHNA. The site falls within the TS Overlay District which permits additional density than what is permitted by the base zone and parking reductions. The existing uses include a skate park which is not considered to accommodate the RHNA. Only the remaining portion of the BART-owned site is considered to accommodate the moderate- and above-moderate income units. The site is an empty unoccupied lot with an elevated railway. The City will work with BART to facilitate coordinate the availability of land for residential developmentdevelopment on this site as detailed in Program 4. Additionally, there are no uses no known leases that would preclude the site from developing with housing during the planning period.
Page | 125 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan
Overview
Located in Concord, California, and part of the San Francisco Bay Area, the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) was created by the Navy in the 1940s during World War II. The site was a weapons storage and maintenance facility, established following the Port Chicago disaster in 1944. It is located entirely within the limits of the City of Concord. The 5,028-acre Inland Area1 of the CNWS was approved for closure by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in November 2005 and was declared surplus by the Navy in March 2007. Munitions are no longer stored on the site. This area is the focus of the Concord Reuse Project (CRP) Area Plan.
Closure of the Inland Area spurred the City and community to envision a new future for the former weapons station.
The planned reuse of the Inland Area of the CNWS represents a significant opportunity for Concord and for the region to grow and provide long-lasting benefits. From 2006 to 2012, the City led a planning process with substantial input from the local and regional community, culminating in the CRP Area Plan.
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan
Starting with the Concord Community Reuse Plan, and succeeded by the CRP Area Plan, the City and its stakeholders have envisioned a future for the Inland Area that would improve the quality of life for residents of Concord and the region through the creation of new jobs, construction of a variety of housing types, significant open space, preservation of natural resources, active parks, pedestrian and bike trails, and community facilities. The CRP Area Plan represents a balanced approach to development that is economically feasible, environmentally sensitive, and sustainable. The original Reuse Plan established the vision, goals, and a preferred development concept for the Inland Area, the CRP Area Plan further refined and translated the Reuse Plan into a regulatory document suitable for incorporation into the City’s General Plan.
The City is now negotiating with a master developer on implementing the CRP Area Plan.
In accordance with the CRP Area Plan, more than 60% of the site, approximately 2,715 acres, will be preserved as open space. The remaining area will be transformed into the neighborhoods, business areas, institutions, and community facilities as described in the CRP Area Plan, accommodating as many as 28,800 people and 26,530 jobs. As many as 12,200 housing units (including 25% affordable units) will be built in the project area pursuant to the plan’s policies, complemented by as much as 6.1 million square feet of commercial building space.
The CRP Area Plan calls for a variety of housing types to meet the needs of Concord’s diverse population. The range of housing types will complement and add to the housing options available in Concord. The site will include housing opportunities for persons of varied socioeconomic backgrounds, ages, and physical abilities.
Local Reuse Authority
The Department of Defense selected the Concord City Council to act as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) for the CNWS in 2006. The City Council, acting as the LRA, approved the CRP
1 The former Concord Naval Weapons Station is comprised of two main areas: the Inland Area, which lies within Concord’s city limits on the east side, and the non-contiguous Tidal area, which lies outside of the city limits to the north, on Suisun Bay.
Page | 126 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Area Plan and amended the City’s Gener al Plan to be consistent with the CRP Area Plan in 2012.
Three land conveyances are agreed to under the CRP Area Plan:
• A Public Benefit Conveyance of 2,600 acres to the National Park Service, which, in turn, will convey the property to the East Bay Regional Park District for the Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – Home of the Port Chicago 50.
• A second Public Benefit Conveyance of 78 acres to the County of Contra Costa (Sheriff's Department/Contra Costa County Fire Protection District). • An Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) of 2,275 acres to the City, to be developed consistent with the CRP Area Plan.
As of April 2021, the Navy had transferred approximately 2,300 acres to the National Park Service, which has given constructive possession of that property to the East Bay Regional Park District (July 2019). The Navy continues to own the balance of the property. Initial land transfer to the City and/or the County of Contra Costa is anticipated in the 2023/2024 timeframe.
Master Developer Selection and Term Sheet Consideration Since adoption of the CRP Area Plan, the City has been working to secure a master developer and to obtain property transfer from the United States Navy. The City has entered into Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENAs) with two master developers in 2017 and 2022.
Both ENAs expired due to a variety of factors. However, there continues to be strong interest in this site from the development community, and City staff will be presenting the LRA with options for a new master developer selection process during the next several months. Once the LRA selects a new developer and approves a new ENA, a Term Sheet will be prepared. The Term Sheet, if accepted by the LRA, will establish a general framework for preparation of a Disposition and Development Agreement/Development Agreement (DDA/DA), Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project, as discussed further below.
Disposition and Development Agreement/Development Agreement, Specific Plan, and EIR
Upon the LRA’s acceptance of a Term Sheet, the parties will enter into the DDA/DA Stage of the negotiation process. During the DDA/DA Stage, the LRA and CFP will prepare a Specific Plan (including an Infrastructure Master Plan) for the project; analyze and address the project’s impacts in an EIR; prepare a fiscal impact report; prepare required amendments to the CRP Area Plan, General Plan and Development Code; formalize the terms of the DDA/DA; and negotiate the terms (price/payment) of the EDC Agreement to transfer the property from the Navy to the City and subsequently to CFP. These DDA/DA Stage documents will all be subject to future public consideration and approval by the LRA within the next 24 months as provided for in the ENA.
Concord Reuse Project Area Plan Implementation
Because substantial planning work has already been approved, the City has already made significant progress toward the final stages of the planning process. Following completion of the Specific Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan, the developer will then begin the permitting process to subdivide the land. This will include a series of Tentative Maps consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, the continuation of associated permitting with the regulatory agencies, and
Page | 127 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
implementation of mitigation measures. Once these activities are complete, site development can begin. The planning permit process for individual development projects on the former CNWS will be determined once the Specific Plan and implementing zoning ordinance are adopted. Based on the City’s current Development Code, major housing developments on existing parcels could require a Use Permit and Design and Site Review (if not in conformance with the City’s Objective Design Standards). A Tentative Map or Parcel Map would be required if the project requires the creation of new parcels, and a Tree Removal Permit may be required for removal of protected trees. However, the final permitting process will be influenced by the implementation of Program 6, By-Right Development and Program 15, Objective Design Standards to allow further opportunities to allow residential and mixed-use development with at least 20% affordable housing by right and to remove Design and Site Review from discretionary review if a project is conformance with all Objective Design Standards, respectively. Further, the development of the CNWS will be subject to a Disposition and Development Agreement, and in accordance with SB330, the City will be obligated to approve these permits if the projects conform with applicable development standards. It is anticipated that the Specific Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan will be adopted by the end of 2024 and that the permitting process will begin soon after. It is anticipated that horizontal construction will begin in 2025/2026 with vertical construction following that, with approximately 400 units built per year. Phase 1 units (in part) are anticipated to be complete between 2027 and 2031, depending on market conditions.
Concord Naval Weapons Station Capacity Identified
Although the City, without relying on the CNWS site, has adequate capacity to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels, the CRP Area Plan provides an additional buffer in the form of capacity that will realistically be achieved within the 6th Cycle planning period. Therefore, the City is identifying a conservative amount of capacity to act as a buffer to ensure that the City has adequate remaining capacity throughout the planning period to bolster assurances and flexibility. While the developer anticipates that approximately 400 units will be built per year for the 5 years from 2027 to 2031, the City is identifying 300 total units of capacity during the 6th Cycle to act as a portion of the buffer for the RHNA. The 300 units identified is a conservative estimate compared to what is realistically anticipated to be achieved for this site during the 6th Cycle.
Fair Housing
As detailed further in Appendix D, Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, most of Concord (86% of the land) falls within the “Low Resource” and “Moderate Resource” designations, as designated by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) mapping methodology composite score (see Figure 18, Appendix D). However, the TCAC methodology does not comprehensively reflect the full range of resources offered in Concord. Through the lens of housing affordability and access, housing and transportation costs offer a more complete measure of affordability. Increased access to transit and resources such as shopping, employment, education, food, recreation, and civic uses can increase affordability and opportunity for households. This is especially true in cities such as Concord, where the average annual cost of transportation is more than $14,000.2 As further detailed in Appendix D, Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, Concord is well served by public transit, especially within its Downtown, connecting Concord to the greater Bay Area,
2 https://htaindex.cnt.org/. Accessed April 2022.
Page | 132 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Table 9, Capacity Identified, sh ows the breakdown of all capacity identified and units to be credited toward the RHNA, as detailed throughout this analysis. The capacity identified reflects a conservative estimate based on the realistic capacity shown in Table 3 and supported by recent permit activity as shown in Table 2. As demonstrated in Table 9, the City has adequate capacity and credits to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels, and has a surplus of 29 lower-income units. The City has sufficient existing and planned total capacity to meet the RHNA. Further, each site identified to accommodate the RHNA has sufficient access to infrastructure. and 17 moderate- and above moderate-income units.
Along with the units credited toward the RHNA through those developments in the permitting pipeline, credit has been identified for the projected number of ADUs expected to be produced during the 6th Cycle. Additionally, capacity has been identified on both vacant and underutilized sites, as well as within the CRP Area Plan area. Of the sites identified, approximately 72% of those parcels have been used in previous Housing Element cycles.
Additionally, about 16% of parcels that make up the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory are identified for lower-income units. With this identified capacity, the City does not need a rezone to accommodate the RHNA. However, as detailed in Program 8, Fair Housing, the City will rezone a minimum of 20 acres at densities of at least 60 dwelling units per acre to create a buffer of capacity for at least 1,000 units. Further, as detailed in Program 6, By-Right Development, the City will allow development by-right when consistent with objective design standards (developed through Program 15) and when 20% or more of the units are affordable to lower- income households on vacant or underutilized sites identified in the Sites Inventory Form (Exhibit A) to accommodate the lower-income RHNA that were identified in past Housing Elements. Additionally, as detailed in Program 11, Incentives to Assist in Development, the City provides development incentives above and beyond those provided by the State Density Bonus program including incentives for increased density and development intensity for developments near transit.
To ensure there is adequ
ate capacity throughout the planning period, a buffer of 300 units has been identified through the Concord Naval Weapons Station to accommodate the moderate- income RHNA and through Program 8 of the housing element, the cCity will rezone to allow for a minimum of 1,000 units (Program 8)of which can accommodate a buffer of more than 30% of the lower-income RHNA throughout the planning period, consistent with the recommended 30% buffer. This represents a buffer of nearly 50% for the lower-income RHNA, well above the recommended 30% buffer.
Table 9
Capacity Identified
Category Lower-Income Units Moderate- and Above
Moderate-Income Units Total Units
RHNA 2,036 3,037 5,073
Vacant Site Capacity 769 2567 1,0236
Underutilized Capacity 1,022 2,205198 3,2207
ADU Projection 0 232 232
Permit Pipeline Projects 274 350 624
Total 2,065 3,054 037 5,10219
Surplus (+) or Deficit (-) +29 +170 +4629
Additional Buffer Units
Program 8 Rezone 1,000 0 1,000
Page | 133 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
Total Buffer, including Surplus Units 1,029 3170 1,3461,029 RHNA = Regional Housing Needs Allocation; ADU = accessory dwelling unit.
Conclusion
Concord is a prim arily built-out city without large parcels available for development, with the exception of the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS). To the north, Concord is bounded by the CNWS, which comprises nearly one-third of the City’s land. Much of Concord’s unbuilt land is preserved for open space or conservation, while much potential lies within underutilized sites. New housing capacity is found on only a limited number of vacant sites.
However, robust programs, incentives for ADUs, a rezone program, and lot consolidation maximizes the potential for new units for the 6th Cycle RHNA. The City benefits from the BART system and includes two stations, one of which is located in proximity to high-density residentially designated zones. Additionally, sites within a 0.5-mile radius of these stations can maximize capacity with an automatic 25% density increase under the City’s Transit Station Overlay District. The City can realistically meet its RHNA target based on recent development trends; identification of suitable, developable, and redevelopable sites; and programs supporting lower-income households and affordable housing development during the Housing Element planning period.
Programs to Support Development of Identified Sites
The City
will implement the following programs to facilitate and incentivize the development of identified sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA:
• Through Program 1, Accessory Dwelling Unit, the City will ensure its ADU ordinance is compliant with State law through future and necessary amendments, and will develop a program to incentivize the development of ADUs affordable to lower-income households or households with special housing needs, such as households with older adults or those with disabilities, through regulatory and financial incentives. To further support development of sites, the City will develop and release a comprehensive web- based “ADU Toolkit” which provides permit-ready ADU plans, as well as information for developers and land owners.
• Through Program 2, Addressing Constraints to Development, the City will address constraints to the development of housing as identified in Appendix C, including housing for extremely low-income households and housing for persons with disabilities, by amending the Development Code to permit a variety of housing types and improving permitting processes.
• Through Program 3, Affordable Housing Development Toolkit, the City will actively work with the development community to assist in the development of affordable housing, especially housing for extremely low-income households and households with special housing needs. The City will develop an Affordable Housing Development Toolkit, providing resources that will guide developers through the permitting process, affordable housing incentives, and notices of available funding for financial assistance in affordable housing development. The City will also continue to provide a centralized virtual and/or in-person, one-stop counter for permit processing to streamline the development process to provide preliminary application reviews to assist applicants with the filing process.
Page | 138 Appendix E: Sites Analysis
HCD Grouping # LOCATION
1. AFFH 1
1 1
4. Non-Governmental Constraints 1
1 Appendix
D/Programs
Concord Housing Element - HCD Official Comments (Received May 19, 2023)
COMMENTS RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
Geographic Targeting – The element included geographic targeting to high and low resourced areas.
However, given the analysis, the element should be revised to include specific geographic targeting (e.g., neighborhoods or quadrants) in the City.
Added subarea map from GP LU element as a figure to
Appendix D and context to the introduction section. Used subareas from maps through AFFH geographic targets.
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).)
Additionally, HCD encourages the City to continue to utilize public comments to help continue to formulate and strengthen affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) programs.
See revisions to Appendix C and Programs. Specifics are provided for detailed comments below.
Metrics – To target significant and meaningful impact, the element should increase several numeric targets for programs focused on housing mobility, increased housing opportunities and affordability and place- based. Additionally, several metrics targeted the number of grants or outreach events as an outcome for each program. However, metrics should be targeting beneficial impacts for people, households, and neighborhoods.
See revisions to Appendix D and programs. Specifics are provided for detailed comments below.
See revisions to Appendix D and programs. Specifics are provided for detailed comments below.
Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Given the need in the community, the clear disparities in race, income and access to opportunities between the central/western and southeastern portions of the City, the element must include significant quantifiable and measurable targets, meaningful programs, clear implementation actions and specificity in geographic targeting.
EXHIBIT B
HCD Grouping # LOCATION
COMMENTS RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
1 Appendix
D/Programs
1 Appendix
D/Programs
2. Site Inventory 2 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).) 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... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) Additionally, the element included a list of programs to promote housing mobility but included a geographic target for lower resourced areas. For your information, housing mobility programs should aim to promote mobility and reduce barriers to higher opportunity/income areas. The element should revise these programs to include more appropriate geographic targeting.
Changes made per AFFH Supplemental Letter
Increasing Housing Choices and Affordability in Higher Resourced/Higher Income Areas – The analysis of fair housing demonstrated that the City has concentrations of higher incomes, majority white populations, and higher access to opportunities lending to an overall higher quality of life for residents living in these neighborhoods. To address this disparity, the element proposes to rezone for an additional 1,000 units in these areas among other strategies. While HCD is supportive of the City’s strategy,additional actions or increased metrics will be needed to ensure that programs are significant in addressing these disparities. For example, the element could strengthen programs 1 and 9 with significant metrics and implementation steps.
Revisions made to programs 1 and 9
HCD Grouping # LOCATION
COMMENTS RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
2 Programs/ Appendix
E
2 Programs
2 Appendix E
Publicly-Owned Sites: HCD understands that the City has identified three BART sites to accommodate a portion of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). While the element included some general information and commits to collaborating with BART, it must specifically discuss these sites. The analysis should address any known conditions that preclude or could promote development in the planning period, status, potential schedule for development and consistency with AB 2923 (2018) and BART Transit Orientated Development guidelines. Based on this analysis, the element should add or modify programs.
In addition, while the element included a program to develop publicly identified sites, the element must include specific actions to facilitate development on BART sites. Please see the finding in the programs section for additional information on programs for BART sites.
See Program 4 revisions
Nonvacant Sites: The element was revised to identify a list of factors (building age, improvement to land value, existing uses and floor area ratio (FAR) that were used in determining redevelopment potential on sites and including a description of each site’s zoning, existing uses, capacity assumptions and other relevant information. However, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must describe how and why these factors demonstrate these sites are suitable for housing development. For example, the element included a list of several projects indicating affordability and existing uses (Appendix C, Table 2). The element could relate these examples to support the factors that were utilized in identifying nonvacant sites with redevelopment potential. Specifically, for each project listed, the element could include information on the FAR, building age, existing uses, conditions of structures prior to redevelopment, and any other information that is reflective of the criteria used in identifying sites.
Added column for LTI, building age, and FAR to Table 2 of Appendix E. Info was obtained from City-provided shapefile when possible and from ABAG when info was not available.
Section with analyses of factors added (pg 16 of Appendix E) BART sites (Site 39 and Site 42) with the exception of the Monument Boulevard near Concord BART station (Site 43) have been removed from the inventory. Program 4 revisions per HCD supplemental letter and include detailed description of site and process.
HCD Grouping # LOCATION
COMMENTS RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
2 Appendix E and C
2 Programs
2 Programs
2 Programs
Programs: As noted above, 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
No Change made. City has sufficient capacity
In addition, the element should be revised, as follows:
• Program 1 - Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) : While this program now commits to frequent monitoring, as found in HCD’s prior review, it must commit to adjust assumptions and completing alternative actions within a specified timeframe (e.g., six months).
Revised Program 1 to adjust ADU assumptions within 6
months, instead of 2 years.
Infrastructure Capacity: The element was revised to indicate that all sites have sufficient access to infrastructure, sites have been identified near areas already established with infrastructure, and the City completes any necessary upgrades needed to meet growth demands. However, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must specifically indicate if the City has sufficient existing and planned total capacity to meet the RHNA.
• BART Sites - The element should include or modify a program with additional commitments for BART owned sites. Examples of steps include completing on- and off-site improvements and parking strategies, consistency with AB 2923 (2018), completion of requests for proposals or qualifications, facilitating entitlement and issuing permits and alternative actions with timing if steps are not completed as anticipated to facilitate development in the planning period. Additionally, the program should be revised with numerical targets reflecting assumptions on BART sites.
Revisions made to program 4 to detail process for developing BART site and details the City's objectives for implementation.
This is already included: "Summary of Capacity to
Accommodate the RHNA" explicitly states as follows: "As demonstrated in Table 9, the City has adequate capacity and credits to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels, and has a surplus of 29 lower-income units." Added two additional sentences to restate that the City has sufficient capacity and that the site identified have sufficient infrastrucutre.
HCD Grouping # LOCATION
COMMENTS RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
2 Appendix E
3. Governmental Constraints 3
3 Appendix C
3 Programs
• Height Limits: The analysis indicates that the City imposes a maximum height requirement of 60 foot in the RH zone that allows for 100 units per acre. Additionally, the CO and CMX zones allow for 30 foot heights and allows for 40 du/ac. These limits are generally considered constraints and the element should include a program to revise the maximum height requirement in these zones to facilitate achieving maximum densities.
Program 2 has been revised to ensure that heights in the RH, CO, and CMX zones will be increased to allow at least 10 feet for every 10 dwelling units per acre permitted by the zone.
Note: This comment is under discussion with HCD staff, which may result in alternate revisions.
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… …and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
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).) Land Use Controls: The element included some analysis of land use controls but should be revised as follows:
• Heights and Story Calculation: The City conducted the analysis based on the assumption that the average story height is 9 feet. However, stories should be measured with a 12-foot height.
Revised analysis in Appendix C to analyze development
standards based on 12-foot stories.
• Concord Reuse Project Area Plan - The element was revised to include additional information on the status and schedule of the Concord Reuse plan for the Naval Station. However, as the element is utilizing this area as a buffer for the RHNA (300 units), it should include a program with a schedule of actions to facilitate development on this site. For example, the schedule of actions can include estimated dates for when the City will complete the development of the specific plan, infrastructure planning, potential timelines for subdividing parcels, and adopting the implementing ordinance as indicated in the analysis.
Removed CRP section and removed identified CRP capacity.
HCD Grouping # LOCATION
COMMENTS RESPONSE/CHANGES MADE
3 Appendix C
(Building Standards)
3 Permitting Processes
and Fees (Appendix
C)
3 Programs
4. Non-Governmental Constraints An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …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).) Permit Times: The element was revised to indicate that the City average processing time is six to nine months. However, HCD’s prior review found that the element needs to specifically identify 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.
Calculated using data provided by City and added to Appendix C (average time is 11 months)
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element should address public comments on this revised draft submittal and discuss compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and timing requirements, including streamlining determinations and add or modify programs as appropriate.
Added content related to CEQA determination and PSA
timeline and included language to Program 5.
Program 2 (Addressing Constraints to Development): While the element includes Program 2 committing to simplify the definition of family, remove constraints, and address requirements for common spaces, this program must also commit to removing constraints around requiring residents to be under a single lease agreement
Added to Program 2 and objective 2.5 within it
• Net Acreage: HCD understands the City utilizes net acreage when calculating densities. However, this strategy may impact the number of units that can be achieved on a site. The element should analyze this requirement for potential constraints and impacts and cost, supply and feasibility. Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to include or modify a program, as appropriate.
Added Net Density Calculations section and reference to Program 9: Middle Density in response to subdivision
constraints posed by net acerage.
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
May 19,
2023
Valeri
e Barone, City Manager
City of Concord
1950 Parkside Drive
Concord, CA 94519
Dear Val
erie Barone:
RE: Ci
ty of Concord’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Thank you f
or submitting the City of Concord’s (City) housing element that was adopted March 14, 2023 and received for review on March 21, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from, East Bay Housing Organizations, Raise the Roof, BART, Heather Peters, David Kellogg, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).
The adopt
ed housing element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD’s November 14, 2022 letter; however, additional revisions are necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.), as follows:
1. 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).) Goals
, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Given the need in the community, the clear disparities in race, income and access to opportunities between the central/western and southeastern portions of the City, the element must include significant quantifiable and measurable targets, meaningful programs, clear implementation actions and specificity in geographic targeting. Additionally, HCD encourages the City to continue to utilize public comments to help continue to formulate and strengthen affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) programs.
Below summarizes additional information on each required program component. • Metric
s – To target significant and meaningful impact, the element should increase several numeric targets for programs focused on housing Attachment 2
Valerie Barone, City Manager
mobility, increased housing opportunities and affordability and place- based. Additionally, several metrics targeted the number of grants or outreach events as an outcome for each program. However, metrics should be targeting beneficial impacts for people, households, and neighborhoods.
• Geographic Targeting – The element included geographic targeting to high and low resourced areas. However, given the analysis, the element should be revised to include specific geographic targeting (e.g., neighborhoods or quadrants) in the City. Additionally, the element included a list of programs to promote housing mobility but included a geographic target for lower resourced areas. For your information, housing mobility programs should aim to promote mobility and reduce barriers to higher opportunity/income areas. The element should revise these programs to include more appropriate geographic targeting.
• Increasing Housing Choices and Affordability in Higher Resourced/Higher Income Areas – The analysis of fair housing demonstrated that the City has concentrations of higher incomes, majority white populations, and higher access to opportunities lending to an overall higher quality of life for residents living in these neighborhoods. To address this disparity, the element proposes to rezone for an additional 1,000 units in these areas among other strategies. While HCD is supportive of the City’s strategy, additional actions or increased metrics will be needed to ensure that programs are significant in addressing these disparities. For example, the element could strengthen programs 1 and 9 with significant metrics and implementation steps.
HCD will follow-up under a separate cover with additional guidance.
2. 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).)
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... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
Publicly-Owned Sites: HCD understands that the City has identified three BART sites to accommodate a portion of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). While the element included some general information and commits to
Valerie Barone, City Manager
collaborating with BART, it must specifically discuss these sites. The analysis should address any known conditions that preclude or could promote development in the planning period, status, potential schedule for development and consistency with AB 2923 (2018) and BART Transit Orientated Development guidelines. Based on this analysis, the element should add or modify programs.
In addition, while the element included a program to develop publicly identified sites, the element must include specific actions to facilitate development on BART sites. Please see the finding in the programs section for additional information on programs for BART sites.
Nonvacant Sites: The element was revised to identify a list of factors (building age, improvement to land value, existing uses and floor area ratio (FAR) that were used in determining redevelopment potential on sites and including a description of each site’s zoning, existing uses, capacity assumptions and other relevant information. However, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must describe how and why these factors demonstrate these sites are suitable for housing development. For example, the element included a list of several projects indicating affordability and existing uses (Appendix C, Table 2). The element could relate these examples to support the factors that were utilized in identifying nonvacant sites with redevelopment potential. Specifically, for each project listed, the element could include information on the FAR, building age, existing uses, conditions of structures prior to redevelopment, and any other information that is reflective of the criteria used in identifying sites.
Infrastructure Capacity: The element was revised to indicate that all sites have sufficient access to infrastructure, sites have been identified near areas already established with infrastructure, and the City completes any necessary upgrades needed to meet growth demands. However, as found in HCD’s prior review, the element must specifically indicate if the City has sufficient existing and planned total capacity to meet the RHNA.
Programs: As noted above, 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:
• Program 1 - Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While this program now commits to frequent monitoring, as found in HCD’s prior review, it must commit to adjust assumptions and completing alternative actions within a specified timeframe (e.g., six months).
• BART Sites - The element should include or modify a program with additional commitments for BART owned sites. Examples of steps include
Valerie Barone, City Manager
completing on- and off-site improvements and parking strategies, consistency with AB 2923 (2018), completion of requests for proposals or qualifications, facilitating entitlement and issuing permits and alternative actions with timing if steps are not completed as anticipated to facilitate development in the planning period. Additionally, the program should be revised with numerical targets reflecting assumptions on BART sites.
• Concord Reuse Project Area Plan - The element was revised to include additional information on the status and schedule of the Concord Reuse plan for the Naval Station. However, as the element is utilizing this area as a buffer for the RHNA (300 units), it should include a program with a schedule of actions to facilitate development on this site. For example, the schedule of actions can include estimated dates for when the City will complete the development of the specific plan, infrastructure planning, potential timelines for subdividing parcels, and adopting the implementing ordinance as indicated in the analysis.
3. 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… …and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
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).)
Land Use Controls: The element included some analysis of land use controls but should be revised as follows:
• Heights and Story Calculation: The City conducted the analysis based on the assumption that the average story height is 9 feet. However, stories should be measured with a 12-foot height.
• Height Limits: The analysis indicates that the City imposes a maximum height requirement of 60 foot in the RH zone that allows for 100 units per acre. Additionally, the CO and CMX zones allow for 30 foot heights and allows for 40 du/ac. These limits are generally considered constraints and the element should include a program to revise the maximum height requirement in these zones to facilitate achieving maximum densities. • Net Acreage: HCD understands the City utilizes net acreage when calculating densities. However, this strategy may impact the number of
Valerie Barone, City Manager
units that can be achieved on a site. The element should analyze this requirement for potential constraints and impacts and cost, supply and feasibility. Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to include or modify a program, as appropriate.
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element should address public comments on this revised draft submittal and discuss compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act and intersections with CEQA and timing requirements, including streamlining determinations and add or modify programs as appropriate.
Program 2 (Addressing Constraints to Development): While the element includes Program 2 committing to simplify the definition of family, remove constraints, and address requirements for common spaces, this program must also commit to removing constraints around requiring residents to be under a single lease agreement.
4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …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).)
Permit Times: The element was revised to indicate that the City average processing time is six to nine months. However, HCD’s prior review found that the element needs to specifically identify 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.
The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and re-adopted to comply with the above requirements.
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 RHNA shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). 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 these rezones are completed.
Valerie Barone, City Manager
Chapter 654, Statutes of 2022 (AB 2339), adds specificity on how cities and counties plan for emergency shelters and ensure sufficient and suitable capacity. Future submittals of the housing element may need to address these statutory requirements.
For additional information and timing requirements, please see HCD’s memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339- notice.pdf.
Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while 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 will meet 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.
HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication of the City’s housing element team. 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
July 18, 2023
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
RE: Comments on HCD’s May 19th, 2023 Response Letter to Concord’s Draft 6 th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Planning Staff, Consultants, and City Councilmembers, 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. Raise the Roof (RTR) is a coalition of community, labor, and faith organizations working to promote stable housing and a sense of belonging among low-income residents of Concord and Contra Costa County.
Having reviewed the Draft Housing Element and the response letter from HCD dated May 19th, 2023, 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.
Attachment 3
While HCD highlighted a variety of issues in their letter, the most substantive comments concerned the requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH). As EBHO and RTR emphasized in our previous letter, and as supported by City staff’s own analysis, there is a significant need for programs that break up socioeconomic and racial segregation in exclusionary communities and promote housing security and mobility in excluded communities. While the previous draft Housing Element addressed some of this need, we agree with HCD’s assessment that the City’s programs should be strengthened even further, specifically by making sure that programs are adequately detailed and targeted to AFFH.
Several other cities in the East Bay received similar direction from HCD regarding specific targeting of programs, three of which—Berkeley, Oakland, and Hayward—have subsequently addressed HCD’s comments and received certification of their Housing Elements. The actions taken by these cities are summarized below.
Berkeley added additional targeted geographical emphasis for several programs including their Fair Housing Outreach and Enforcement, Rental Housing Safety, and Rental Assistance programs. The City targeted neighborhoods in South and Central Berkeley with a higher proportion of renters, cost burdened renters, and households at risk of displacement.
Oakland added lower-income sites to its inventory in the exclusionary areas of North Oakland and Rockridge, amended their housing action plan to prioritize improvements to low resource areas identified through the OakDOT Geographic Equity Toolbox (which largely relies on data from the American Community Survey), and added specific geographic metrics for applicable programs.
Hayward amended several programs to specifically target high need, low income areas with outreach to specific households who have interfaced with City programs previously as well as disadvantaged census tracts. The City also added new quantified metrics for acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of affordable units in high resource areas.
Given the success of the cities highlighted above, we recommend that Concord take the following actions:
1. Add additional affordable sites in the South and East portions of the City. As we have pointed out in our previous communications, and is confirmed in City staff’s own analysis, the South and East areas of the City are the most racially and economically exclusionary and highly resourced. Despite this, the Site Inventory identifies very few sites for affordable housing in these areas, and no lower-income sites in the City’s Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA). While Program 8 commits to rezoning sites in these areas sufficient to accommodate at least 1,000 units, the City should add specific sites for affordable housing development in these high resource areas and specify what steps it will take to promote such development.
2. Target specific census tracts for rezoning. Under Program 8, Concord has already committed to upzoning sites in areas that are both higher resource and “majority white.” We believe that this race-conscious approach will AFFH and thus meet HCD’s requirements. But according to HCD’s most recent letter, this race-conscious approach needs to be more space-conscious, as
well. Therefore, we recommend that the City use the Bay Area Equity Atlas data provided and analyzed by RTR in our letter dated October 10th, 2022 to specify the census tracts that it will target for upzoning because they feature the highest concentrations of higher-income white households, especially homeowners, and the most exclusion of lower-income BIPOC households, especially renters (see attached table).
3. Target specific census tracts and/or households for housing services and opportunities.
While Programs 8 and 26 commit to a variety of actions that will support disadvantaged communities, particularly in the City’s Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (RECAP) in the Monument Corridor, these programs could go further by committing to target specific census tracts or specific households that have previously interfaced with service providers and community based organizations in the City.
4. Increase the scale of target actions or add additional programs that increase housing mobility in high income areas. While the City’s current process to create Objective Design Standards offers one promising avenue to make development easier in high resource areas, further steps should be taken, including lowering or removing parking requirements and allowing by right approval of developments under the upzoning proposed in Program 8.
Program 8 should also include language specifying how the City will ensure that sites rezoned for multifamily development in high-resource areas will be developed with affordable units. One method to ensure at least some of these units are affordable would be to increase the City’s inclusionary housing requirement, although this will not create 100% affordable projects.
Finally, the City should consider adding additional programs that target low-income areas or households. Other cities have successfully included rental assistance, down-payment assistance, and aging in place rehabilitation services to fulfill this need.
Two of the cities cited above also received similar comments to Concord regarding their inclusion of BART-owned sites in their Site Inventories. Berkeley identified alternative sites and developed detailed timelines for the development of BART sites, while Hayward added additional detail to their already developed timelines for development of MOUs with BART for their two stations. With this in mind, we recommend the City more fully flesh out its timeline for cooperation and support of BART’s projects.
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
On behalf of the Raise the Roof Coalition
Housing Element Update
City Council Consideration of Amendments
Actualización del Elemento de Vivienda
Consideración del Consejo Municipal de Enmiendas
August 22, 2023
22 de agosto de 2023
Presentation Overview
Descripción general de la presentación
• Background
Antecedentes
• HCD Comments & Recommended Amendments
Comentarios de HCD y enmiendas recomendadas
• Sites I nventory & Capacity Summary
Resumen de Capacidad y Inventario de Sitios
• Recommended Actions
Acciones Recomendadas
2
Background / Antecedentes
• Mar. 14 – C ouncil adopts 2023-2031 HEU
14 de marzo – El Consejo adopta la HEU para 2023 -2031
• May 19 – H CD comments received
19 de mayo – Comentarios de HCD recibidos
• July 20 – R evised HEU released
20 de julio – Publicación de la HEU revisada
• Aug. 2 – P lanning Commission recommendation
2 de agosto – Recomendación de la Comisión de Planificación • Aug. 22 – C ouncil considers adoption of revised HEU
22 de agosto – El Consejo considera adoptar la HEU revisada 3
COMMENT /
COMENTARIO
AMENDMENTS / ENMIENDAS
Include
additional AFFH
targets,
programs and
actions
Incluir metas,
programas y
acciones
adicionales de la
AFFH
• Numerous targets, programs and actions have been added to Table 9 of Appendix E, including:
Se han agregado numerosos objetivos, programas y acciones a la Tabla 9 del Apéndice E, que incluyen:
• 17 ADUs and 50 SB 9 units in Clayton Valley and Lime Ridge áreas 17 ADUs y 50 unidades de SB 9 en las áreas de Clayton Valley y Lime Ridge • At least two additional affordable ownership units and five additional affordable rental units per year / Al menos dos unidades adicionales de propiedad asequible y cinco unidades adicionales de alquiler asequible por año • Assist all households at risk of displacement and reduce evictions by at least 25% from 2022 levels / Ayudar a todos los hogares en riesgo de desplazamiento y reducir los desalojos en al menos un 25% con respecto a los niveles de 2022
HCD Comments & Recommended Amendments
Comentarios de HCD y enmiendas recomendadas
4
COMMENT /
COMENTARIO
AMENDMENTS / ENMIENDAS
Include specific
actions to
facilitate
development
on BART sites
Incluir acciones
específicas para
facilitar el
desarrollo en los
sitios de BART
• Program 4 revised to include / Programa 4 revisado para incluir:
• By December 2024, City to co-host community engagement events with BART / Para diciembre de 2024, la Ciudad copatrocinará eventos de participación comunitaria con BART .
• By December 2025, City and BART to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding outlining the project objectives, City and BART roles and responsibilities, and a commitment to preserve the existing skate park.
Para diciembre de 2024, La Ciudad y BART ejecutarán un Memorando de Entendimiento que describe los objetivos del proyecto, las funciones y responsabilidades de la Ciudad y BART , y el compromiso de preservar el parque de patinaje existente. • City to provide streamlined, by-right, staff-level review of development application, utilizing only objective design standards, pursuant to Programs 6 and 15. / La cuidad proporcionará una revisión simplificada, por derecho, a nivel de personal de la aplicación de desarrollo, utilizando solo estándares de diseño objetivos, de conformidad con los Programas 6 y 15.
HCD Comments & Recommended Amendments
Comentarios de HCD y enmiendas recomendadas
5
COMMENT /
COMENTARIO
AMENDMENTS / ENMIENDAS
Include a program
to facilitate
development on
the former Naval
Weapons Station
site.
Incluir un programa
para facilitar el
desarrollo en la
antigua Estación de
Armas Navales.
• This site has been removed from the HEU’s sites
inventory given the uncertain timeline around housing
development there, and the fact that the City has
adequate sites to meet its RHNA without the site.
Este sitio se eliminó del inventario de sitios de HEU dado el cronograma incierto en torno al desarrollo de viviendas allí y el hecho de que la ciudad tiene sitios adecuados para cumplir con su RHNA sin el sitio.
HCD Comments & Recommended Amendments
Comentarios de HCD y enmiendas recomendadas
6
COMMENT /
COMENTARIO
AMENDMENTS / ENMIENDAS
Include a program to
increase height limits in
the RH, CO, and CMX
districts to ensure
maximum densities can
be achieved.
Incluir un programa para
aumentar los límites de altura
en los distritos RH, CO y CMX
para garantizar que se puedan
alcanzar las densidades
máximas.
• Within one year of certification, the City will increase the maximum permitted heights in the RH, CO, and CMX
districts to achieve max densities and remove any potential constraints. As part of implementing this action, the City will conduct outreach with the development community
and revise these heights based on the feedback received, up to a maximum of 12 feet of height for every 10 dwelling units per acre permitted by the district.
Dentro de un año de la certificación, aumentar las alturas máximas permitidas en los distritos RH, CO y CMX para lograr densidades máximas y eliminar cualquier restricción potencial. Revisar estas alturas en función de los comentarios de la comunidad de desarrollo, hasta un máximo de 12 pies de altura por cada 10 unidades de vivienda por acre permitidas por el distrito.
HCD Comments & Recommended Amendments
Comentarios de HCD y enmiendas recomendadas
7
COMMENT /
COMENTARIO
AMENDMENTS / ENMIENDAS
Analyze whether net
density calculation is a
constraint, and include or
modify a program, as
appropriate.
Analice si el cálculo de la
densidad neta es una restricción
e incluya o modifique un
programa, según corresponda.
• Analysis added; not a constraint for multi-family
projects, and loss of density for single-family
subdivisions is offset by additional SB 9 units.
Análisis añadido; no es una restricción para los proyectos multifamiliares, y la pérdida menor de densidad para
subdivisiones unifamiliares se compensa con unidades SB 9 adicionales.
HCD Comments & Recommended Amendments
Comentarios de HCD y enmiendas recomendadas
8
COMMENT /
COMENTARIO
AMENDMENTS / ENMIENDAS
Remove constraints
around requiring residents
of a dwelling unit to be
under a single lease
agreement.
Eliminar las restricciones en
torno a exigir que los residentes
[de una unidad de vivienda]
estén bajo un solo contrato de
arrendamiento.
• Program 2 modified to include this change.
Programa 2 modificado para incluir este cambio.
HCD Comments & Recommended Amendments
Comentarios de HCD y enmiendas recomendadas
9
Recommended Actions
AccionesRecomendadas
• Consider public comment. Considerar los comentarios públicos. • Adopt R esolution 23 -13PC: Adoptar la Resolución 23-13PC:
1. Find the 2023-2 031 HEU Amendments consistent with the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the adopted HEU. / Encuentre las enmiendas a la HEU para 2023-2031 consistentes con el estudio inicial/declaración negativa para el HEU adoptado.
2. Find the 2023-2031 H EU Amendments exempt from CEQA pursuant to the common sense exemption. / Encuentre las enmiendas a la HEU para 2023-2031 exento de CEQA, conforme a la exención de sentido común.
3. Find the 2023-2031 H EU Amendments substantially comply with state Housing Element Law. / Encuentre que las enmiendas a la HEU para 2023-2031 cumplen sustancialmente con la Ley de elementos de vivienda del estado.
4. Approve a General Plan Amendment adopting t he 2023-2031 HEU Amendments. / Aprobar una Enmienda al Plan General que adopte las enmiendas a la HEU para 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.
10
Questions?
Preguntas?
11
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
Available Sites, ADUs and Pipeline
Projects / Sitios Disponibles, ADUs y
Proyectos de oleoductos
2,065 3,354 3,037 5,419 5,102
Program 8 Rezone
Programa 8 Rezone 1,000 0 1,000
Total 3,065 3,354 3,037 6,419 6,102
Buffer (Total –RHNA) 1,029 317 0 1,346 1,029
Summary of Capacity and Credit
Resumen de Capacidad y Crédito
12
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
14 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
Zoning Map –
RH District
Mapa de zonificación –
Distrito RH
15 N
Zoning Map –
RH District
Mapa de zonificación –
Distrito RH
16 N
Zoning Map –
RH District
Mapa de zonificación –
Distrito RH
17 N
Zoning Map – CMX & CO Districts
Mapa de zonificación – Distritos CMX y CO
18 N
Zoning Map – CMX & CO Districts
Mapa de zonificación – Distritos CMX y CO
19 N
Staples/CVS Center
Best Western Inn
Zoning Map – CMX & CO Districts
Mapa de zonificación – Distritos CMX y CO
20 N
T.J. Maxx Center
Zoning Map – CMX & CO Districts
Mapa de zonificación – Distritos CMX y CO
21 N
Former
Bowling Alley
FoodMaxx
Zoning Map – CMX & CO Districts
Mapa de zonificación – Distritos CMX y CO
22 N
Medical/Dental
offices
Oak Grove Plaza
Zoning Map – CMX & CO Districts
Mapa de zonificación – Distritos CMX y CO
23 N
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
with RCAAs
Inventario de Sitios con
RCAAs
25N
Sites Inventory –
Downtown
Inventario de Sitios –
Downtown
26 N
Sites Inventory –
Clayton Valley West
Inventario de Sitios – Clayton
Valley West
27
Sites Inventory –
Clayton Valley East
Inventario de Sitios – Clayton
Valley East
28 N
Sites Inventory – Lime
Ridge / Cowell Rd.
Inventario de Sitios – Lime Ridge
/ Cowell Rd.
29 N
Sites Inventory –
North Concord
Inventario de Sitios – North
Concord
30 N
Sites Inventory –
Southwest Concord
Inventario de Sitios –
Southwest Concord
31 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.
32
Staff Report
Date: August 22, 2023
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Reviewed by: Kevin Marstall, PE, Director of Community Development Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Prepared by: Joan Ryan, Principal Planner
[email protected]
(925) 671-3370
Subject: Considering introduction of an Ordinance amending the Concord Municipal Code (Title 18) by adding Chapter 18.152 – Objective Design Standards (2023-2031 Housing Element
Objective 15.3) (PL23101 – DC) by reading of the title only and waiving further reading.
CEQA: Not a “project” and/or exempt under to Public
Resources Code Section 21065, California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15378 and/or 15061(b)(3).
Report in Brief
The City Council (Council) is requested to consider the introduction of an Ordinance (Attachment 1) on a City of Concord (City) initiated proposal to amend the Concord Municipal Code (Title 18) by adding a new Chapter 18.152 – Objective Design Standards, which incorporates the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards (ODS) to ensure quality, economically feasible, and sustainable design when state law or local regulations require a ministerial review and approval process.
State law has limited a local jurisdiction’s ability to apply subjective design standards for qualifying housing projects, whereby the City can now only rely on the application of objective design standards. Further, the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (2023- 2031 HEU) has identified various programs to remove a discretionary design review
5.b5.b5.b5.b5.b5.b5.b
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
process for certain housing projects. To address this limitation and anticipated streamlined process, the Council has prioritized the development and adoption of ODS.
Recommended Action
Introduce an Ordinance amending the City’s Municipal Code (Title 18) by adding Chapter 18.152 – Objective Design Standards (2023 – 2031 Housing Element Objective
15.3) (PL23101 – DC) by reading of the title only and waiving further reading.
Background
Recent state laws have limited a local jurisdiction’s ability to apply subjective design standards for qualifying housing projects. Instead, the City can only apply objective design standards1 to those projects. Objective standards are those that do not involve discretion or subjective judgment and can typically be referenced to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion. To address this limitation, the City has undertaken an effort to prepare an ODS document to apply to new qualifying housing projects.
State laws that limit the City to the application of objective design standards include the Housing Accountability Act, Senate Bill (SB) 35 (Streamlining), SB 3302 (Housing Crisis Act), SB 9 (HOME Act), Assembly Bill (AB) 2011, and SB 6 (Mixed Use/Commercial) projects, as well as other qualifying affordable housing projects. In general, this applies to or will apply to multifamily residential projects, emergency shelters, single room occupancies (SROs), group housing, and to new units constructed under SB 9.
The project’s goal of adopting objective design standards is to support Concord’s tradition of, and ensure the City can maintain, quality design with creative, economically feasible, and sustainable standards. More specifically, the City seeks to establish the ODS document to apply to residential housing development projects when the City’s discretionary review is limited or prohibited, while generating standards that support the requirements of state law to streamline the processing of housing projects. The design of residential projects would be required to meet the objective design standards or alternatively, applicants will continue to also have the opportunity to pursue design flexibility beyond the ODS under the City’s current discretionary review process.
The intent of the ODS project is to develop standards based on the City’s existing design documents and, through this process, enhance the existing character within the City. The implementation of the objective design standards will be contained within a new chapter in the Development Code as well as establish the standards in a separate illustrative document, which demonstrates examples of the design standards. 1 SB 330 defines objective design standards as, “involving no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” 2 The provisions of SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act) were extended by SB 8 until January 1, 2030.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
For this project there have been 11 meetings to date and three Council ad-hoc committee meetings:
April 6, 2022 - Joint Special Meeting of the Housing and Economic Development Committee, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board – Previewed the project intent, approach, timeline and invited feedback on important design issues based on recent experiences while reviewing projects at Council, Planning Commission (Commission), and Design Review Board (DRB) meetings. August 29, 2022 - Joint Special Meeting of the Commission and DRB – Reviewed highlights of comments at the April 6 meeting, provided a draft outline for the document, and provided the opportunity for discussion on specific design issues. October 13, 2022 – Staff Primer for the DRB – Review of the different methods to achieve an objective standard as a preview for an in-depth discussion of specific architecture and site planning design standards for the Downtown and Neighborhood areas.
October 20, 2022 – Special Meeting of the DRB – Discussion of the City’s ODS document with a focus on standards and diagrams for the Downtown and Neighborhood areas.
November 17, 2022 – Special Meeting of the DRB – Discussion of the City’s ODS document with a focus on the preparation of standards and diagrams for the Corridors and Special Case/Infill areas.
December 22, 2022 – Commission Study Session3 – Overview of the progress and a discussion of the City’s ODS document with a focus on standards and diagrams for the Downtown, Corridors, Neighborhoods and Special Case/Infill areas. February 23, 2023 – DRB Meeting – Consideration of preliminary standards to address urban lot splits and two-unit projects pursuant to Senate Bill 9 for incorporation into the ODS document.
May 2, 2023 – Council Study Session4 – Provided input and feedback on the working administrative draft of the ODS document. The Mayor also indicated her desire to create an ad-hoc committee to advise City staff (Staff) on the document. May 9, 2023 – Council Meeting – The Mayor appointed herself and Councilmember Obringer to an ad-hoc committee to advise Staff on the development of the ODS. As a result, three ad-hoc meetings were held, which are discussed in more detail below. 3 Planning Commission December 21, 2022 minutes can be found here. 4 City Council May 2, 2023 minutes can be found here.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
Initial Council Ad-hoc Committee Meetings
o May 30, 2023 – Discussion of ordinance language, maps, neighborhood treatments, SB 9, clarifying processes, and implementation. o June 5, 2023 – Review of window placement, patio enclosures, EV chargers, garages, and transitional standards.
o June 12, 2023 – Review of modified language from the prior two meetings and detailed review of all other standards.
July 13, 2023 – DRB Meeting - Consider the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards and provide any final comments. The DRB’s recommendations included:
o 1) Define “secure” ground floor access for gates, 2) clarify whether use of expansion joints constitutes as a blank wall, 3) examine the lists of architectural design elements to assess the economics/costs of the various options to avoid situations where developers just choose the two least expensive items, 4) provide a more representative photo of a patio enclosure; 5) provide a name for the remainder of Downtown for areas not in the Inner and Outer Core; 6) Examine ways through massing and articulation to address having multiple unit buildings blend in with other single-family homes (i.e. having a four-plex that has the appearance of a large single-family home); 7) ensure all aspects of sketch drawings are consistent with standards; and 8) re-examine distances to trash enclosures as the proposed may not be realistic.
August 2, 2023 – Planning Commission Meeting – The meeting was continued to a date certain for a Special Meeting on Tuesday, August 8 at noon. August 8, 2023 – Planning Commission Meeting - Considered and adopted by a vote of 3-0 (AYES: Mizutani, Laub, Barbour; ABSENT: Corio and Kaushal) Resolution No. 23-10PC recommending Council approve an Ordinance Amending the City’s Development Code by adding Chapter 18.152 – Objective Design Standards, with recommended modifications for consideration by the City Council, which are included as Attachment 3.
Final Council Ad-hoc Committee Meeting
o August 16, 2023 – Discussion of Planning Commission comments and the committee’s review of the current document with final resolution of comments in Attachment 3.
The above meetings provided feedback to staff and the City’s consultant, MIG, (Project Team) from the DRB, Commission, and Council on all five chapters within the ODS document – Citywide, Downtown, Corridors, Neighborhoods, and Special Case/Infill areas. This feedback assisted the Project Team to firm up and identify the primary focus areas and key design elements to be addressed in the ODS document. The feedback has also assisted in selecting the most appropriate tools and approaches (i.e., counts and measures, ratios and calculations, lists, etc.) to be utilized in the ODS
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
document to ensure an overall, high-quality building design. That direction combined with the detailed discussions with the ad-hoc committee have been incorporated and carried forward into the preparation of the Public Draft of the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards (Exhibit B to Attachment 1). That includes all of the DRB comments outlined in the “Modifications” section below and the Planning Commission comments as outlined within Attachment 3, received as a result of their August 8 meeting and additional direction by the ad-hoc committee on August 16.
Outreach
MIG, as part of their scope of work earlier in the process (February/ March 2022), undertook consultation and interviews with developers and applicants to understand their experience in navigating the City’s Design and Site Review and entitlement processes as well as understand their familiarity and practice with the City’s design guidelines. Key responses from developers/applicants focused on clarity of standards, reducing ambiguity, and providing a defined process. The resulting feedback focused the Project Team’s efforts within the ODS document.
Analysis
State Laws and Housing Element Implementation
As mentioned above, state law limits the City’s enforcement of design standards to only objective design standards for new qualifying residential and mixed-use development projects or where state law or the City Code require a ministerial approval process.
Qualifying projects include those, as described earlier on page 2 of this report.
The 2023-2031 HEU contains a program (HEU Objective 15.3) to develop objective design standards and adoption of these objective design standards will fulfill this objective for multifamily housing, mixed-use projects, SB 9 projects, emergency shelters, SROs, and group housing. Further, to ensure compliance with the policies and programs within the 2023-2031 HEU5, the ODS document has been aligned with the relevant programs in anticipation of future implementation of a ministerial-only approval processes for certain housing projects beyond those required by state law.
Objective 15.2 in the 2023-2031 HEU contemplates a staff-level ministerial review process for all multifamily projects within the City, which includes removing the discretionary Design and Site Review process and relying on the ODS document. State law is also requiring jurisdictions to remove the discretionary Design and Site Review process associated with emergency shelters, group housing, and single room occupancies (SROs). Currently, the City’s Development Code (Concord Municipal Code Chapter 18) requires a discretionary Design and Site Review process for this use, and HEU Objective 22.6.b identifies necessary amendments to the Development Code to remove that requirement. Additional amendments to the Development Code will be 5 The Housing Element was adopted by the City Council; however, has not been certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development, as of this date.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
required to fully implement and remove the discretionary requirements; however, this ODS document will ensure there are design standards that replace the discretionary Design and Site Review process for these projects. The ODS project will not only respond to the aforementioned state laws, but it is also the City’s first step in the creation of a streamlined non-discretionary or by-right review process for these housing projects.
State law, although mandatory with respect to objective design standards, does provide local jurisdictions with some latitude and flexibility around how they implement objective design standards. Staff has also provided recommendations on policy issues where the City retains its authority in regulating standards.
Ordinance
The proposed language to be included in the City’s Development Code under a new Chapter 18.152 (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) addresses the purpose and intent, applicability, relationship to other standards and documents, exceptions, review, decision procedures, and post-decision procedures. Chapter 18.152 incorporates and codifies the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards (ODS) by reference (Exhibit B to Attachment 1). The ODS establishes the objective criteria that new residential projects will be required to meet and will be used by the public, staff, applicants, and developers.
The ODS will apply only to new residential developments and will not apply to renovations, additions, or expansions of existing residential buildings. Other exceptions that have been identified within the Ordinance include small lot subdivisions, single-family detached homes as part of a major subdivision, accessory dwelling units, mixed-use projects with less than two-thirds of the building square footage dedicated to housing, and housing developed within the Concord Naval Weapons Station based on the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan (and future specific plan).
2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards
The framework of the ODS document provides overarching standards that would apply Citywide, along with four areas of additional focus for standards, including: the Downtown, Neighborhoods, Corridors, and Special Case/Infill areas. These areas were identified based on their geography and character, with the objective design standards tailored to address the distinctive conditions and environment in each area, as briefly described below.
Citywide Standards
The standards for this chapter are intended to apply Citywide, are universal to all building types, and are the foundation of encouraging the highest level of design quality while allowing flexibility in the design of multi-family and mixed-use residential development.
Design topics include site planning and orientation, treatment/ screening of parking, building massing and articulation, roof treatments, materials, colors, landscape design and detailing.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
Downtown Standards
Standards for this chapter focus on the urban core of the downtown area6. The Downtown chapter is largely guided by the Downtown Concord Design Guidelines7, which promote specific architectural styles (Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean Revival, Arts and Crafts, and Italianate) in the “Inner Core” area of the downtown whereas the architectural style in the “Outer Core,” is intended to be flexible and less prescriptive by being more “reflective” of these styles, while still maintaining high quality architecture.
Design topics for the Downtown chapter focuses on site planning and orientation, treatment/screening of parking, building massing and articulation, roof treatments, windows and doors, materials, colors, landscape design, and site and building details.
Corridors Standards
Standards for this chapter are focused on housing and mixed-use projects, generally medium- to high-density, situated along the primary roadways and higher volume corridors within the City (i.e. Clayton Road, Willow Pass Road, Treat Boulevard, Monument Boulevard, etc.). Corridor areas will also include those commercial sites, which due to the passage of new state laws8 can be developed with housing.
Design topics for this geography focus on site planning and orientation, treatment and/or screening of parking, building massing and articulation, roof treatments, windows and doors, materials, colors, landscape design, and details.
Neighborhood Standards
Standards for this chapter focus on residential subdivisions within low- and medium- density neighborhoods, with the intent of retaining a cohesive high quality architectural design for these areas. The City’s goal is to enhance the existing character within Concord as new development and property improvements occur.
This chapter also addresses units that are constructed under Senate Bill (SB) 99 and architectural treatment of special neighborhoods, which include the North Todos Santos, the mid-century Eichler, and the Canterbury Village neighborhoods. 6 This area includes the Downtown Concord Design Guideline’s Inner and Outer Core and exterior/remainder downtown areas.
7 The Downtown Design guidelines were approved in February 2017 and amended in October 2019 and August 2020.
8 Senate Bill 6 and Assembly Bill 2011.
9 SB 9 created a ministerial process for homeowners to create a duplex or second single family home (on the same lot) or subdivide an existing lot through a ministerial (non-discretionary) process, based on a specific list of criteria in order to allow no more than four units on the original single-family parcel. SB 9 only allows the application of objective development and design standards.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
Design topics for standards in this area focus on site planning and orientation, treatment/screening of parking, building massing and articulation, roof treatments, windows and doors, materials, colors, landscape design and details.
Special Case/Infill Standards
Special Case (Infill) areas include those infill sites, primarily within single-family zoned districts, which require sensitive transition to lower density zoning districts or neighborhoods or those sites adjacent to non-residential land uses, thus requiring sensitive transitioning to the abutting property. Special Case/Infill areas also recognize unique sites or situations, for example those parcels with a commercial zoning designation that are not located along a Corridor, that can have side or rear boundaries adjacent to other single-family zoned districts.
This chapter also addresses projects such as emergency shelters for the homeless, single room occupancies (SROs), and group housing due the State’s requirement for additional standards with the goal of enhancing the character of outdoor spaces for these uses, with respect to the provision of patio areas, privacy, shade and screening and landscaping.
Modifications
In summary, as a result of discussions with the DRB on February 23, Council on May 2, and Council ad-hoc committee meetings in May and June, the following changes have been made since Council’s last review of the ODS document. Updates to incorporate previous DRB and Council comments; Updates to fill in identified gaps within the City’s code: bike storage, materials for retaining and perimeter walls, and limitations on types of signs; Clarifications have been made in terms of where the Corridors chapter applies; Neighborhoods map has been removed in favor of a textual description; Special case map has been removed in favor of a broader textual description; SB 9 projects have moved from the Special Case chapter to the Neighborhoods; Special design treatment section has been added to the Neighborhoods chapter for the North Todos Santos, Eichler, and Canterbury neighborhoods to retain the character of those areas in the event new projects occur10; The Special Case chapter is focused on sensitive transitions between abutting properties and also has standards specific to emergency shelters, SROs, and group housing;
10 The ODS would only apply to new residential development.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
Standards for Inner and Outer Core areas have been modified to meet the intent of the original guidelines with additional language and graphics in the Downtown chapter;
Additional photos have been added to retain more Concord influence in the document;
Standards have been added to respond to the anticipated implementation of the 2023-2031 HEU;
Clarified “secure” ground floor access (page 28);
Clarified that use of expansion joints on blank flat walls do not obviate requirements for use of one of three decorative treatments on the wall (page 19); Examined lists of architectural design elements in terms of economics/costs of various options;
o Staff is satisfied that the balance of required elements and developer selected elements from the “list approach” will result in a balanced, high quality design. City Council can determine whether additional changes shall be made to certain standards with “list approach” by shifting specific standards to the “required” list.
Provided more representative photos for patio enclosures (page 13, 43); Clarified downtown area components as: Inner Core, Outer Core and Remainder; Examine ways to also support allowing multiple unit buildings blend in with other single-family homes (as opposed to detached units on same parcel) (massing and articulation clarified, pages 56, 58);
Update sketches to ensure aspects are consistent with standards (pages 26, 54); and
Re-examined distances to trash enclosures (such that Downtown Standard is now 15 feet from an abutting single family residential district or any public right of way or private roadway easement).
Development Code Amendment Findings
The proposed Development Code Amendment complies with the required findings in Section 18.455.070(B) as explained below.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with 2030 General Plan.
The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element contains objectives and policies to: 1) develop objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use housing projects (HEU Objective 15.3), 2) eliminate the discretionary Design and Site Review process for projects that meet all the objective standards (HEU
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
Objective 15.2), and 3) facilitate streamlined review of emergency shelters, SROs, and group housing which currently require a discretionary Design and Site Review process for this use (HEU Objective 22.6.b)11. The Ordinance is necessary to achieve conformance with state law and remove barriers to the creation of additional housing opportunities as identified in policies in the City’s Housing Element; and
2. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.
Housing has been declared a matter of statewide concern and this Ordinance will promote and streamline additional housing opportunities. All residential and mixed-use housing projects are required to be constructed in conformance with building codes particularly for matters of health and safety; therefore, the amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
3. Zoning map amendments shall also find that the affected site is physically suitable, including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities, for the requested zoning designation and proposed or anticipated uses and/or development. .
This project does not involve an amendment to the zoning map.
Implementation These standards will be implemented through codification in the City’s Development Code under a new Chapter 18.152. The implementing Ordinance incorporates by reference an illustrative document, the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards which will contain the actual design standards, maps, tables, and diagrams. Upon adoption by Council, staff will complete the preparation of new checklists and forms and finalize processes to provide clear guidance to applicants and developers interested in submitting applications. These documents will assist the development community and staff with application intake and to provide clarity to the City’s design standards as well as the submittal and permitting requirements.
Within one year of adoption (September 2024), staff will present to Council an update regarding the implementation of the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards document. The presentation will focus on the streamlining progress, successes, and challenges associated with the implementation of the document, any concerns identified that may be resulting in unintended consequences associated with the implementation, or issues that have emerged that are inconsistent with the state’s goal of streamlining housing development. In addition, new (2023-24) legislation may need to also be incorporated.
11 Also requires an Amendment to CDC Chapters 18.25 – 18.50 on the Planning Divisions work plan for FY 2023-24.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
In addition, as this is a new Ordinance, staff anticipates with use there will be learnings and updates to the Code will be needed. Staff will monitor for this and propose updates to Council as appropriate sometime during the first two years after adoption. . These amendments may include any necessary clarifications, simplifications, correction of unintended design issues, and/or removal of gray areas or standards resulting in complicating factors at odds with the state’s intent of streamlining and increasing new housing production, and/or to reflect future legislation. Amendments and modifications shall be shared with the DRB and Commission for feedback prior to review and approval by Council. The ad-hoc committee requested that language be added to the document to allow for minor modifications by staff, and language to that effect has been included on page 3 of the document and within section 7 of the Ordinance.
Financial Impact
The ODS project is being jointly funded by LEAP and REAP grant funds. The impact of the eventual adoption of the ODS is expected to reduce overall development costs to developers and applicants by providing clear standards that serve to streamline the review of housing projects by eliminating the need for DRB review, thus shortening the entitlement process.
Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the adoption of the Ordinance implementing the objective design standards and the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards document do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs.
Section 15060(c)(2) or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the adoption of the Ordinance implementing the objective design standards and the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards document did constitute a project under CEQA, the ODS documents fall within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment…” Therefore, the proposed ODS documents do not warrant further environmental review.
Public Contact
Council Agenda was posted. Legal notification was published in the East Bay Times, as required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code. The interested parties list was also notified.
Attachments
1. Objective Design Standards
Exhibit A – Concord Development Code Chapter 18.152
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 5.b
August 22, 2023
Exhibit B – 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards
2. Design Review Board draft summary minutes, July 13, 2023
3. Planning Commission comments, dated August 8, 2023
Ord. No. 23-XX 1
ORDINANCE NO. 23-XX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITYOF CONCORD’S DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) BY ADDING CHAPTER 18.152 - OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS (2023 – 2031 HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVE 15.3) (PL23101 – DC)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65800 et seq. provides for the amendment of any and all adopted City of Concord (“City”) zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2017, in an effort to address the State’s ongoing housing crisis, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 35 (Wiener) into law, which amended Government Code Sections 65400 and 65582.1 and added Section 65913.4, requiring cities and counties to streamline the review and approval of eligible affordable housing projects through a ministerial process and only apply objective standards to such projects; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2019, in an effort to address the State’s ongoing housing crisis, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 330 (Skinner) into law, which amended Government Code Section 65589.5 and 65941.1 of the Government Code, relating to housing limiting a jurisdiction’s ability to deny a housing project when it complies with all objective general plan and zoning standards; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, in an effort to address the State’s ongoing housing crisis, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) into law, which amended Government Code Section 66452.6 of, and added Sections 65852.21 and 65411.7, requiring cities and counties to consider housing developments of no more than two residential units of at least 800 square feet on a single parcel within a single-family zoning district and to allow urban lot splits with another two residential units ministerially and only to impose objective design standards; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2022, in an effort to address the State’s ongoing housing crisis, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2011 (Wicks) into law, which amended Government Code Section 65400 and 65585, and added 65912.100-101 requiring jurisdictions to subject certain multifamily housing projects in commercial districts to a ministerial, streamlined Attachment 1
Ord. No. 23-XX 2
approval process if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards; and WHEREAS, on September 28, 2022, in an effort to address the State’s ongoing housing crisis, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 6 (Caballero) into law, which amended Government Code Section 65913.4 and added Section 65852.24 requiring jurisdictions to deem certain multifamily housing projects in commercial districts as an allowable use on a parcel that is within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use and thus is subject to a ministerial, streamlined approval process; and
WHEREAS, the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element Update identified the development and adoption of objective design standards as Objective 15.3; and WHEREAS, the City of Concord must amend the City’s Development Code, incorporating Chapter 18.152 into the City’s Development Code to provide new regulations for Objective Design Standards to ensure quality, economically feasible, and sustainable design under the streamlined review and approval process required by state law, including housing projects submitted under the Housing Accountability Act including those submitted under Senate Bill (SB) 35 (2017), SB 330 (2019), SB 9 (2021), Assembly Bill (AB) 2011 and SB 6 (2022) projects, (hereafter collectively referred to as “Housing Streamlining Laws”); and WHEREAS, in an effort to comply with Housing Streamlining Laws and anticipated removal of the discretionary design and site review process for certain housing projects, an amendment to the City’s Development Code regulating and implementing Objective Design Standards is proposed and attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, such text amendment is in the form of the proposed ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A along with the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards attached hereto as Exhibit B, incorporated by reference, in order to ensure quality, economically feasible, and sustainable design under the streamlined review and approval process required by State law (hereafter collectively referred to as “Amendment”); and WHEREAS, the City has complied with the requirements of the Local Planning Law
Ord. No. 23-XX 3
(Government Code section 65100 et seq.), and the City’s applicable ordinances and resolutions with respect to approval of amendments to Title 18 of the Concord Municipal Code (“Development Code”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by state Law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on August 2, 2023, on the proposed Amendment, which was continued to a date certain for a Special Meeting on Tuesday, August 8 at noon in the Council Chamber; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Special Meeting on August 8, 2023, on the proposed Amendment, received the staff report and staff presentation, received comments from the public and interested parties, and discussed the matter after closing the public comments portion (“Planning Commission Information”); and WHEREAS, following the August 8, 2023 public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-10PC recommending the City Council approve an Ordinance Amending the City’s Development Code (Title 18) by adding Chapter 18.152 – Objective Design Standards (Exhibit A) and adopting the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards, incorporated by reference therein, as contained in Exhibit B, with recommended modifications for consideration by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by state law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on August 22, 2023, WHEREAS, at such public hearing, the City Council considered all oral and written information, testimony, and comments at the public hearing, the oral report from City staff, the written report from City staff dated August 22, 2023, attached materials, exhibits presented, the Planning Commission Information, and all other information that constitutes the record of proceedings related to the proposed Amendment, which are maintained at the offices of the City of Concord City Clerk (collectively, “City Council Information”), and declared their intent to approve and adopt the Amendment.
Ord. No. 23-XX 4
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. All the facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. The City Council has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the Planning Commission Information, City Council Information, all other pertinent plans, documents, and testimony prior to acting upon Ordinance.
Section 3. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in an may be obtained from the City of Concord Clerk’s Office, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA 94519.
Section 4. CEQA
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively “CEQA”), the adoption of the Ordinance implementing the objective design standards and the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards document do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065, 14 Cal Code Regs. Section 15060(c)(2) or 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Even if the adoption of the Ordinance implementing the objective design standards and the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards document did constitute a project under CEQA, the ODS documents fall within the “common sense” exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment…” Therefore, the proposed ODS documents do not warrant further environmental review. This determination reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis.
Ord. No. 23-XX 5
Section 5. The Amendment is consistent with the 2030 General Plan because the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) contains objectives and policies to: 1) develop objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use housing projects (Objective 15.3), 2) eliminate the discretionary Design and Site Review process for projects that meet all the objective standards (HEU Objective 15.2), and 3) facilitate streamlined review of emergency shelters, SROs, and group housing which currently require a discretionary Design and Site Review process for this use (HEU Objective 22.6.b). The Ordinance is necessary to achieve conformance with state law and removes barriers to the creation of additional housing opportunities as identified in policies in the City’s Housing Element.
Section 6. Development Code Findings
1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
The Amendment to incorporate Objective Design Standards (“ODS”) into the Development Code is consistent with the City’s 2030 General Plan because the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (HEU) contains objectives and policies to: 1) develop objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use housing projects (Objective 15.3), 2) eliminate the discretionary Design and Site Review process for projects that meet all the objective standards (HEU Objective 15.2), and 3) facilitate streamlined review of emergency shelters, SROs, and group housing which currently require a discretionary Design and Site Review process for this use (HEU Objective 22.6.b). The Ordinance is necessary to achieve conformance with state law and remove barriers to the creation of additional housing opportunities as identified in policies in the City’s Housing Element.
2) The proposed Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city.
The proposed Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city because housing has been declared a
Ord. No. 23-XX 6
matter of statewide concern and this Ordinance will promote and streamline additional housing opportunities. All residential and mixed use housing projects are required to be constructed in conformance with building codes, particularly for matters of health and safety; therefore, the Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 3) Zoning map amendments shall also find that the affected site is physically suitable, including absence of physical constraints, access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and provision of utilities, for the requested zoning designation and proposed or anticipated uses and/or development.
This amendment does not include any amendments to the zoning map.
Section 7. Staff is hereby directed and authorized to update the incorporated Exhibit B:
2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards by including additional illustrations that improve the usability of the document to the extent such additions are in strict compliance with the 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards as adopted by this Ordinance No. 23-XX.
Section 8. The City Council does hereby pass and adopt this Ordinance No. 23-XX Section 9. Concord Development Code, Title 18, Chapter 18.152 (Objective Design Standards) is hereby incorporated into the Development Code, as set forth in Exhibit A, with Exhibit B incorporated by reference therein, attached hereto and made a part hereof. //
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Ord. No. 23-XX 7
Section 10. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following passage and adoption. In the event a summary of said Ordinance is published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to its adoption and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers. Additionally, a summary prepared by the City Attorney’s Office shall be published once at least five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance and once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers, in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Concord.
____________________________________
Laura Hoffmeister
Mayor
ATTEST:
By: ______________________________________
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
(Seal)
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Ord. No. 23-XX 8
Ordinance No. 23-XX was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord held on August 22, 2023, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on September 12, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers -
NOES: Councilmembers -
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers -
ABSENT: Councilmembers -
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Concord, California.
By: _______________________________
Joelle Fockler, MMC
City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Concord Development Code Chapter 18.152
Exhibit B: 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards
Chapter 18.152
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
18.152.010 Purpose and intent
18.152.020 Applicability
18.152.030 Relationship to other standards and requirements
18.152.040 Exceptions
18.152.050 Review and decision procedure
18.152.060 Post-decision procedures
18.152.010 Purpose and intent
This chapter is intended to establish and apply objective design standards to all new residential and mixed- use development projects within the City of Concord where state law limits the City’s enforcement of design standards to objective standards or where state law or the Concord Municipal Code requires a ministerial approval process, with the exception of those projects described in Section
18.152.040. The purpose of this chapter is to:
a) Create high-quality, enforceable objective design standards. b) Streamline the review and approval process for qualifying residential and mixed-use projects.
c) Ensure greater certainty for applicants, decision makers, residents, and the public. d) Enhance the existing character and to maintain compatibility with other established uses within the City as new development and property improvements occur. e) Continue to ensure the highest level of design quality while allowing for appropriate flexibility to create variation.
f) Create objective design standards that involve no personal or subjective judgement, verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion. g) Facilitate the implementation of the General Plan.
h) Update standards on a timely basis to respond to new legislative actions.
18.152.020 Applicability
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all new residential and mixed-use development projects where state law limits the City’s enforcement of design standards to objective standards or where state law or the City Code requires a ministerial approval process.
B. The 2023 City of Concord Objective Design Standards are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
18.152.030 Relationship to other standards and requirements The City intends this chapter to establish reasonable, uniform and comprehensive standards and procedures for housing development within the city’s territorial boundaries, consistent with and to the extent permitted under federal and California State law. The standards and procedures contained in this chapter are intended to, and should be applied to, protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, and also balance the benefits that flow from robust, comprehensive housing development with the city’s local values, which include, without limitation, the aesthetic character of the City, its neighborhoods and community.
The provisions of this chapter are intended to supersede other chapters and design guidelines, except where noted below
A. Standards for Applicable Zoning District. The 2023 Objective Design Standards supplement and are in addition to the development standards for the applicable zoning district in which a proposed project is located.
B. Subdivision Regulations. Title 17 establishes regulations for the subdivision of land. Where conflict exists between the 2030 Objective Design Standards and the provisions of Title 17, the provisions of Title 17, shall govern.
C. Relation to Other Regulations. Where a conflict occurs between the requirements of the 2023 Objective Design Standards and other city requirements, the more restrictive provisions shall apply.
D. The 2023 Objective Design Standards provide language, diagrams, sketches, and graphics to assist developers and the public in understanding the standards and how they shall be applied to qualifying residential projects.
18.152.40 Exceptions
A. Projects seeking to deviate or to not comply with the objective design standards are required to comply with Chapter 18.415 Design and Site Review.
B. Exempt Housing Projects. The provisions of this chapter are not be applicable to:
1. Small lot subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 18.155.
2. Single-family detached homes as part of a major subdivision.
3. Accessory dwelling units as defined in CDC Section 18.200.180.
4. Renovations, additions, or expansions of existing residential buildings.
5. Mixed-use projects with less than two-thirds of the building square footage dedicated to housing.
6. Housing developed within the Concord Naval Weapons Station, which will have its own set of objective design standards developed as a part of the Concord Reuse Project Specific Plan.
18.152.50 Review and decision procedure
A. The Planning Division shall be the review authority for projects subject to the objective design standards.
B. The developer shall submit all materials required by the Planning Division, including any materials required by checklists created pursuant to Chapter 18.405.
B. The review authority shall evaluate the application based on the project’s conformance with the objective development and design standards
C. In approving a project subject to objective design standards, the Planning Division may impose conditions of approval as deemed necessary to:
1. Ensure that the proposal conforms to the general plan and other applicable plans or policies adopted by the City Council;
2. Ensure that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning district where the proposal is located, as well as any other applicable provisions of the Development Code; and
3. Comply with the objective design standards as adopted within CDC Chapter 18.152.
D. Residential projects utilizing objective design standards are evaluated under a ministerial review process for conformance with this section. The review authority may restrict or deny a proposed residential design if it determines that the design is not consistent with the objective design standards.
In this case, the project shall proceed through the Design and Site Review process, consistent with Chapter 18.415.
18.152.060 Post-decision procedures
The procedures and requirements relating to appeals, project revisions, issuance of a building permit, effective dates, lapse of approval, extensions, and revocations located in Division VIII of this title (Administration) shall apply following the decision on an application for an objective design standards review. To the extent any state law limits the total number of public hearings that may be held on a project, including appeals, the Zoning Administrator shall have the discretion, in addition to that already provided for within CMC Section 18.510.010, to refer the appeal directly to the Council for a decision.
2023 City of Concord
Objective Design
Standards
Multiple Family
Residential Objective
Design Standards
Exhibit B
Project Team
City Staff
Mindy Gentry, Planning Manager
Joan Ryan, Principal Planner
MIG
Mukul Malhotra, Principal and Director of Urban Design
Laura Stetson, Principal
Christine Scott Thomson, Director of Sustainability /Urban Planning & Design Rishi Dhody, Urban Designer
Saul Vasquez, Planner & Urban Designer
Ellie Gertler, Planner
Shikha Merchant, Urban Designer
Acknowledgements
City Council
Laura Hoffmeister, Mayor
Edi E. Birsan, Vice Mayor
Dominic Aliano, Councilmember
Laur
a Nakamura, Councilmember
Carlyn Obringer, Councilmember
Planning Commission
Jason Laub, Chair
Aeysha Corio, Vice Chair
Ajit Kaushal, Member
Craig Mizutani, Member
Raymond Barbour, Member
Design Review Board
Kirk Shelby, Chair
Jill Finn, Vice Chair
Ronald Leone, Public Member
Jack Moore, Design Professional
Raymond Barbour, Planning Commission Representative
Housing and Economic Development
Edi E. Birsan, Chair
Carlyn S. Obringer, Member
ii ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Table of Contents ▪ iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 01
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Purpose, Intent, and Applicability 2 B. R e l a ti o n s h i p t o O t h e r S t a n d a r d s a n d R e q u i r e m e n t s 3 C. Implementation 3 Chapter 02
Citywide Objective Design Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. Site Plan 6
1. Site Planning and Orientation
2. Parking
B. Architectural/Building Design 10
1. Massing and Articulation 10
2. Roof Treatments 11
3. Windows and Doors 12
4. Garage Doors 12
5. Balconies 12
6. Architectural Detailing 13
7. Materials 14
8. Colors 15 C. Landscape Design 16
1. Landscaping 16
2. Street Trees 17
3. Plant and Non-plant Materials 18
4. Water Conservation 18 D. Detailing 19
1. Public Art 19
2. Loading, Service and Refuse Areas 19
3. EV Charging Stations 20
4. Utility and Mechanical Equipment 20
5. Lighting 21
6. Emergency Access, Addresses, and Mailboxes 22
7. Signage 22
8. Fencing and Retaining Walls 23 Chapter 03
Downtown Standands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A. Site Plan 28
1. Site Planning and Orientation 28
2. Parking 29 B. Architectural and Building Design 30
1. Massing and Articulation 30
2. Roof Treatments 32
3. Ground-Floor Retail/Commercial Use within Mixed Use Buildings 33
4. Architectural Style for Inner and Outer Core only 35
5. Windows and Doors 39
6. Balconies 39
7. Materials 40
8. Color 41 C. Landscape Design 42
1. Landscape 42
2. Urban Landscape Improvements 42 D. Detailing 42
1. Architectural and Building Enhancements 42
2. Patio Enclosure (Fencing) 43
3. Loading, Service and Refuse Areas 43
4. Emergency Access, Addresses, and Mailboxes 43
5. Utility and Mechanical Equipment 43
6. Signage 43
7. Fencing and Retaining Walls 43 Chapter 04
Corridor Standards
.................. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .45 A. Site Plan 48
1. Site Planning and Orientation 48
2. Parking 48 B. Architectural/Building Design 49
1. Massing and Articulation 49 6 7
42
iv ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
2. Roof Treatments 50
3. Windows and Doors 50
4. Balconies 50
5. Materials 50
6. Color 50 C. Landscape Design 51
1. Public Right-of-Way Landscaping 51 D. Detailing 51
1. Loading, Service, and Refuse Areas 51
2. Patio Enclosure (Fencing) 51
3. Emergency Access, Addresses, and Mailboxes 51
4. Utility and Mechanical Equipment 51
5. Lighting 51
6. Fencing and Retaining Walls 51 Chapter 05
Neighborhood Standards ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 A. Site Plan 56
1. Site Planning and Orientation 56
2. Parking 57 B. Architectural/Building Design 58
1. Massing and Articulation 58
2. Roof Treatment 59
3. Windows and Doors 59
4. Detailing 59
5. Balconies 59
6. Materials 59
7. Color 59
8. Special Neighborhood Architectural Design Treatments
9. G o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c ti o n s 6 5 8 5 2 . 2 1 a n d 6 6 4 1 1 . 7 C. Landscape Design 66
1. Treatment of Setbacks 66
2. Types of Plant Materials 66 D. Detailing 67
1. Loading, Service, and Refuse Areas 67
2. Emergency Access, Addresses, and Mailboxes 67
3. Utility and Mechanical Equipment 67
4. Lighting 67
5. Fencing 67 Chapter 06
Special Case Standards (Infill, with Sensitive Transitions, Emergency Shelters) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 A. Site Plan 70
1. Neighborhood Context 70
2. Site Planning and Orientation 70
3. Parking 70 B. Architectural/Building Design 71
1. Massing and Articulation 71
2. Roof Treatment 71
3. Windows and Doors 71
4. Color 71 C. Landscape Design 72 D. Emergency Shelters, SROs, and Group Homes 72 E. Detailing 73
1. Loading, Service, and Refuse Areas 73
2. Utility and Mechanical Equipment 73
3. Lighting 73
4. Fencing and Retaining Walls 73 Appendix ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 A. Definitions 76 B. Abbreviations 77 C. References 78 D. Area Maps 78 E. Image Credits 83 51 60
65
Table of Contents ▪ v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Downtown development with projections, common entry and direct pedestrian access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2. Corridor development with projections, common entry and direct pedestrian access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 3. Neighborhood townhome development with projections, common entry and direct pedestrian access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 4. Common open spaces accessible to all residents and connected by site- wide pedestrian circulation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 5. Vehicular parking and access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 6. Pedestrian access from parking garage to sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 7. Bicycle locker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 8.Indoor bicycle room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 9. Downtown development
....................................... 10
Figure 10. Corridor development ........................................ 10 Figure 11. Neighborhood townhome development ......................... 10 Figure 12. Roof with articulated saddles .................................. 11 Figure 13. Roof materials and color consistent with material palette . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 14. Window, door articulation for porch and balcony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 15. Architectural detailing for Downtown buildings ................... 13 Figure 16. Architectural detailing with canopies, balconies, color change, and material change for Downtown buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 17. Multiple colors on buildings of Corridor and Neighborhood development that include earth tone colors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 18. Multiple colors on Downtown buildings that are consistent with color palette
.............................................................. 15 Figure 19. Trees 50’ apart in parking lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 20. Parking lots with trees and bioswales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 21. Street trees in planter strips ................................... 17 Figure 22. Street trees in narrow planter areas meeting minimum soil volume standards by using structured soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 23. California native planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 24. Raised curb separations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 25. Metal art element
........................................... 19
Figure 26. Venetian plaster ............................................. 19 Figure 27. EV Charging Station .......................................... 20 Figure 28. Wall mounted or patio mounted mechanical equipment screen . . . . . . 20 Figure 29. Sconce exterior fixture light respecting the architectural style of building 21 Figure 30. Bollard lights along pedestrian paths ............................ 21 Figure 31. Illuminated building identification visible from public street ......... 22 Figure 32. Ground Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 33. Fences consistent with architectural design and material palette . . . . . 23 Figure 34.Typical Downtown multi-family type building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 35. Downtown Map ............................................. 27 Figure 36. Multi family residential with individual entrances to ground floor units 28 Figure 37. Residential entries provided at grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 38. Active uses along street in front of structured parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 39. Parking signage for underground and podium structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 40. Parking warning detail for podium parking ....................... 29 Figure 41. Pedestrian access ............................................ 30 Figure 42. Break in the wall plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 43. Building wall variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 44. Cornice projections on various floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
vi ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Figure 45. Minimum two (2) roof forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 46. Green roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 47. Ground floor commercial use within mixed-use buildings ........... 33 Figure 48. Ground floor appearing taller than 16’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 49. Ground floor commercial made visually distinct through use of different color and material .................................................... 34 Figure 50. Ground floor commercial articulated with belt course, recessed doors and awnings
......................................................... 34 Figure 51. Spanish Colonial Revival - Primary Style .......................... 35 Figure 52. Mediterranean revival - primary style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 53. Mediterranean revival styled building ........................... 36 Figure 54. Arts and Crafts - Secondary Style ............................... 37 Figure 55. Italianate - Secondary Style .................................... 38 Figure 56. Inner core window recessed with metal frames ................... 39 Figure 58. Outer core windows on upper floors with large spans and minimal recessed frames
...................................................... 39 Figure 57. Inner core window recessed with gridded iron work ............... 39 Figure 59. Exterior Building Wall Material Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 60. Stucco material less than 60% of building exterior ................. 40 Figure 61. New material or color every 20’ ................................ 40 Figure 62. Exterior walls with minimum 3 earth tone color palette . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 63. Landscaping with pervious surfaces and pavers ................... 42 Figure 64. Landscape vertical elements ................................... 42 Figure 65. Raised patio with maximum three (3) foot tall wooden enclosure .... 43 Figure 66. Patios with a locking gate at grade level enclosed with metal railing, concrete wall and landscaping area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 67: Typical Corridor multi-family building type
....................... 46
Figure 68: Corridors map .............................................. 47 Figure 69: Vehicular surface parking, access and location standard for Corridor Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Figure 70: Sloping carports separated by landscaping
....................... 48
Figure 71: Massing and articulation ...................................... 49 Figure 72: Balconies, openings, and elements for breaking the mass of the building 49 Figure 73: Roof texture consistent with architectural materials palette ......... 50 Figure 74: Primary entrances along ground floor with porch minimum four (4) feet deep and more than sixty-four (64) square feet in size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Figure 75: Trees in front yard along sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Figure 76: Fencing with change in height and material ...................... 51 Figure 77: Typical neighborhood townhome multi-family building type ........ 54 Figure 78: Aerial view of existing neighborhood ............................ 55 Figure 79: Existing housing typology in neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Figure 80: Primary entrance with porches, projections over doorway with change in material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Figure 81: Garage entrance 16’ wide
..................................... 57
Figure 82: Example massing ............................................ 58 Figure 83: Building bulk/ Relief and Rhythm ............................... 58 Figure 84: Changing roof profiles with multiple roof forms ................... 59 Figure 85: Exterior wall with three colors including trim ..................... 59 Figure 86: North Todos Santos neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Figure 87: Housing typology in North Todos Santos neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 88: Housing typology in North Todos Santos neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 List of Figures
Table of Contents ▪ vii
Figure 89: Housing typology in North Todos Santos neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 90: Housing typology in North Todos Santos neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure 91: Eichler neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Figure 92: Homes in Eichler neighborhood ................................ 63 Figure 94: Homes in Eichler neighborhood ................................ 63 Figure 93: Homes in Eichler neighborhood ................................ 63 Figure 95: Homes in Eichler neighborhood ................................ 63 Figure 96: Canterbury Village neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Figure 97: Housing typology in Canterbury Village neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 98: Housing typology in Canterbury Village neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Figure 99: Landscaped front and exterior side yards ........................ 66 Figure 100: Landscaped front yards ...................................... 66 Figure 101: Fencing and change in plane and material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Figure 102: Roof pitch similar to adjoining residential structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure 103: Front entry highlighted with stoop ............................ 70 Figure 104: Building walls with adequate window detail ..................... 71 Figure 105: Exterior building walls with minimum two colors including trim .... 71 Figure 106: Landscape outdoor screening along 10’ side setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Figure 107: Common outdoor gathering space at group housing with benches, tables, and chairs ..................................................... 72 Figure 108: Ground mounted mechanical equipment screen ................. 73 List of Figures List of Tables
Table 1: Building Wall Massing and Articulation Dimensions Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 2: Soil Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
viii ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Concord Objective Design Standards ▪ 1
01 Introduction
A. Purpose, Intent, and Applicability ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 B. Relationship to Other Standards and Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 C. Implementation .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
2 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
A. Purpose, Intent, and
Applicability
a. The objective design standards draw from and
complement existing context-based design
guidelines criteria set forth in land policy
documents adopted by the City, which include
the City of Concord Citywide Design Guidelines,
Downtown Concord Design Guidelines, North
Todos Santos Design Guidelines, Downtown
Corridors Plan, and the Downtown Concord
Specific Plan.
b. These objective design standards are intended to
maintain high-quality site planning and building
architecture for residential and mixed-use
residential projects with a goal of integrating
new residential development into the existing
community fabric. The standards are prepared
to facilitate development in a manner that
conforms to past community design priorities.
The purpose of the objective design standards
is to reduce barriers to housing development
by accelerating housing production through
the clear communication of design objectives
and streamlined review for qualifying housing
projects.
c. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to
all new qualifying residential and mixed-use
development projects, where state law limits
the City of Concord’s enforcement of design
standards to objective standards or where
state law or the City Code require a ministerial
01. Introduction
The following objective design standards apply to
all new residential projects throughout the City
of Concord, with the exception of those projects
described in Concord Development Code (CDC)
Section 18.152.040. These projects include multi-
family, emergency shelters, single-room occupancies,
group housing, and mixed-use residential
developments with at least two-thirds of the overall
building square footage dedicated as residential.
These objective design standards address a variety
of building forms, including high-rise, mid-rise and
mixed-use buildings, row houses, townhouses,
duplex, triplex, and four-plex units, as well as certain single-family homes.
The design standards distinguish between projects
in Downtown Concord (the urban core of the
community), Corridors (along a set of major arterials), Neighborhood (along residential streets), and Special
Case (infill, sensitive transition projects, emergency
shelters for unhoused persons) projects.*
approval process. Qualifying projects include
those referenced in the following:
i. Government Code Section 65913.4 (Senate
Bill (SB) 35),
ii. Government Code Sections 65589.5 and
65941.1 (SB 330),
iii. Government Code Sections 66411.7 and
65852.21 (SB 9),
iv. Government Code Section 65912.101 (AB
2011),
v. Government Code Section 65913.4 (SB 6),
and
vi. Any future State legislation or City
regulations that require ministerial approval
for residential or mixed-use projects.
d. This City of Concord Municipal Code Chapter
18.152 and associated documents do not
apply to non-qualifying single-family homes,
non-qualifying multi-family properties, historic
properties, commercial-only projects, and any
other non-residential developments.
Chapter 01 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 3
B. Relationship to Other
Standards and Requirements
a. All projects are required to comply with all
regulations and provisions in the Concord
Municipal Code.
b. The provisions in this document are intended to
supersede other design guidelines, except where
noted in CDC Chapter 18.152.
C. Implementation
a. Application checklists. The Planning Division shall
prepare and maintain the appropriate checklist
of requirements for submittal and review of
qualifying housing projects.
b. The Community Development Director, or his/her
designee, shall be the final reviewer and decision
maker for compliance with the objective design
standards. Staff is authorized to update the 2023
City of Concord Objective Design Standards by
including additional illustrations that improve
the usability of the document, to the extent such
additions are in strict compliance with the 2023
City of Concord Objective Design Standards, as
adopted by Ordinance No. 23-XX
c. Appeals and other post decision procedures can
be found in CDC Section 18.152.060.
* Graphics utilized in the following pages are to illustrate the specific component identified and may not necessarily capture all standards of the document within the graphic. Graphics shall not be construed to represent standards that are not specifically identified in the graphic. Photos are illustrative for conceptual purposes, the text shall prevail.
4 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Concord Objective Design Standards ▪ 5
02 Citywide Objective Design
Standards
A. Site Plan ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 B. Architectural/Building Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 C. Landscape Design ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 D. Detailing ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
6 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
A. Site Plan
1. Site Planning and Orientation
a. A building adjacent to a street shall be oriented
parallel to the street frontage for at least fifty
(50) percent of the exterior building wall. The
front entry and any associated features shall be
oriented to the primary street and be set back
pursuant to the CDC for the applicable zoning
district. (Figure 1), (Figure 2), (Figure 3)
b. Allowed projections of steps, stoops, porches,
patios, and terraces into the required building
02. Citywide Objective
Design Standards
These overarching standards apply to residential and
mixed-use residential building types that are subject
to the objective design standards. These standards
are the foundation to facilitate the highest level of
design quality while allowing flexibility in the design of residential development. All proposed residential
buildings shall reflect high-quality, four-sided
architecture by presenting a balance in the use of
colors, materials, articulation, massing, and building
detailing as described throughout the standards in
the sections below.
Standards within the geographic specific areas
that follow this Citywide section (i.e., Downtown,
Corridors, Neighborhoods, Special Case) shall prevail
if in conflict with the Citywide Objective Design
Standards in this section.
General standards for this section include site
planning and orientation, architectural and building
design, landscape design, and building detailing.
setback are specified pursuant to CDC Section
18.150.140.
c. A common entry lobby shall face the street for
residential buildings that have a shared common
entry to multiple units.
d. Direct pedestrian access shall be provided to
connect any adjacent sidewalk and the primary
building entry. In the case of multiple individual
ground floor residential entries, direct pedestrian
access shall be provided for each building entry.
Figure 1. Downtown development with projections, common entry and direct pedestrian access
Figure 2. Corridor development with projections, common entry and direct pedestrian access
c
c
dd
d
b
b
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 7
For mixed-use projects, commercial uses on
corner properties shall include direct pedestrian
access only from the front, or corner side
property line.
e. Common open spaces shall be accessible to
residents from all buildings and connected by a
site-wide pedestrian circulation system. (Figure
4)
f. To enhance privacy, windows on facing buildings
shall not directly align with one another on site
Figure 3. Neighborhood townhome development with
projections, common entry and direct pedestrian access
Figure 4. Common open spaces accessible to all residents and connected by site-wide pedestrian circulation system if located opposite each other within a courtyard
and less than 40 feet distance between them.
Exceptions are allowed where the windows
are opaque, clerestory, or otherwise treated to
obscure views.
g. If an identified bicycle route is adjacent to
a proposed project, improvements shall be
provided in conformance with the City’s Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to Transit Plan.
1 Pedestrian and vehicular circulation shall not
cross a bicycle route unless visibility triangles
are maintained and speed bump and/or warning
light provided.
h. The following off-site generators of pedestrian
movements shall be identified and shown to
connect via a sidewalk or other pedestrian
priority way to the pedestrian circulation system:
i. Open spaces, including paseos
ii. Schools – public or private
iii. Shopping centers
iv. Bus stops
i. Projects shall demonstrate potential energy
generation capacity consistent with the
state wide building standard code through a
recognized assessment method or calculation
tool of either the Title 24 Section 140.10
equation, the total of all available Solar Access
Roof Area (SARA) multiplied by 14W / ft
2,
the Solar Assessment Tool or the PVWatts®
Calculator, and/or passive use of sunlight though
analysis or calculation of either a daylight
analysis per room, or window area by floor area
per room.
c
d
b
1 Bicycle route as identified by the City of Concord’s Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to Transit Plan
8 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
• Landscaped berms
• Solid wall
• Solid fencing
• Shrub materials (boxwood hedge or
similar dense shrub)
• Trellis with landscape material
vi. Grade-level parking spaces located under
residential buildings shall not be visible
from the public right-of-way and shall be
eighty (80) percent screened with one of the
following (including openings to allow for air
flow):
• Building walls
• Landscaped berms
• Shrubs, grasses and/or vines
vii. On structured parking buildings, reflective
colors and finishes are prohibited on
exterior and interior walls. For interior walls,
reflective colors and finishes are allowable
to provide markings for safety or as required
by law.
viii. The exterior walls of structured parking
facilities shall be finished in a light-
absorbing, light relfective value (LRV) of 60%
or below or non-reflective color.
2. Parking
a. Vehicular Parking
i. Where surface parking is provided due
to the presence of seismic or geologic
(including hydrogeologic) conditions that
prohibit subsurface parking, surface parking
areas shall be located at the rear of the
building and accessed from the rear of the
property. (Figure 5)
ii. Pedestrian access to a parking garage or
surface parking lot, open space walking
trail, and/or pedestrian way to BART shall be
provided to connect to the sidewalk along
the public street. (Figure 6)
iii. Surface parking lots over twenty-five
thousand (25,000) square feet in area are
prohibited. Parking lot design shall instead
consist of smaller scattered lots rather than
one large lot. Up to fifty (50) percent of
required parking spaces may be provided in
a single location.
iv. On-site guest parking, if required, shall be
included within the parking area provided
for residents, be adjacent to the primary or
main building entry, and labeled as guest
parking.
v. Screening that is a minimum of thirty (30)
inches tall shall be provided for surface
parking lots adjacent to required front or
corner side setback areas using one of the
following approaches:
Figure 5. Vehicular parking and access
Figure 6. Pedestrian access from parking garage to sidewalk StreetParking in Rear
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 9
Figure 7. Bicycle locker
Figure 8.Indoor bicycle room
b. Bicycle Parking
i. Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided
consistent with CDC Section 18.160.120(A),
shall consist of racks that support the cycle
frame at two points and allow for the bicycle
frame and one wheel to be locked to the
rack with a U-lock, shall be covered by a
permanent solid-roofed weather protection
structure, and shall be incorporated within
operating surveillance camera coverage area
of the building, if provided.
ii. Long-term bicycle parking facilities (Class
I) shall consist of bicycle lockers or bicycle
rooms with key access for use by residents
and adhere to the standards below.
• Long-term bicycle parking facilities shall
be located on the ground floor and shall
not be located externally between the
building and the street.
• Multi-family residential and mixed-use
buildings shall provide one (1) long-term
bicycle parking space for every four
(4) dwelling units. Developments such
as townhomes that include individual
garages for each unit shall not be
required to provide long-term bicycle
parking.
• Bicycle locker minimum requirements:
a. Dimensions of forty-two (42)
inches wide, seventy-five (75) inches
deep, and fifty-four (54) inches high.
b. Must withstand a load of at least two
hundred (200) pounds per square foot.
c. Opened door must withstand at least
a five hundred (500)-pound vertical load.
(Figure 7)
iii. Bicycle rooms shall have a minimum ceiling
height of seven (7) feet. (Figure 8)
• Bicycle rooms shall contain racks that
support bicycle frame at two (2) points
and allow for bicycle frame and one
wheel to be locked to the rack with a
U-lock.
• Long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be
served by an aisle with a minimum width
of six (6) feet.
• A space of at least two (2) feet shall
be provided to allow for maneuvering
between the aisle and long-term bicycle
parking spaces.
iv. Each horizontal long-term bicycle parking
space shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet
in length, two (2) feet in width, four-and
one-half (4-½) feet in height. Each vertical
long-term bicycle parking space shall be a
minimum of three-and one-half (3-½) feet in
length, two (2) feet in width, and seven (7)
feet in height.
10 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
B. Architectural/Building Design
1. Massing and Articulation
a. All building masses for residential buildings
greater than forty (40) feet in length shall have a
wall depth change of a minimum of twenty-four
(24) inches.
b. All building masses greater than twenty (20)
feet in length shall provide a minimum of three
(3) of the following features for articulation:
(Figure 9), (Figure 10), (Figure 11)
i. Balconies
ii. Bay windows, recessed windows, and/or
projecting windows
iii. Canopies or trellises above doors and
windows
iv. Color and/or material change
v. Roof height change
vi. Window detail, of either lintels, sills, trims,
or wall plane change, a minimum of six (6)
inches in depth
c. Bay windows and projecting building elements
shall project at least twenty-four (24) inches but
no more than thirty-six (36) inches.
d. Transitional standards shall be implemented,
Figure 9. Downtown development Figure 10. Corridor development Figure 11. Neighborhood townhome development v
i
i
ii
ii
iv
vi
vi
ii
iii
v
Illustrations showing balconies, bay windows, canopies, material/color change and roof height changes for various development types:
consistent with CDC Section 18.150.180, with
respect to setbacks, step backs, screening, and
landscaping to provide a transition between
abutting properties.
e. Pedestrian access to a new or existing bus
stop shall be incorporated into the pedestrian
circulation plan for the site, if applicable.
iv
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 11
2. Roof Treatments
a. Roof-mounted mechanical units, such as HVAC,
shall be screened from the primary street using
at least one of the following approaches:
i. Increased roof slope
ii. Use of a parapet
iii. Screening using a material selected from the
building palette
b. Photovoltaic panels, if used, shall be integrated
into the design using a minimum of one (1) of
the following approaches, but in no event shall
any of the approaches conflict with the intent
of the implementation of statewide standards
(Government Code Section 65850.5a) to achieve
timely and cost-effective installation of solar
energy systems:
i. Same slope as the primary roof form
ii. Same size and shape as solar tiles for roof or
walls
iii. Screening so that angle for production can
be optimized
iv. A low level of contrast in color between the
solar panel and roofing material, up to ten
(10) percent difference between the two
2 c. On flat roofs solar panels should be mounted to
be not seen from the public street.
d. Roof profiles (for high slope roofs, the eave, and
for low slope and flat roofs, the top) shall be
vertically articulated along all street frontages
using at least one (1) type of the following
architectural elements and/or elements that are
integral to the selected architectural style:
i. Articulated saddles (Figure 12)
ii. Gables
iii. Hip and valleys
iv. Dormers
v. Shed
vi. Eave overhang of a minimum of eighteen
(18) inches with exposed rafters or roof
brackets. (Figure 13)
vii. Roof parapets
e. Roof styles that include lower-sloped roofs (such
as 2:12) or below with deeper overhangs of
between two (2) and three (3) feet can be used.
f. Flat roofs shall include a minimum of one (1) of
the following details:
i. Roof cornice
ii. Parapet
iii. Changes in height
g. Gutters, downspouts, and other features used to
collect precipitation runoff from the roof, such as
rain barrels, cisterns, or pipes, shall be integrated
into roofing design using a minimum of two (2)
of the following three approaches:
i. Same colors
ii. Same material
iii. Same style
h. For buildings over forty (40) feet tall, downspouts
shall be incorporated in the interior design of the
wall and not be allowed on the exterior of the
building.
i. Roof materials and colors shall be included as a
part of the color and material palette to ensure
consistency with the building palette.
Figure 12. Roof with articulated saddles
Figure 13. Roof materials and color consistent with material palette
2Use Encycolorpedia.com or similar websites as a resource to identify the color and material palette that meets the standard
12 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Figure 14. Window, door articulation for porch and balcony
3. Windows and Doors
a. Window detail shall be provided using
a minimum of three (3) of the following
approaches: (Figure 14)
i. Window frame and/or trim
ii. Window sill and/or lintel
iii. Awnings
iv. Shutters
v. Shade structures (fins, louvers, trellis)
vi. Recessed windows
b. Front door entry detail shall be provided using a
minimum of two (2) of the following approaches:
i. Door frame and/or trim
ii. Projected area, minimum of (3) three feet in
depth
iii. Recessed area, minimum of (3) three feet in
depth
iv. A covered porch
v. Decorative entry trellis
c. Weather protection shall be provided at
individual residential unit entries and primary
entrances to commercial uses (in mixed-
use projects) in the form of a projection at a
minimum depth of thirty-six (36) inches, such as
an overhang, canopy, awning, or porch roof.
4. Garage Doors
a. Garage doors from individual residential units on
the ground floor shall include sufficient detailing
for aesthetics, consistent with the architectural
style of the building, using at least of one (1) of
the following approaches:
i. Windows including faux, patterned, or real
ii. Door handles
iii. Decorative metal hinges
iv. Decorative panel design for example Classic,
Carriage House, Contemporary, Ranch Style,
Craftsman style.
5. Balconies
a. Balconies shall include the same materials as
building, with either wrought iron or simulated
materials, wood, metal or other opaque design,
up to sixty (60) percent transparency. No glass or
plexiglass shall be used.
b. Balconies shall have a minimum depth of forty-
eight (48) inches.
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 13
Figure 15. Architectural detailing for Downtown buildings Figure 16. Architectural detailing with canopies, balconies, color change, and material change for Downtown buildings
6. Architectural Detailing
a. Along any exterior building walls, material
transitions shall only occur on the inside corner
of plane change or, when material changes need
to happen in the same plane, trims, cornices,
or other architectural elements shall be used to
create a corner for material transition.
a. Walls visible from the public right-of-way shall
include building details using the following
approaches. A minimum four (4) approaches for
downtown and three (3) approaches for all other
residential development shall be used as follows:
(Figure 15), (Figure 16)
i. Balconies
ii. Bay windows
iii. Canopies or trellis above doors and windows
iv. Change in color or material
v. Roof height change
vi. Window detail of either projecting lintels,
sills, trims, and moldings
vii. Recessed elements
b. Walls of a building not visible from the public
right-of-way shall include building detail using
one (1) of the following approaches:
i. Window detail, including shutters, trim, sills,
mullions, and/or lintels; or
ii. Ornamentation, including corbels, cornices,
moundlings and/or design detail of the vents
in all locations.
14 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Building Material Notes Type
Wood, layer Siding, engineered P
Wood, finish Finished layer P
Wood, laminated* Mass Timber P
Fiber-reinforced cement Siding and panels P
Stone Masonry P
Brick Masonry P
Cast Stone Masonry P
Stucco Finished layer P
EIFS Exterior Insulation Finishing System P
Clay tiles Finished layer P
Metal Downtown outer core window or door frames, copper gutters, and downspouts P
Canvas Awnings only P
Glass Transparent, spandrel ground-floor only P
Vinyl siding N
Plywood, T1-11 N
Roofing Material Notes Type
Composition Asphalt P
Tile Clay, Concrete, Slate P
Standing Seam Metal N
Fencing Material Notes Type
Concrete, finished* CO2e capture P
Wood fencing Cedar, Redwood, Teak, Trex P
Metal fencing Wrought iron, Tubular steel P
Masonry fencing Brick, Stone, Stucco P
Vinyl fencing Fence panels and vinyl picket fence P
Barbed wire, razor, concertina,
electrified fences Prohibited pursuant to CDC Section 18.150.040(E) N Chain link Prohibited pursuant to CDC Section 18.150.040(E) N Table.1: Building, roofing and fencing materials
*Green building materialKey P: Permitted N: Not allowed
7. Materials
a. The following table describes which materials are
permitted or not allowed for exterior building
walls, roofs, and fencing: (Table 1)
b. Fifty (50) percent of the building shall be
constructed with sustainable building materials.
Materials that are considered sustainable will
have a least one (1) of the following properties:
i. Certified as Zero or low Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) per CalGreen (cite other
local green building guidance or resources:
Resources for developers/designers: Whole
Building Design Guide: https://www.wbdg.
org/; BuildingGreen Product Database:
https://www.buildinggreen.com/product-
guidance)
ii. Qualify as rapidly renewable in that they can
be harvested within 10 years
iii. Show to be salvaged from the existing site,
unless unsafe for human contact
iv. Produced within the region of Concord or
greater Nine-County Bay Area
v. Include a recycled content of eighty (80)
percent or above
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 15
8. Colors
a. A color palette shall be required for all structures and shall be submitted to the City including
paint manufacturer/brand, name and number
for each paint color used within the project. The
hexadecimal color code or RGB color number(s)
shall be provided for each.
3 b. On all exterior building walls, buildings shall
utilize a minimum of three (3) colors, inclusive of
trim. (Figure 17), (Figure 18)
c. On any exterior building wall greater than one
hundred (100) feet in length, buildings shall
utilize a minimum of four (4) colors, inclusive of
trim.
d. Changes in color due to a change in building
material are not considered an additional color
unless the material covers twenty-five (25)
percent or more of the building.
e. Color palette for a building(s) shall include
at least one (1) earth tone color as a primary
building color.
f. Neon or fluorescent colors are prohibited.
g. Roofing materials shall be within the grey, brown,
or terra cotta family of colors. These areas not
visible from the public right of way, including flat
roofs, may be white or light color to reduce heat
island effect.
Figure 17. Multiple colors on buildings of Corridor and Neighborhood development that include earth tone colors Figure 18. Multiple colors on Downtown buildings that are consistent with color palette 3Encycolorpedia.com or similar websites may be utilized as a tool to assist with color selection
16 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
C. Landscape Design
1. Landscaping
a. The landscape design for all required landscape
areas, consistent with CDC Section 18.165.040(A)
shall use low maintenance landscape materials
including drought-tolerant plants consistent with
CDC Section 18.165.070(C)7 and CDC Chapter
18.170.
b. Trees shall be planted in all surface parking areas
at a minimum rate of one tree every (50) feet
apart for each five (5) full or six (6) compact
parking spaces. (Figure 19)
c. Shrub plantings, used as screening for parking
areas, shall be provided at a minimum height
of thirty (30) inches at plant maturity to block
headlight glare to seventy (70) percent light
transmission and shall be planted at the head of
parking stalls.
d. The two (2)-foot overhang of a parking space
shall be covered with a groundcover or low-
growing material.
e. Shrubs, groundcover, and trees planted next to
pavement shall include a low-volume irrigation
system.
f. Drought-tolerant plants with a minimum of two
(2) of the following characteristics shall be used:
i. Windbreak
ii. Accent
iii. Erosion control
iv. Flowering
g. Landscape that retains water on site shall be
included. Project shall include two (2) of the
following elements:
i. A bioswale, vegetated stormwater facilities,
or other infiltration planters. (Figure 20)
ii. Vegetated planters
iii. Shrubs and trees
iv. Underground rainwater collection systems
of either a rain barrel, water storage or
rainwater harvesting tank
h. Pool areas shall incorporate a minimum of
twenty (20) percent shaded areas relative to the
combined size of the pool and deck area during
the period 12pm - 4pm in addition to standard
landscape requirements; see CDC Chapter
18.165 Landscaping.
i. Parking spaces adjacent to a landscaped finger
shall have a minimum eighteen (18) inches wide
paved surface to allow for stepping out of a
vehicle.
Figure 19. Trees 50’ apart in parking lots
Figure 20. Parking lots with trees and bioswales
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 17
2. Street Trees
a. Street trees are required for every development
and shall be planted at a maximum distance
of thirty (30) feet on-center along the street
frontage. The minimum tree size shall be a
twenty -four (24) inch box tree. Street tree
species in the vicinity of the project site shall
be considered when planting new street trees.
Location of street planting shall be as follows:
(Figure 21)
i. Where a planting strip exists, adjacent to
the curb, street trees shall be planted at a
minimum distance of two (2) feet from the
face of curb
ii. Where a planting strip exists, and is wider
than four (4) feet, the street trees shall
be planted along the center line of that
landscape strip. (Figure 22)
iii. Where the street frontage includes no
landscape strip, street trees shall be planted
a minimum of four (4) feet from the curb
face unless the public right-of-way allows
greater distance, in which case five (5) feet
Figure 21. Street trees in planter strips
Figure 22. Street trees in narrow planter areas meeting minimum soil volume standards by using structural soil
Tree Size Soil Volume (Ft3)
15’ Gallon 300
24’ Inch Box 600
36’ Inch Box 1,000
Table.2: Soil Volume
shall be utilized
iv. In all situations, sufficient soil base, as
outlined in Table 2 below, organic mulch,
root barriers, and tree grates flush with the
sidewalk surface shall be incorporated for
street trees
v. Where a planting strip of less than two (2)
feet wide exists trees shall not be planted.
b. The minimum soil volume shall be provided for
street trees according to Table 2. This can be
achieved by using visible planting soil or hidden
elements (structural soil, silva cells):
c. Street trees that drop pods or the other fruit
shall be prohibited along the public right of way.
18 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Figure 23. California native planting
Figure 24. Raised curb separations
3. Plant and Non-plant Materials
a. California native plants shall be incorporated into
the overall design of the landscape, consistent
with the provisions in CDC Chapter 18.170. The
following plants shall be acceptable, as well as
other drought-tolerant plants found within the
most current edition of the Sunset Western
Garden Book for Zone 9b or any plants identified
by the Contra Costa Water District’s Water Wise
Program (updates to list will reflect changes to
climate, temperature or other factors related to
the health of native plants): (Figure 23)
i. Blue sage (Salvia guaranitica)
ii. Blue wildryes (Elymus glaucus)
iii. Bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi)
iv. Carmel creeper (Ceanothus griseus
horizontali)
v. Climbing penstemon (Keckiella cordifolia)
vi. June grass (Koeleria macrantha)
vii. California fescue (Festuca californica)
viii. Bush anemone (Carpenteria californica)
b. All planting beds shall be mulched with an
organic material to help retard the growth of
weeds and maintain the moisture content of soil.
Layers of mulch shall be two (2) to four (4) inches
thick on the soil surface.
c. Root bound plants or plants which show effects
of insect or disease infestation are prohibited.
d. Raised curbs of six (6) inches shall be used to
separate all planters from streets, parking and
loading areas.(Figure 24)
4. Water Conservation
a. Greywater shall be planned for a portion of
outdoor watering. When recycled water is
anticipated to be available for buildings fifty
thousand (50,000) square feet and larger,
connectivity to a municipal purple pipe system
shall be provided, when available within public
right-of-way or proximate to the rear of the site.
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 19
Figure 25. Metal art element
Figure 26. Venetian plaster
D. Detailing
1. Wall Detailing
a. Blank, flat walls (inclusive of expansion joints)
with a minimum dimension of forty (40) feet in
any direction shall be treated with at least of one
of the following three decorative treatments:
i. Patterned stencil
ii. Metal art element (Figure 25)
iii. Venetian Plaster (Figure 26)
iv. Mosaics (allowable materials: glass, tile,
stone)
2. Loading, Service and Refuse Areas
a. Loading and service areas shall not be visible
from a public right-of-way and shall be located
behind the building or within the rear of the
parking garage. For residential units with
individual ground floor entries, trash enclosures
shall be located in a side or rear yard or internal
to the project, not visible from the public right-
of-way. Individual trash containers for use by a
single unit shall be stored as follows:
i. Incorporated within garage areas while still
maintaining minimum garage dimensions,
ii. Within a cabinet enclosure designed within
the footprint of the home with exterior
access, or
iii. Within a side yard of the home behind a
minimum six (6)-foot-tall masonary wall or
fence.
b. Loading and service that cannot be placed
behind the building and out of view from
the public right-of-way shall be screened
per screening requirements in CDC Section
18.165.060(D)1.
c. Access to loading and service areas shall be
incorporated into the circulation plan for the
site and shall be separated from pedestrian
circulation.
d. In all areas other than the Downtown, trash
enclosures shall be located a minimum of twenty
(20) feet away from an abutting single-family
residential district or any public right-of-way or
access easement, consistent with CDC Section
18.150.150.
e. Trash enclosures are prohibited in any front
yard, street side yard, parking space, required
landscaped area, or open space areas.
f. Trash enclosures shall be designed to utilize the
same materials and colors as the buildings they
serve and designed consistent with CDC Section
18.150.150.
g. Trash enclosures shall be designed and
constructed to accommodate the collection of
recyclable materials to the extent required by the
responsible collection contractor.
h. Outdoor trash enclosure areas shall be buffered
from adjacent parking with a minimum five (5)
foot-wide landscape strip.
20 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
3. EV Charging Stations
a. EV charging stations and associated parking
spaces shall be located within required on-site
parking areas. When charging stations are within
parking garages, they shall be provided on all
floors, where practicable, with chargers being
installed on a minimum of two floors (Figure 27)
b. EV charging spaces shall be consolidated to one
(1) location within the parking lot; for lots with
more than one hundred (100) parking spaces, EV
charging spaces shall be consolidated in no more
than two (2) locations.
c. EV chargers shall not provide signage or
advertisement visible from the public right-of-
way beyond what is necessary to provide the
user with instructions for use of the charging
station.
4. Utility and Mechanical Equipment
a. All utility and mechanical equipment, including
roof-top mounted equipment, shall be screened
from the public right-of-way utilizing the color
and materials palette for the building pursuant to
CDC Section 18.150.180.
b. Mechanical equipment shall not be visible when
measured at six (6) feet above the grade of
the horizontal surface of the sidewalk on the
opposite side of adjacent streets.
c. Utility and mechanical equipment shall not be
located within any required active open space
area.
d. Ground-mounted mechanical, electrical, and
utility equipment shall be concealed within
buildings, placed in subsurface vaults, or
screened by a framed welded wire (no chain link
fence), or louvered trellis system, depending on
location within setbacks, consistent with CDC
Section 18.150.080(C)3.
e. Ground-mounted residential solar energy
systems shall be encouraged and shall be located
to be out of view of the public right-of-way,
but in no event shall any of the approaches
conflict with the intent of the implementation of
statewide standards (Government Code Section
65850.5a) to achieve timely and cost-effective
installation of solar energy systems. Such systems
shall be:
i. Placed behind a primary structure
ii. Placed in a side yard and screened by non-
plant materials
f. Electrical transformers shall be designed using
either of the following approaches and consistent
with CMC Section 18.150.080(C)3:
i. Placed underground
ii. Screened by non-plant materials
iii. Located at least five (5) feet from the public
right-of-way and screened with non-plant
materials such as welded wire trellis system
or similar view-obscuring screen and
plantings
g. Utility and mechanical equipment, including
meters, shall be screened from view using a
material in the architectural design materials
Figure 27. EV Charging Station
Figure 28. Wall mounted or patio mounted mechanical
equipment screen
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 21
palette of the project or other method consistent
with CMC Section 18.150.080. Screening method
shall include gated outdoor rooms or screening
behind wing walls treated as an integral part of
the elevations.
h. Mechanical equipment shall be located a
minimum of fifteen (15) feet from occupiable
rooftop areas and screened from view.
i. Exposed vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings,
and electrical conduits shall be painted the same
color as the adjacent surface; if using copper
gutters or downspouts they shall be treated as a
design element.
j. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units
located on exterior walls or patios of multi-family
projects shall be screened from view by screen
walls, decorative railings, or screens, consistent
with those colors and materials utilized within
the architectural design palette. (Figure 28)
k. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units
located on balconies shall be prohibited.
l. For site development improvement plans for
engineering and/or building permit approval,
the size and location of all utility and mechanical
equipment shall be displayed and screened
pursuant to CDC Section 18.150.080 and these
standards on building elevations and the site
plan.
m. Utility service lines shall be placed underground.
Exposed conduit on building exteriors shall be
prohibited.
5. Lighting
a. Roof-mounted lights are prohibited, unless on a
green roof or occupied roof, where downlighting
shall be used.
b. Sconce exterior fixtures shall be the same style
(e.g., Colonial, Spanish Revival, Arts & Crafts,
Ranch) as the building’s exterior design and
located at front and rear doorways. (Figure 29)
c. Maximum height of pole-mounted fixtures shall
not exceed sixteen (16) feet.
d. Light fixtures shall be integrated in at least one of the following uses:
i. Bollard lights along pedestrian walks (Figure
30)
ii. Pole-mounted lights for parking areas
iii. Internally illuminated or up lighting for
ground signs
iv. Building mounted or spotlights for accents,
with full cut-off feature, consistent with CDC
Section 18.150.110.
e. Exposed lamps or tubes visible from any public
right-of-way shall be prohibited.
f. Lighting within parking garages shall avoid
external views of exposed fluorescent light tubes.
g. Surface parking lot lighting levels shall be limited to the range of 0.5-to-1.5-foot candles to provide
for public safety, in conformance with CDC
Section 18.160.110.(D). Within this range, areas
of higher or lower levels of illumination shall be
indicated on project plans.
Figure 29. Sconce exterior fixture light respecting the architectural style of building
Figure 30. Bollard lights along pedestrian paths
22 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
6. Emergency Access, Addresses, and
Mailboxes
a. To accommodate emergency vehicular access,
double access routes for emergency vehicles,
where physically possible, shall be provided using
parking aisles and access drives.
b. New buildings shall be provided with approved
illuminated address identification, consistent
with Central Contra Costa County Fire Protection
District requirements. Illuminated address
markers shall be posted in a location on the
building that is visible from the public street
(Figure 31) or the street fronting the property
and within a maximum of fifty (50) feet from
the primary building entry or alternatively
twenty (20) feet from the individual unit entry.
Numbering and lettering shall be a minimum
of four (4) inches high with a minimum stroke
width of one-half inch and have a seventy (70)
percent contrast
4 with the background color.
Where required by the City of Concord Police
Department or the Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District, address identification shall
be provided in additional locations to facilitate
emergency response, consistent with the State
building code.
c. Mailboxes shall be placed either at an on-site
location adjacent to front yard open space for
ground-floor units that have direct pedestrian
access from the street or incorporated into a
common area for all remaining upper floor unit
residents.
7. Signage
a. External raceways on wall mounted signs shall be
prohibited.
b. Cabinet signs, including those that are wall
mounted on buildings or ground signs, shall be
prohibited.
c. Ground signs shall incorporate at least two
materials from the architectural design materials
palette of the project. (Figure 32)
Figure 31. Illuminated building identification visible from public street
Figure 32. Ground Signs
470% Contrast shall be determined by California Building Code 2022 Section 11B-705.1.1.3.1
Chapter 02 Citywide Objective Design Standards ▪ 23
Figure 33. Fences consistent with architectural design and material palette
8. Fencing and Retaining Walls
a. Perimeter fences internal to lots are required
and shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height. A
wood fence, shall be provided along the exterior
property lines or fences in conformance with
CDC Section 18.150.180, as applicable. A seven
(7)-foot tall fence may be constructed with the
top one (1) foot panel consisting of a lattice
panel style design.
b. Fences or walls attached to buildings and visible
from any public right-of-way or open space
shall be of a color, material, and detail within
the architectural design materials palette of the
building to which they are attached and shall be
included with fence or wall specifications in the
landscape plan. (Figure 33)
c. If a noise study is required, masonary walls or
fences shall be constructed as recommended
utilizing the materials list in Table 1: Building,
roofing, and fencing materials.
d. The allowed and prohibited fencing materials are
shown in Table 1: Building, roofing, and fencing
materials.
e. The following materials are allowed for retaining
walls:
i. Stone or brick
ii. Wood
iii. Decorative masonry or interlocking concrete
blocks
Concord Objective Design Standards ▪ 25
03 Downtown Standards
A. Site Plan ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 B. Architectural/Building Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 C. Landscape Design ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 D. Detailing ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
26 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Figure 34.Typical Downtown multi-family type building
Multi -family residential around
multi level parking garage
Adjoining multi -family
residential development
Adjoining multi -family
residential development
Front yards serving
ground floor units
Ground floor commercial
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Street
Street
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 27
Figure 35. Downtown Map
03. Downtown
Standards
The heart of Concord’s downtown is Todos Santos
Plaza, which retains the City’s original name of Todos
Santos and is distinguished by its authenticity and
historic assets. These characteristics are preserved
and strengthened by the strategic infill of new high-
quality development that links the past to a vibrant
future. Todos Santos Plaza is located within walking
distance of the Concord BART Station, cultural
amenities, shopping, and dining opportunities.
These objective design standards strengthen these
relationships and draw from a comprehensive vision
initiated over many decades and confirmed in the
Downtown Specific Plan and more specifically
described within the Todos Santos Design Guidelines,
now called the Downtown Concord Design
Guidelines.
5 The following objective design standards specific
to Downtown are largely guided by the Downtown
Concord Design Guidelines document, which
promotes specific architectural styles (Spanish
Colonial Revival, Mediterranean Revival, Arts and
Crafts, and Italianate
6) in the “Inner Core” area of the
downtown, whereas the “Outer Core,” is intended to
be reflective of these architecture styles, but allowing flexibility in design, while still promoting high-quality architecture. Standards for this section focus on the
urban core of the Downtown area where specified
(Inner and Outer Core), but also apply to the broader
downtown boundary. (Figure 34), (Figure 35)
5The Downtown Concord Design guidelines were approved in February 2017 and amended in October 2019 and August 2020. 6As defined in “A Field Guide to American Houses: the Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture” by Virginia Savage McAlester . • Inner and Outer Core: For those
sites within the Inner and Outer Core
boundaries of the Downtown, Sections B.
4 and B.5 within this Chapter shall apply.
• Remainder of Downtown: For those
sites outside of the Inner and Outer
Core boundaries of the Downtown, but
still within the Downtown boundary, the
Downtown standards shall apply.
General standards for this section include site
planning and orientation, architectural and building
design, landscape design, and building detailing.
28 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Figure 36. Multi family residential with individual entrances to ground floor units Figure 37. Residential entries provided at grade
A. Site Plan
1. Site Planning and Orientation
a. In the event of any conflicts with these objective
design standards and the setback requirements
in CDC Section 18.45.030, Table: 18.45.030, the
Downtown standards within this document shall
prevail. If a multi-family building has individual
residential entrances at the ground floor on a
street, buildings shall be set back a minimum of
ten (10) feet from the property line to allow for
front yards, porches, and stoops. (Figure 36)
b. If a building has retail space at the ground floor
on a street, the building shall be setback a
minimum of two (2) feet and a maximum of five
(5) feet from the property line.
c. Residential entries for ground floor units with
access from the street, shall be provided secure
access at grade, to promote accessibility and
pedestrian activity at the street level. These
may be in addition to a common entry or lobby
location via a hallway. (Figure 37)
d. Buildings that are not adjacent to a street shall
have units with front entries that are oriented
to interior common areas, such as paseos,
courtyards, and usable open space areas,
consistent with CDC Section 18.150.100(G).
e. Direct pedestrian access shall be provided to
connect the sidewalk to rear parking areas,
secondary retail entries, mid-block courtyard
space, and/or paseo.
Property Line
a
cc
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 29
2. Parking
a. Vehicular Parking
i. Active uses and storefronts shall be located
along street frontages, between group
parking areas and the pedestrian walkway.
(Figure 38)
ii. Parking located such that it is fronting onto a
pedestrian route along Grant Street and Oak
Street to the BART station is prohibited.
iii. Driveways for parking entries shall be
consolidated for both multi-unit residential
and mixed-use developments. In shared
garage conditions, secure access for
residential parking shall be provided via a
parking and traffic control barrier arm or
gate with electronic or similar controls for
separation from commercial uses.
iv. Parking warning signs shall be located
to alert pedestrians on sidewalks for
all underground and podium parking
structures. (Figure 39), (Figure 40)
b. Bicycle Parking
i. Multi-family residential and mixed-use
buildings shall provide one (1) long-term
bicycle parking space for every two (2)
dwelling units. Developments such as
townhomes that include individual garages
for each unit shall not be required to provide
long-term bicycle parking.
ii. The Citywide standards for additional details
regarding bicycle parking requirements shall
apply.
Figure 38. Active uses along street in front of structured parking
Figure 39. Parking signage for underground and podium
structures
Figure 40. Parking warning detail for podium parking
30 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
B. Architectural and Building
Design
1. Massing and Articulation
a. After two hundred (200) feet of continuous
building length, a mid-block courtyard space of
a minimum area of three hundred (300) square
feet shall be used to relieve the building mass
and add variation. (Figure 41)
b. All building walls shall be broken up using a
change in the wall plane that is a minimum of
twenty four (24) inches in depth. A break in the
wall plane, shall be required at a minimum of
every forty (40) feet horizontally along building
walls. (Figure 42)
c. Citywide Standard B(1)c for Transitional
standards to abutting properties shall apply.
d. Buildings with a base, middle, and top shall be
articulated with a minimum of two (2) repetitions
of the following:
i. Arches
ii. Columns
iii. Pilasters
iv. Contrasting materials
v. Protruding elements of either cornices or
wall trims
vi. Lintel
vii. Belt course
Figure 42. Break in the wall plane
40 ft. 40 ft.
40 ft.
Figure 41. Pedestrian access
Courtyard
Pedestrian Access to
Courtyard
200 ft. 200 ft.
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 31
Figure 43. Building wall variety
Figure 44. Cornice projections on various floors
e. The massing of building walls shall be broken
up using a minimum of at least four (4) of the
following design strategies: (Figure 43)
i. Balconies
ii. Above the second floor, changes in wall
plane of a minimum of twenty-four (24)
inches (either inset or protruding) from the
ground floor wall plane
iii. Window openings and entrances that are
recessed or projecting a minimum of six (6)
inches
iv. Wall trims, projections, and reveals along
different levels of wall surfaces a minimum
of four (4) inches
v. Use of at least two (2) of each distinct
materials and colors along wall surfaces
vi. Vertical pilasters that reflect internal building
structure and/or are integral to the selected
architectural style
f. Cornices, bases, and tops of columns, arches,
and other similar building details shall project
at least two (2) inches on the first floor and a
minimum of six (6) inches on upper floors, or
as suggested in the following architectural style
section 4. (Figure 44)
iv
i
ii
f
iii
f
32 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
2. Roof Treatments
a. A minimum of two (2) roof forms and designs
shall be incorporated into a building along a
street block to create visual interest at the top of
the building. (Figure 45)
b. Roof profiles shall provide a minimum three (3)
foot change in roof height after a maximum of
eighty (80) feet in length of continuous exterior
building wall.
c. All rooftops for market rate residential housing
projects including those with up to twenty (20)
percent affordable component) of at least one
hundred (100) units shall incorporate at least
twenty (20) percent of the roof as a green roof of
either extensive or intensive type.
d. A roof proposed at a location where it will be
viewed by occupants of adjacent taller buildings
shall be treated as a “roofscape.” The design
shall include a green roof with all two (2) of the
following approaches: (Figure 46)
i. Color and texture of the hardscape elements
to be same as the architectural design
materials palette
ii. Plantings in the landscape design palette
Figure 45. Minimum two (2) roof forms
Figure 46. Green roof
e. Flat roofs behind a parapet with no visibility from
the public right-of-way or adjacent roof tops may
include a thermoplastic membrane or other flat-
roofing material such as an asphalt-based (built-
up roofing system, modified bitumen system)
commercial roofing system.
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 33
Figure 48. Ground floor appearing taller than 16’
3. Ground-Floor Retail/Commercial Use
within Mixed Use Buildings
a. Ground-floor commercial spaces shall appear
taller than a typical residential floor and shall
appear to be at least sixteen (16) feet in height,
measured from the floor to the floor plate of the
story above. (Figure 48)
b. The ground floor shall be expressed through
use of any one (1) of the following different, low
maintenance material of the following type:
i. Stone
ii. Cast Stone
iii. Brick
iv. Board formed concrete
v. Tiles and glass
vi. Use of a second material shall be allowed
with at least 15% of the surface area.
c. Ground-floor entrances for commercial uses on
the first floor of a mixed-use building shall be
level with the elevation of the adjacent sidewalk.
For entries that are level with the sidewalk,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant
entries, such as ramps, shall directly connect
to the sidewalk of the street and use the same
colors and/or materials as the building and open
space development. Sloping street adjacencies
shall have appropriate ramps for accessibility.
d. All retail tenants on the ground floor facing
the street shall have a direct pedestrian entry
connection to the sidewalk along the street so
that multiple entries at the ground floor face
onto the primary street. (Figure 47)
e. Where a commercial tenant occupies a space
over twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet,
additional articulation at the ground floor of the
commercial space shall occur at a minimum of
every forty (40) feet using at least two (2) of the
following approaches:
i. Changes in wall plane of a minimum of
Figure 47. Ground floor commercial use within mixed-use buildings Retail Space at Ground Floor
Property Line
b
c
d
a
34 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
twenty-four (24) inches (either inset or
protruding)
ii. Window openings that are recessed or
protruding a minimum of six (6) inches
iii. Wall trims, projections, and reveals along
different levels of wall surfaces a minimum
of four (4) inches
iv. Use of at least two (2) distinct materials and
colors along wall surfaces
f. Ground-floor commercial uses shall be visually
distinct but complimentary from the rest of the
exterior building wall using at least three (3) of
the following approaches: (Figure 49)
i. Change in materials, such as stone and
stucco
ii. Contrast in color with a minimum of forty
(40) percent differentiation, based on RGB
percentage
7. iii. Canopies and awnings
iv. Arcade with a covered roof supporting a row
of arches
v. Trellis feature on building
vi. Detailing at storefront (tile accents, wrought
iron, etc.)
g. Building walls that face a street shall include
human-scaled detailing using at least two (2) of
the following approaches: (Figure 50)
i. Reveals, for example an edge or space where
a plane changes
ii. Belt courses, for example a change in
orientation in masonry
iii. Cornices
iv. Expression of structural or architectural bays
v. Recessed windows or doors
vi. Material or materials module changes
vii. Color and/or texture differences
viii. Mullions of a minimum of four (4) inches
ix. Porticos
h. To minimize solar heat gain on west or southwest
facing exterior building wall, projects will
use at least one (1) of the following shading
approaches:
i. Arcades
ii. Trellises
iii. Awnings, fixed, or movable
iv. Vertical and horizontal projection, such as a
cantilever or balconies
i. A wide architectural band articulated through
color or materials in the first floor of at least
four (4) feet in height shall be integrated into the
front wall of the commercial space.
j. The street level shall include signage using a
minimum of two (2) sign types:
i. Edge signage
ii. Awning signage
iii. Blade signage
iv. Wall signage
v. Window signage and/or display
Figure 49. Ground floor commercial made visually distinct through use of different color and material
Figure 50. Ground floor commercial articulated with belt course, recessed doors and awnings
7Encycolorpedia.com can be utilized as a resource to identify a constrasting color that meets the standard
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 35
Figure 51. Spanish Colonial Revival - Primary Style
4. Architectural Style for Inner and Outer
Core only
a. The Downtown Concord Design Guidelines
formed the basis of this section and should be
referenced for additional objective standards
and details regarding the vision for Downtown.
The Inner and Outer Core are focused on
Todos Santos Plaza and the blocks immediately
surrounding the plaza, the Concord BART station,
and surrounding areas to the north and west of
the station.
b. For the purpose of defining architectural styles
as set forth in this Section, the reference guide
shall be the most currently published version of
“A Field Guide to American Houses: the Definitive
Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s
Domestic Architecture” by Virginia Savage
McAlester.
c. Inner Core
i. Two primary styles, Spanish Colonial
Revival and Mediterranean Revival, and
two secondary styles, Arts and Crafts and
Italianate, shall be acceptable for use within
the Inner Core area, as shown in Figures
51 through 55, consistent with Inner Core
Design Typology.
ii. Use of the Spanish Colonial Revival
architectural styles shall include a minimum
of six (6) of the following elements:
(Figure 51)
• Stucco or plaster walls
• Terracotta tile roofs or simulated material
• Low-sloped roofs below and including
• Curvilinear gables
• Window or faux window openings limited
to twenty-five (25) percent of an exterior
building wall area
• Deep recessed openings a minimum of
twelve (12) inches deep
• Outdoors terraces
• Vernacular Spanish Colonial decorative
ironwork or simulated material
3:12
36 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
iii. Use of the Mediterranean Revival
architectural styles shall include a minimum
of seven (7) of the elements below, as
outlined in the Inner Core Design Typology:
(Figure 52), (Figure 53)
• Stucco or plaster walls
• Terracotta tile hipped roofs
• Low-sloped roofs below and including
• Curvilinear gables or tower element,
round or square
• Arched or straight windows with
ironwork or simulated material
• Arched wing wall
• Decorative tile
• Ornate low relief carvings, arches, and
columns
• Vernacular Mediterranean chimneys and
vents
• Balconies open or roofed with wood or
iron railings or simulated materials
Figure 52. Mediterranean revival - primary style
Figure 53. Mediterranean revival styled building
3:12
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 37
iv. Arts and Crafts (Craftsman) is a secondary
architectural style, the use of which shall
include a minimum of six (6) of the elements
below: (Figure 54)
• Use of stucco, wood cladding, lap siding,
stone
• Low pitched roof of no more than 1:12
• Wide eave overhang of a minimum of
twelve (12) inches
• Symmetrical and asymmetrical exterior
building wall elements
• Inclusion of exposed structural member
and wood joinery
• Tapered columns with stone base
• Projecting bays set within the larger
gable form with a different siding
material
• Triangular knee brace on the gable roof
• Semi-enclosed balconies under a roof at
corner(s)
• Overhanging eaves of a minimum of
twenty -four (24) inches
Figure 54. Arts and Crafts - Secondary Style
38 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
v. Italianate is a secondary architectural style,
which can also be used in the Inner Core and
the use of which shall include a minimum of
six (6) of the elements below: (Figure 55)
• Use of stone, stucco, or brick cladding
• Hipped roof
• Overhanging eaves of a minimum of
twenty -four (24) inches with exposed
rafters
• Prominent entry with a minimum depth
of twenty-four (24) inches
• Full-length French doors and Palladian
archways
• Recessed upper or lower porches
• Boxed balconies framed in wood
• Arrange windows symmetrically
• Arches at the base
d. Outer Core
i. The Outer Core of the Downtown Design
Guidelines are intended to have architecture
compatible with the Inner Core while
maintaining design flexibility. For each
project, one (1) architectural style from
the Inner Core shall be selected and shall
incorporate at least fifty (50) percent design
features, indicated in Section 4 (c) between
ii - v.
Figure 55. Italianate - Secondary Style
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 39
Figure 56. Inner core window recessed with metal frames Figure 58. Outer core windows on upper floors with large spans and minimal recessed frames Figure 57. Inner core window recessed with gridded iron work
5. Windows and Doors
a. Architectural projections over entries shall be
the same materials and colors as the building’s
architectural design palette.
b. The Citywide standards for additional details for
projects not within the Inner or Outer Core shall
apply.
c. Window detailing shall include at least two (2)
of the following design approaches for inner and
outer core windows:
i. Inner Core Windows (Figure 56)
• Recess of a minimum depth of twelve
(12) inches to contrast with the wall
surface
• Use gridded ironwork or simulated
material (Figure 57)
• Use metal frame of a minimum depth of
two (2) inches around windows or lintel
ii. Outer Core Windows
• On upper floors, recess of a maximum
depth of six (6) inches
• On upper floors, use large spans of
window wall a minimum forty (40)
percent of the wall area
• Use of frameless or minimally framed
windows (Figure 58)
6. Balconies
The Citywide Standard in Chapter 2 shall apply.
40 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
7. Materials
a. Along any exterior building walls, material
transitions shall only occur on the inside corner
of plane change or, when material changes need
to happen in the same plane, trims, cornices,
or other architectural elements shall be used to
create a corner for material transition. (Figure
59)
b. For buildings taller than two (2) stories, the use
of stucco shall not exceed beyond sixty (60)
percent of any exterior building wall that faces a
street or common open space. (Figure 60)
c. For buildings taller than three (3) stories, a new
material, texture, or color shall be introduced a
maximum of every twenty (20) feet of exterior
building wall length. (Figure 61)
d. At least two (2) materials shall be used on any
exterior building wall, in addition to glazing and
railings. Any one material must comprise at least
twenty (20) percent of any exterior building wall,
excluding windows and railings.
e. Buildings with false facades or false fronts,
exclusive of parapets used to shield rooftop
equipment and create the appearance of a
higher sixteen (16)-foot commercial front
requirement, are prohibited.
Figure 59. Exterior Building Wall Material Transitions
a
a
Figure 60. Stucco material less than 60% of building exterior Figure 61. New material or color every 20’
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 41
8. Color
a. An earth-tone (see definitions) color palette
shall be required for all structures and the color
palette shall be submitted to the City including
paint manufacturer/brand, name and number
for each paint color used within the project. The
hexadecimal color code or RGB color number(s)
shall be provided for each. Encycolorpedia.com
or similar websites may be utilized as a tool to
assist with color selection.
b. On all exterior building walls, buildings shall
utilize a minimum of three (3) colors, inclusive of
trim. (Figure 62)
c. Contrast in two of the colors shall be a minimum
of twenty-five (25) percent differentiation
lighter or darker, based on RGB color model
percentages.
8 d. On any exterior building wall greater than one
hundred (100) feet, buildings shall utilize a
minimum of four (4) colors, inclusive of trim.
Changes in materials reflected on more than
twenty (20) percent of the exterior building wall
may be included as one (1) of the four (4) colors.
e. Changes in color due to a change in building
materials (consisting of less than twenty (20)
Figure 62. Exterior walls with minimum of three (3) earth tone color palette percent of an exterior building wall are not
considered an additional color.
f. Any individual exterior building wall greater than
eighty (80) percent glass or highly reflective
materials is prohibited except on the ground
floor for commercial spaces.
8Encycolorpedia.com or similar websites (“color variations”) may be utilized as a resource to determine percentages for color variations and Myperfectcolor.com as a resource for wall paint selection for a variety of paint manufacturers, as appropriate.
42 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
2. Urban Landscape Improvements
a. When public improvements are necessary, the
provisions of the the Downtown Concord Specific
Plan and the Downtown Concord Corridors Plan
shall apply for additional standards and details,
including landscaping plants/pervious materials,
lighting, street furniture, and streetscape
requirements.
b. Where public realm improvements are required,
plans shall include a mix of pervious and
impervious materials using at least one (1) of the
following pervious surfacing materials:
i. Pavers
ii. Stones
iii. Decomposed granite
iv. Pervious concrete
c. To create continuous landscaped areas,
landscaping on private lots or along the street
edge and within open spaces shall be required to
use a minimum of two (2) of the following:
i. Plants along the back of the sidewalk
ii. Street trees with a minimum size of 24-inch
box
iii. Landscape buffer along the street curb
D. Detailing
1. Architectural and Building
Enhancements
a. Entry pathways to primary entrances of more
than one unit shall be treated with a minimum of
two (2) of the following approaches:
i. Arched ironwork/simulated material at entry
ii. Landscape vertical elements (Figure 64)
iii. Decorative pavers
iv. Decorative lighting
b. Functional elements shall include design motifs,
present in the building design, for a minimum of
three (3) of the following:
i. Railings
ii. Access gates
iii. Doors to utility rooms
iv. Fire escape doors
v. Parking garage doors or window openings
vi. Tuck-under garage entrances
vii. Mechanical and electrical rooms
C. Landscape Design
1. Landscape
a. The Citywide standards Section (C)1 for
additional landscaping and Section (C)2 for Street
Tree standards shall apply.
b. Developments shall incorporate at least three (3)
out of the following landscaping approaches:
i. Potted plants in commercial grade pots
ii. Hanging baskets under a roof overhang
iii. Landscaped public space
iv. Green walls
v. Planter boxes as a streetscape element in
the private parcel
vi. Bio treatment measures, such as a swales
vii. Trellis vines with pergola
c. Pavers and concrete alternatives, of either
decorative or permeable type, shall be required
for a minimum of ten (10) percent of the hard
surface of the project. (Figure 63)
Figure 63. Landscaping with pervious surfaces and pavers Figure 64. Landscape vertical elements
Chapter 03 Downtown Standards ▪ 43
2. Patio Enclosure (Fencing)
a. Patios within two (2) feet of grade level shall be
enclosed with a maximum three (3)-foot tall,
semi-translucent (or filtered) enclosure made of
metal, wood and/or other material consistent
with the building material palette. (Figure 65)
b. Patios at grade level, directly facing the public
right of way, shall be enclosed with a minimum
five (5)-foot tall, solid metal, wood and/or other
material consistent with the building material
palette, with a locking gate for access to public
right-of-way, if a pathway connection is provided.
(Figure 66)
c. Patios facing an inner courtyard, behind a
project fence or wall, that are not located along
a public right of way, shall have greater flexibility
for enclosure with a minimum 42-inch tall
semi-translucent enclosure made of material
consistent with the building material palette
3. Loading, Service, and Refuse Areas
a. Loading areas for the commercial uses of mixed-
use development shall be located in alleys or on
secondary streets.
b. Trash enclosures shall not be located in any front
yard, street side yard, parking space, required
landscaped area, or open space areas for multi-
unit residential buildings.
c. Trash enclosures shall be located a minimum of
fifteen (15) feet away from an abutting single-
family residential district or any public right-of-
way or private roadway easement.
4. Emergency Access, Addresses, and
Mailboxes
a. In mixed-use developments, separate secure
mailbox and package delivery/pick-up areas shall
be provided for the residential and commercial
components of a project.
b. The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
5. Utility and Mechanical Equipment
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
6. Signage
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
7. Fencing and Retaining Walls
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
Figure 65. Raised patio with maximum three (3) foot tall wooden enclosure
Figure 66. Patios with a locking gate at grade level enclosed with metal railing, concrete wall and landscaping area.
Concord Objective Design Standards ▪ 45
04 Corridor Standards
A. Site Plan ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 B. Architectural/Building Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 C. Landscape Design ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 D. Detailing ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
46 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Figure 67: Typical Corridor multi-family building type
Parking in Rear
Adjoining Single Family
Residential
Adjoining Multi Family
Residential
Common
Driveway
Front Yard with Trees
for Ground Floor Units
Primary Entrance to
Ground Floor Units
Street
Transitional
Standards
Chapter 04 Corridor Standards ▪ 47
Figure 68: Corridors map
04. Corridor
Standards
Corridor standards focus on multifamily housing
and mixed-use projects, generally medium to high
density, situated along the arterial streets and higher volume corridors within the City, inclusive of Clayton Road, Willow Pass Road, Treat Boulevard, Monument
Boulevard, and other major roadways. These
standards apply to projects located in the following
areas:
• Sites adjacent to or having direct primary
access to one of the specified Corridors
in (Figure 68), via an easement, private
roadway or driveway and located in the RM,
RH, PD, CO, NC, and CMX zoning districts.
• All commercial zoning districts that do not
allow for housing within the CDC but are
allowed to be developed with housing due
to the requirements of state laws.
Project sites located within the Downtown boundary,
shall reference and abide by the Downtown
standards. Those projects, consistent with at least
one of the bullets listed above, outside of the
Downtown boundary, shall be subject to the Corridor
Standards within this section.
Projects adjacent to street corridors with lots that
may have indirect access to the Corridors but still
have primary access from residential streets shall
utilize the Neighborhood Standards chapter . Those
sites within any single-family residential zoning
district or a single-family residential use shall be
considered under the Neighborhood standards.
General standards for this section include site
planning and orientation, architectural and building
design, landscape design, and building detailing.
These shall apply in addition to the Citywide
standards in Chapter Two.
48 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
B. Site Plan
1. Site Planning and Orientation
a. Common driveways shall be used along the
specified Corridors.
2. Parking
a. Vehicular Parking (including carports)
i. Parking shall be located to the rear of
the site. If topographic or other physical
constraints dictate that the parking be
located in the front, screening shall be
provided per screening requirements in CDC
Section 18.165.060(D)1. (Figure 69)
ii. Flat carport roofs are prohibited.
iii. Pre-manufactured carports are prohibited.
iv. Carports shall utilize materials consistent
with Table 1 in Citywide Section B(7)A and
colors within the building’s color palette and
shall be finished with a protective coating.
v. Where carports face a public street or are
visible to the public from the right-of-way,
screening shall be required per the screening
requirement and/or landforms shall be used
either by depressing the carport or creating
berms. (Figure 70)
vi. Uninterrupted carports of more than six
(6) full-size parking spaces are prohibited.
Carports shall be separated by a landscape
element that is at least four (4) feet wide.
b. Bicycle Parking
i. The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall
apply.
Figure 69: Vehicular surface parking, access and location standard for Corridor Development Figure 70: Sloping carports separated by landscaping
Street
Parking in
Rear
Common
Driveway
Chapter 04 Corridor Standards ▪ 49
Figure 71: Massing and articulation
Figure 72: Balconies, openings, and elements for breaking the mass of the building C. Architectural/Building Design
1. Massing and Articulation
a. After two hundred (200) feet of continuous
building length, a minimum twenty (20)-foot-
wide mid-block open space, paseo, or courtyard
space of minimum area three hundred (300)
square feet shall be provided to relieve the
building mass and add variation.
b. All building walls shall be broken up using a
change in the wall plane. A break in the wall
plane, created by a change in depth, shall be
required at a minimum of every forty (40) feet
horizontally along a building wall. (Figure 71)
c. The massing of building walls shall be broken up
using a combination of at least four (4) of the
following approaches: (Figure 72)
i. Balconies
ii. Window openings and entrances recessed
or protruding a minimum of six (6) inches in
depth
iii. Wall trims, projections, and reveals along
different levels of wall surfaces, for a
minimum of four (4) inches in depth
iv. Use of at least two (2) distinct materials and
two distinct colors along a wall surface
v. Vertical pilasters that reflect internal building
structure and/or are integral to the selected
architectural style.
d. See Citywide standard B(1)d for Transitional
standards to abutting properties.
Street
i
iii
ii
iv
40’
50 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
2. Roof Treatments
a. Roofs proposed for a location where it will be
viewed by occupants of adjacent taller buildings
shall be treated as a “roofscape.” The design shall
include all three (3) of the following approaches:
i. Color in the architectural design materials
palette
ii. Plantings in the landscape design palette
iii. Texture shall be same as a material in the
architectural design materials palette.
(Figure 73)
b. See Downtown Standards for Roof treatments in
Section B(2).
3. Windows and Doors
a. Primary entrances for ground floor units along
streets shall include a porch (recessed or
projecting) with a minimum size of sixty-four (64)
square feet and minimum depth of four (4) feet.
(Figure 74).
b. The Citywide standards in Chapter 2, Section
B(3) shall apply for additional window and door
standards.
4. Balconies
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
5. Materials
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
6. Color
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
Figure 73: Roof texture consistent with architectural materials palette Figure 74: Primary entrances along ground floor with porch minimum four (4) feet deep and more than sixty-four (64) square feet in size
Chapter 04 Corridor Standards ▪ 51
D. Landscape Design
1. Public Right-of-Way Landscaping
a. All projects with ground floor units facing the
public right-of-way shall have a landscape design
that includes a row of trees in the front setback
that is a minimum of four (4) feet away from the
back of the sidewalk, in addition to the row of
trees required in the planting strip between the
curb and the sidewalk for a total of two (2) rows
of trees, in conformance with the required street
tree planting specified in the Street Tree Master
Plan.
b. All projects with a fence or wall facing the
Corridors identified in (Figure 68) shall provide a
back of sidewalk minimum of a five (5) foot wide
landscaped planting strip.
c. The overall frontage planting design shall include
a row of trees planted a maximum of every thirty
(30) feet. (Figure 75)
d. The Citywide standards in Chapter 2, Section
C(1) for additional landscaping and Section C(2)
for Street Tree standards shall apply.
E. Detailing
1. Loading, Service, and Refuse Areas
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
2. Patio Enclosure (fencing)
The Downtown Standards in Chapter 3 shall apply.
3. Emergency Access, Addresses, and
Mailboxes
a. In mixed-use developments, separate secure
mailbox and package delivery/pick-up areas shall
be provided for the residential and commercial
components of a project.
b. The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
4. Utility and Mechanical Equipment
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
5. Lighting
Lamps and light fixtures under carports and/or other
partially open parking areas shall be designed to
prevent glare. All lamps in these areas shall have
lenses to diffuse light.
6. Fencing and Retaining Walls
a. Walls or fences ninety (90) feet or longer that
back-up to Corridors identified in (Figure 68),
shall incorporate at least two (2) of the following:
i. A minimum change in plane of one (1) foot
every thirty (30) feet, along public ROW .
ii. A minimum change of one half (0.5) foot in
height
iii. A change to a material or substantial change
in material texture every sixty (60) feet
consistent with the building material palette
(example stone columns). (Figure 76)
iv. A change to a color every sixty (60) feet
consistent with the building material palette.
Figure 75: Trees in front yard along sidewalk
Figure 76: Fencing with change in height and material
52 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Concord Objective Design Standards ▪ 53
05 Neighborhood Standards
A. Site Plan ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 B. Architectural/Building Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 C. Landscape Design ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 D. Detailing ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
54 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
Figure 77: Typical neighborhood townhome multi-family building type Adjoining Single Family
Residential
Adjoining Single Family
Residential
Patio
Patio
Street
Transitional
Standards
Chapter 05 Neighborhood Standards ▪ 55
05. Neighborhood
Standards
Neighborhood standards focus on residential
subdivisions within low and medium density
neighborhoods, with the intent of retaining a
cohesive high-quality architectural design for these
areas. This includes, but is not limited to, traditional neighborhoods such as Bishop Estates, Cambridge
Park, Carriage Square, Clayton Valley, Colony Park,
the Crossings, Crystal Ranch, Dana Estates, East Sun
Terrace, Ellis Lake, Holbrook Heights, Lime Ridge,
Meadow Homes, Montecito, the Monument, North
Concord, Pine Hollow, Solano/Estates, and Sun
Terrace. These standards apply to projects located in
the following areas:
• Sites within Rural Residential (RR), Resi-
dential Single-Family (RS), and Residential
Low Density (RL) zoning districts which
may or may not be adjacent “to, or have
direct access to, the Corridors”.
• Planned Development (PD) zoning
districts adjacent to but without direct
access to the Corridors.
• Projects designed with lots that are ad-
jacent to the Corridors but with indirect
primary access from residential streets.
• Residential Medium Density (RM) and
Commercial Mixed Use (CMX) zoning
districts not along an identified Corridor .
• Projects submitted under Government
Code Sections 66452.6 and 65852.21,
including urban lot splits and two (2)-unit
projects with up to four (4) units per
original lot.
This section also includes those neighborhoods with
recognizable architectural style (See Neighborhood
standards Section B(7) and incorporates specific
standards to retain those styles to maintain
neighborhood cohesiveness. These neighborhoods
include the North Todos Santos district, the
three Eichler neighborhoods, and the Canterbury
neighborhood south of Clayton Road. For projects
in these areas, see Section B(8) in this chapter in
addition to the other sections.
General standards for this section include site
planning and orientation, architectural and building
design, landscape design, and building detailing.
Figure 78: Aerial view of existing neighborhood
Figure 79: Existing housing typology in neighborhood
56 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
A. Site Plan
1. Site Planning and Orientation
a. Buildings shall be kept parallel to the street
frontage. Where an irregular lot exists, a
minimum of twenty (20) feet of a building on fifty
(50) percent of the frontage (whichever is less)
that includes the front entry shall be parallel to
the street frontage.
b. Corner side yard and side-yard setback areas and
buildings elevations shall be treated with the
same level of design emphasis as the front-yard
setback and front building elevation to ensure
similar quality, where visible from public right of
way.
c. Air conditioning units shall not be located
within required private open space areas. Air
conditioning units shall not be located within six
(6) feet of a front entry door or fronting along
streets or along a structure’s front exterior
building wall.
d. When abutting an open space, ridgeline, or other
visual resources specified in the General Plan,
views to and from public common areas shall be
maintained using a minimum of two (2) of the
following approaches:
i. Place shared outdoor space such that
seventy (70) percent of the outdoor area has
a view of the visual resource
ii. Provide balconies such that fifty (50) percent
of units have a view to the visual resource
iii. Place forty (40) percent of the windows in
a manner that provides a view of the visual
Figure 80: Primary entrance with porches, projections over doorway with change in material resource
e. Primary entrances shall be identifiable
through a minimum of two (2) of the following
approaches: (Figure 80)
i. Projection over the doorway, such as porch,
awning, cantilevered canopy, or portico
ii. Recessed entry that is a minimum of thirty-
six (36) inches in depth from face of wall
iii. Double doors that are a minimum of sixty
(60) inches (thirty [30] inches per door)
iv. Change in materials a minimum of ten (10)
percent, such as more glass.
f. Each ground floor fronting the street dwelling
unit shall include a patio or porch and this
feature shall be a minimum forty-eight (48)
square feet in area, with a minimum dimension
of four (4) feet in at least one direction.
g. Building pads that are artificially exaggerated five (5) percent more than the ground floor floorplate
are prohibited.
h. All projects shall provide separate vehicular and
pedestrian circulation systems.
i iv
Chapter 05 Neighborhood Standards ▪ 57
Figure 81: Garage entrance 16’ wide
2. Parking
a. Vehicular Parking
i. Parking areas and building entrances shall be
a maximum of fifty (50) feet apart
b. Carport Parking
i. Parking abutting an adjacent residential use
shall be screened in conformance with CDC
Section 18.150.180 and shall include a tree
screen or minimum six (6)-foot-tall shrub
screen.
ii. Carports shall be made using materials
consistent with Table 1 in Citywide Section
B(7)A and colors within the building’s
color palette and shall be finished with a
protective coating.
iii. Carport roofs that are flat are prohibited.
iv. Pre-manufactured carports are prohibited.
v. Where carports face a public street or are
visible to the public from the right-of-way,
screening shall be required per the screening
requirement and/or landforms shall be used
either by depressing the carport or creating
berms.
vi. Garage and carport placement shall
comprise no more than forty (40) percent
of the front exterior building wall of the unit
and be articulated by at least two (2) feet
of differentiation along the exterior building
wall.
vii. Garage entrance shall be set back to
match the minimum setback for the site
or minimum of twenty (20) feet from
the property line, whichever is less. The
maximum garage door size shall be sixteen
(16) feet wide by eight (8) feet tall or nine (9)
feet wide by eight (8) feet tall for single car
garages. (Figure 81)
viii. If garbage/recycling containers will be stored
in the garage, additional space of three
(3) feet by five (5) feet or as approved by
the franchise trash and recycling provider
beyond the minimum garage dimensions as
identified in CDC Section 18.160.080(A) shall
be required to accommodate the containers.
ix. Uninterrupted carports of more than six
full-size parking spaces are prohibited and
carports shall be separated by a landscape
finger .
c. Bicycle Parking
i. Multi-family projects bicycle parking shall
adhere to Citywide standards in Chapter 2.
58 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
B. Architectural/Building Design
1. Massing and Articulation
a. All individual residential units shall appear as
separate buildings by using at least two (2) of the
following approaches: (Figure 82)
i. Minimum of three (3) feet between
adjoining unit entries
ii. Changes in the depth of the wall plane of a
minimum of twenty-four (24) inches
iii. Changes in color from colors within the
palette of the project
iv. Changes in material from the materials
within the palette of the project
v. Changes in entry element of either porch,
patio, or entry doorway projection
b. Visual relief shall be created through details
associated with a doorway and/or roof eave with
a minimum of eighteen (18) inches depth so that
they create shade and cast shadow.
c. Architectural projections from building walls that
emphasize windows and doors shall project a
minimum of twelve (12) inches. (Figure 83)
d. See Citywide standard B(1)d for Transitional
standards to abutting properties.
For projects located within in the North Todos Santos
district, Eichler and Canterbury neighborhoods, or
for those submitted pursuant to Government Code
sections 66452.6 and 65852.21, see Section B(8) and
Section B(9).
Figure 83: Building bulk/ Relief and Rhythm
Figure 82: Example massing
b
c
viii
Chapter 05 Neighborhood Standards ▪ 59
2. Roof Treatment
a. Roof forms for each individual unit shall be
vertically articulated along the street frontage
by at least one (1) of the following architectural
elements:
i. Roof profile varying in height a minimum of
three (3) feet
ii. Clerestory windows
iii. Roof form that varies in height a minimum of
four (4) feet
iv. A variety of at least two (2) roof forms
b. Roofs in a location that will be viewed by
occupants of a taller building shall include one
(1) of the following approaches: (Figure 84)
i. Roof material shall be more than one color
ii. Planting for a minimum of ten (10) percent
of the roof area
iii. More than one texture material
c. Roof decks are prohibited.
3. Color
On all exterior building walls, buildings shall utilize a minimum of two (2) colors, inclusive of trim. Changes
in color due to a change in building material are not
considered an additional color. (Figure 85)
4. Window and Door
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
Figure 84: Changing roof profiles with multiple roof forms Figure 85: Exterior wall with three colors including trim
5. Detailing
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
6. Balconies
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
7. Materials
The Citywide standards in Chapter 2 shall apply.
60 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
8. Special neighborhood architectural
design treatments
The neighborhood areas identified in this section
have specific architectural design standards which
shall apply to vacant lots, projects submitted under
Government Code Sections 65852.21 or 66411.7, or
redeveloped properties only (Maps adapted from City
generated maps included in appendix).
a. North Todos Santos neighborhood is located
immediately north of the Downtown core (the
nine blocks surrounding Todos Santos Plaza) and
is the location of many of the City’s historical
homes dating between 1880-1930, which include
a range of architectural styles including Italianate,
Queen Anne, Craftsman, Bungalow, and Mission,
which were mostly applied to houses at a modest
scale. The North Todos Santos Design Guidelines
can be referenced for additional standards and
the vision of the neighborhood. The goal of the
guidelines is to ensure that new development
will fit into the neighborhood in a cohesive style
without overwhelming the older buildings, while
providing an architectural design reflective of
the earlier styles noted above. Projects within
this district shall incorporate the following design
standards:
i. Meet minimum architectural design
standards discussed in Chapter 3.
ii. Wall lengths greater than thirty (30)
feet shall be interrupted by projections,
indentations, or changes of direction in the
wall plane.
Figure 86: North Todos Santos neighborhood
Chapter 05 Neighborhood Standards ▪ 61
iii. Mansard, shed, and flat roofs are prohibited.
iv. Windows facing the street shall include
expressed sills, lentils, or other trim.
Historical elements such as bay windows
and/or French doors shall be used.
v. Entry elements, such as porches and/
or doors with projecting roofs, shall be
designed as a single floor building element
with a minimum ceiling height of ten (10)
feet.
vi. Garage doors shall have the same elements
of the architectural style of the residence
expressed in either the panel design, color,
materials and/or widow selection style.
vii. At least three (3) of the following details
shall be incorporated into the design
including:
• Moldings
• Brackets
• Projecting rafters of at least two (2) feet
• Bay windows
• French doors
viii. Parking areas visible from the street shall be
screened with shrubbery of at least thirty
(30) inches in height to minimize the view of
parked cars and pavement from the public
right-of-way.
Figure 87: Housing typology in North Todos Santos
neighborhood
Figure 89: Housing typology in North Todos Santos
neighborhood
Figure 88: Housing typology in North Todos Santos
neighborhood
Figure 90: Housing typology in North Todos Santos
neighborhood
City of Concord, California
page 17
Map of Todos Santos, 1874, by Luis Castro
Salvio Pacheco Adobe, built 1840s Fernando Pacheco Adobe, built 1856 Bolla Home, built 1924, Bungalow style Alves Home, built 1906, Colonial style City of Concord, California
page 17
Map of Todos Santos, 1874, by Luis Castro
Salvio Pacheco Adobe, built 1840s Fernando Pacheco Adobe, built 1856 Bolla Home, built 1924, Bungalow style Alves Home, built 1906, Colonial style City of Concord, California
page 17
Map of Todos Santos, 1874, by Luis Castro
Salvio Pacheco Adobe, built 1840s Fernando Pacheco Adobe, built 1856 Bolla Home, built 1924, Bungalow style Alves Home, built 1906, Colonial stylePage 92 of 178 62 ▪ Concord Objective Design Standards
b. Eichler neighborhoods include three (3) mid-
century neighborhoods (including the Rancho
del Diablo subdivision) north and south of
Clayton Road, and east of Cowell Park. The
neighborhoods include homes designed by
the architect/builder Joseph Eichler primarily
in the 1960s-1970s. The design intent was to
provide modern (now referenced as mid-century
modern), affordable homes, with key features
including large panels of glass, post and beam
construction, mahogany paneling, open floor
plans, some incorporating atriums, with the
intent of promoting a feeling of a seamless
connection to the outdoors, concrete slab
floors often with radiant floor heating, open air
courtyards and exposed ceiling beams. Projects
within these neighborhoods shall incorporate the
following design standards:
i. Exposed beams supporting (flat or sloping)
roof fronting the street and projects to cast
shadows on the exterior building wall below.
ii. Wall length greater than 40 feet shall be
interrupted by projections, indentations, or
changes of direction in the building plane.
iii. Flat or low-sloped gable roofs with a pitch
of up to 3:12 shall be utilized but may be
combined with roof pitch accents of up to
12:12 with open glazed gable ends.
iv. Roof beams shall be utilized that penetrate
the exterior walls to support a broad roof
overhang of at least three (3) feet.
Figure 91: Eichler neighborhoods